UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE

 

 

 

OFFICE ACTION

 

TO AVOID ABANDONMENT, WE MUST RECEIVE A PROPER RESPONSE TO THIS OFFICE ACTION WITHIN 6 MONTHS OF OUR MAILING OR E-MAILING DATE. 

 

 

Serial Number  76/411805            SEALS

 

The assigned examining attorney has reviewed the referenced application and determined the following.

 

Likelihood of Confusion With a Registered Mark

The examining attorney refuses registration under Trademark Act Section 2(d), 15 U.S.C. §1052(d), because the applicant’s mark, when used on or in connection with the identified goods, so resembles the mark in U.S. Registration No. 1749402 as to be likely to cause confusion, to cause mistake, or to deceive.  TMEP §§1207.01 et seq.  See the enclosed registration.

 

The examining attorney must analyze each case in two steps to determine whether there is a likelihood of confusion.  First, the examining attorney must look at the marks themselves for similarities in appearance, sound, connotation and commercial impression.  In re E. I. DuPont de Nemours & Co., 476 F.2d 1357, 177 USPQ 563 (CCPA 1973).  Second, the examining attorney must compare the goods or services to determine if they are related or if the activities surrounding their marketing are such that confusion as to origin is likely.  In re August Storck KG, 218 USPQ 823 (TTAB 1983); In re International Telephone and Telegraph Corp., 197 USPQ 910 (TTAB 1978); Guardian Products Co., v. Scott Paper Co., 200 USPQ 738 (TTAB 1978).

 

The registrant owns the mark SEAL PAK (PAK disclaimed).  The applicant has proposed the mark SEALS.  The applicant has merely deleted the insignificant generic wording PAK from the registered mark and added a plural “s.”  The mere deletion of a term from a registered mark is not sufficient to overcome a likelihood of confusion under Section 2(d).  Coca‑Cola Bottling Co. v. Joseph E. Seagram & Sons, Inc., 526 F.2d 556, 188 USPQ 105 (C.C.P.A. 1975) (“BENGAL” and “BENGAL LANCER”); Lilly Pulitzer, Inc. v. Lilli Ann Corp., 376 F.2d 324, 153 USPQ 406 (C.C.P.A. 1967) (“THE LILLY” and “LILLI ANN”); In re El Torito Restaurants Inc., 9 USPQ2d 2002 (TTAB 1988) (“MACHO” and “MACHO COMBOS”); In re United States Shoe Corp., 229 USPQ 707 (TTAB 1985) (“CAREER IMAGE” and “CREST CAREER IMAGES”); In re Corning Glass Works, 229 USPQ 65 (TTAB 1985) (“CONFIRM” and “CONFIRMCELLS”); In re Riddle, 225 USPQ 630 (TTAB 1985) (“ACCUTUNE” and “RICHARD PETTY’S ACCU TUNE”); In re Cosvetic Laboratories, Inc., 202 USPQ 842 (TTAB 1979) (“HEAD START” and “HEAD START COSVETIC”).  TMEP §1207.01(b)(iii). 

 

Despite the applicant’s modifications, the marks still retain the same overall connotation and convey the same commercial impression.

 

The registrant uses the cited mark for “fanny packs, hip packs, and waist packs.”  The applicant uses the proposed mark for a “waterproof wrist pouch.”

 

Although the goods are not identical, they remain closely related. They serve the same general function, to store small items while a consumer is engaged in an athletic or other physical activity. As such, the goods target the same purchasers (travelers and athletes) and travel through the same channels of trade.  The applicant is directed to the attached copies of websites which demonstrate that the goods such as those of the applicant and the registrant are often sold side-by-side.

 

The applicant is reminded that the goods of the parties need not be identical or directly competitive to find a likelihood of confusion.  They need only be related in some manner, or the conditions surrounding their marketing be such, that they could be encountered by the same purchasers under circumstances that could give rise to the mistaken belief that the goods come from a common source.  In re Martin’s Famous Pastry Shoppe, Inc., 748 F.2d 1565, 223 USPQ 1289 (Fed. Cir. 1984); In re Corning Glass Works, 229 USPQ 65 (TTAB 1985); In re Rexel Inc., 223 USPQ 830 (TTAB 1984); Guardian Products Co., Inc. v. Scott Paper Co., 200 USPQ 738 (TTAB 1978); In re International Telephone & Telegraph Corp., 197 USPQ 910 (TTAB 1978).  TMEP §1207.01(a)(i). 

 

When confronted with closely related goods bearing highly similar marks, a consumer is likely to have the mistaken belief that the goods originate from the same source.  Because this likelihood of confusion exists, registration must be refused.

 

Although the examining attorney has refused registration, the applicant may respond to the refusal to register by submitting evidence and arguments in support of registration.

 

Prior Pending Application Advisory

The examining attorney also encloses information regarding pending Application Serial No. 76/338469.  The filing date of the referenced application precedes the applicant’s filing date.  There may be a likelihood of confusion between the two marks under Trademark Act Section 2(d), 15 U.S.C. §1052(d).  If the referenced application matures into a registration, the examining attorney may refuse registration in this case under Section 2(d).  37 C.F.R. §2.83; TMEP §1208.01.

 

If the applicant believes that there is no potential conflict between this application and the earlier-filed application, the applicant may present arguments relevant to the issue.

 

The applicant is also advised of the following.

 

Goods Misclassified by this Office

In the preliminary review of this application, this Office classified the goods incorrectly.  The proper class is International Class 18.  This Office will correct the application record to reflect the proper class number. 37 C.F.R. §2.85; TMEP §1401.03(b). 

 

If the applicant has any questions or needs assistance in responding to this Office action, please telephone the assigned examining attorney.

 

 

/Michael W. Baird/

Examining Attorney

Law Office 109

Telephone: (703) 308-9109 ext. 197

Fax:            (703) 746-6370

 

 

 

How to respond to this Office Action:

 

To respond formally using the Office’s Trademark Electronic Application System (TEAS), visit http://www.gov.uspto.report/teas/index.html and follow the instructions.

 

To respond formally via E-mail, visit http://www.gov.uspto.report/web/trademarks/tmelecresp.htm and follow the instructions.

 

To respond formally via regular mail, your response should be sent to the mailing Return Address listed above and include the serial number, law office and examining attorney’s name on the upper right corner of each page of your response.

 

To check the status of your application at any time, visit the Office’s Trademark Applications and Registrations Retrieval (TARR) system at http://tarr.gov.uspto.report/

 

For general and other useful information about trademarks, you are encouraged to visit the Office’s web site at http://www.gov.uspto.report/main/trademarks.htm

 

FOR INQUIRIES OR QUESTIONS ABOUT THIS OFFICE ACTION, PLEASE CONTACT THE ASSIGNED EXAMINING ATTORNEY.