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  76/432752

 

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

 

TRADEMARK ACT SECTION 2(d) REFUSAL – LIKELIHOOD OF CONFUSION

 

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. 2,182,561 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 (C.C.P.A. 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).  TMEP §§1207.01 et seq. 

 

In the instant case, the applicant seeks registration of “L.A. CONFIDENTIAL,” in typed form, for clothing, namely, T-shirts.

 

The cited registered mark is “CONFIDENTIAL,” in typed form, for pajamas, slips, panties, bed jackets, underwear, night shirts, robes, kimonos, dressing gowns, boxer shorts, tank tops, bras and teddies.

 

The proposed and cited marks are very similar in commercial impression with the common use of the word “CONFIDENTIAL.”  The addition of the geographically descriptive word “L.A.” to the applicant’s mark does not obviate the similarities between the marks when the applicant is using the whole of the cited registered mark.  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).  

 

Moreover, the goods of the parties are closely related clothing items which could be found in the same channels of trade.  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).

 

Therefore, with the contemporaneous use of both marks, consumers are likely to mistakenly believe the goods are related and originate from a common source.

 

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.

 

DISCLAIMER REQUIRED

 

The applicant must disclaim the descriptive wording “L.A.” apart from the mark as shown. Trademark Act Section 6, 15 U.S.C. §1056; TMEP §§1213 and 1213.03(a).  The wording is primarily geographically descriptive of the location from which the applicant’s goods originate.

 

The computerized printing format for the Trademark Official Gazette requires a standard form for a disclaimer.   TMEP §1213.08(a)(i).  A properly worded disclaimer should read as follows:

 

No claim is made to the exclusive right to use “L.A.” apart from the mark as shown.

 

See In re Owatonna Tool Co., 231 USPQ 493 (Comm’r Pats. 1983).

 

A disclaimer does not remove the disclaimed matter from the mark.  It is simply a statement that the applicant does not claim exclusive rights in the disclaimed wording or design apart from the mark as shown in the drawing.

 

CITIZENSHIP OMITTED

 

The applicant must indicate his national citizenship for the record.  Trademark Act Section 1, 15 U.S.C. §1051; 37 C.F.R. §2.32(a)(3)(i); TMEP §803.04.

 

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

 

 

 

/Martha L. Fromm/

Trademark Attorney

Law Office 106

Phone: (703) 308-9106 ext. 221

Fax:  (703) 746-8106

ecom106@uspto.gov

 

 

Fee increase effective January 1, 2003:

Effective January 1, 2003, the fee for filing an application for trademark registration will be increased to $335.00 per International Class.  The USPTO will not accord a filing date to applications that are filed on or after that date that are not accompanied by a minimum of $335.00. 

 

Additionally, the fee for amending an existing application to add an additional class or classes of goods or services will be $335.00 per class for classes added on or after January 1, 2003.

 

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.