UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
SERIAL NO: 76/428116
APPLICANT: South Cone, Inc.
|
|
CORRESPONDENT ADDRESS: DAVID N. MAKOUS LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH LLP 221 N. FIGUEROA STREET, SUITE 1200 LOS ANGELES, CA 90012-2646
|
RETURN ADDRESS: Commissioner for Trademarks 2900 Crystal Drive Arlington, VA 22202-3513 ecom113@uspto.gov
|
MARK: REEF
|
|
CORRESPONDENT’S REFERENCE/DOCKET NO: 21170-New
CORRESPONDENT EMAIL ADDRESS:
|
Please provide in all correspondence:
1. Filing date, serial number, mark and applicant's name. 2. Date of this Office Action. 3. Examining Attorney's name and Law Office number. 4. Your telephone number and e-mail address.
|
Serial Number 76/428116
The assigned examining attorney has reviewed the referenced application and determined the following.
The examining attorney refuses registration under Trademark Act Section 2(d), 15 U.S.C. Section 1052(d), because the applicant's mark, when used on or in connection with the identified goods, so resembles the marks in U.S. Registration Nos. 1975383, 2310419, 2498573 as to be likely to cause confusion, or to cause mistake, or to deceive. TMEP section 1207. See the enclosed registrations.
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 applicant applied to register the mark REEF for “alcoholic beverages (except beers).” The registered marks are HURRICANE REEF for “malt beverages – beer and ale,” HURRICANE REEF CARIBBEAN STYLE PILSNER for “malt beverages, namely, beer and ale” and ISLAND REEF for “alcoholic beverages, not including beer, namely, alcoholic cocktails and alcoholic punch.”
The examining attorney must compare the marks for similarities in sound, appearance, meaning or connotation. In re E. I. DuPont de Nemours & Co., 476 F.2d 1357, 177 USPQ 563 (CCPA 1973). Similarity in any one of these elements is sufficient to find a likelihood of confusion. In re Mack, 197 USPQ 755 (TTAB 1977). In the instant case, the marks are all highly similar because they share the word REEF. The only other words in each of the marks simply serve to modify the word REEF. The examining attorney must look at the marks in their entireties under Section 2(d). Nevertheless, one feature of a mark may be recognized as more significant in creating a commercial impression. Greater weight is given to that dominant feature in determining whether there is a likelihood of confusion. In re National Data Corp., 224 USPQ 749 (Fed. Cir. 1985); Tektronix, Inc. v. Daktronics, Inc., 534 F.2d 915, 189 USPQ 693 (C.C.P.A. 1976). In re J.M. Originals Inc., 6 USPQ2d 1393 (TTAB 1988). TMEP §1207.01(b)(viii).
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). In the instant case, the applicant has not specified the goods. Accordingly, some of the goods in each of the registered marks could be encompassed in the applicant’s identification. Thus, registration is refused on the Principal Register. The applicant should note the following additional grounds for refusal.
The examining attorney encloses information regarding pending Application Serial Nos. 76247416, 76263357, 76263358, 78067200, 76425117. The filing dates of the referenced applications precede the applicant's filing date. There may be a likelihood of confusion between the applicant's mark and the referenced marks under Trademark Act Section 2(d), 15 U.S.C. Section 1052(d). If one or more of the referenced applications matures into a registration, the examining attorney may refuse registration in this case under Section 2(d). 37 C.F.R. Section 2.83; TMEP section 1208.01.
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. If the applicant chooses to respond to the refusal to register, the applicant must also respond to the following informalities.
The identification of goods is unacceptable as indefinite. The applicant must specify the alcoholic beverages (except beer). Parentheses may not be used in the actual identification. For aid in selecting acceptable identifications of goods and services and determining proper classification, the searchable Manual of Acceptable Identifications of Goods and Services is available on the Agency website at the following address: http://www.gov.uspto.report/web/offices/tac/doc/gsmanual/. The applicant may adopt the following identification, if accurate:
Alcoholic beverages, namely, ale, in International Class 32; and/or
Alcoholic beverages, namely, prepared alcoholic cocktails, rum, vodka, in International Class 33.
Please note that, while an application may be amended to clarify or limit the identification, additions to the identification are not permitted. 37 C.F.R. Section 2.71(a); TMEP section 1402.06. Therefore, the applicant may not amend to include any goods that are not within the scope of goods set forth in the present identification.
If the applicant prosecutes this application as a combined, or multiple‑class, application, the applicant must comply with each of the following.
(1) The applicant must list the goods/services by international class with the classes listed in ascending numerical order. TMEP §1403.01.
(2) The applicant must submit a filing fee for each international class of goods/services not covered by the fee already paid. 37 C.F.R. §§2.6(a)(1) and 2.86(a); TMEP §§810.01 and 1403.01. Effective January 1, 2003, the fee for filing a trademark application is $335 for each class. This applies to classes added to pending applications as well as to new applications filed on or after that date.
/Tanya L. Amos/
Trademark Examining Attorney
Law Office 113
(703) 308-9113 Extension 135
(703) 746-6485 Fax
ecom113@uspto.gov
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.
FOR INQUIRIES OR QUESTIONS ABOUT THIS OFFICE ACTION, PLEASE CONTACT THE ASSIGNED EXAMINING ATTORNEY.