Offc Action Outgoing

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  76/438071 SKINGUARD

 

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

 

On October 31, 2002, action on this application was suspended pending the disposition of Application Serial No. 76092382.  The referenced application has matured into a registration.  Therefore, registration is refused as follows.

 

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/services, so resembles the mark in U.S. Registration No. 2648089 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. 

 

The applicant seeks registration of SKINGUARD for “anti-inflammatory skin creams and lotions.”  The registered mark is SKINGARD for

 

Soaps for use on the face and body, perfumery; essential oils for personal use; hair and body lotion; bath foam; shampoos, hair gels, conditioners; cosmetics, namely, creams, milks and moisturizers for use on the face and body; powder for body use; make-up preparations; non-medicated preparations for solar radiation; non-medicated preparations for repelling jelly fish; deodorants for personal use; dentifrices.

 

The applicant’s mark is confusingly similar to the mark in the cited registration.  The marks are pronounced the same.  The marks are spelled nearly the same and therefore look alike. 

 

Further, the applicant’s goods are related to the goods provided by the registrant.  The goods/services 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/services 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). 

 

While not identical, the parties’ goods are related.  Both parties sell creams and lotions.  Many entities sell medicated creams, lotions, and soaps as well as the non-medicated variety under the same trademark.  See the attached evidence of such trademark registrations. Additionally, these typed of goods are often sold in the same marketplace and/or to the same consumers.  Thus, consumers who encounter SKINGUARD anti-inflammatory cream and SKINGARD creams and other non-medicated topical preparations are likely to believe they originate from the same source.

 

Since the marks are confusingly similar, and the goods are highly related, it is likely purchasers would confuse the sources of the goods.  The examining attorney must resolve any doubt as to the issue of likelihood of confusion in favor of the registrant and against the applicant who has a legal duty to select a mark which is totally dissimilar to trademarks already being used.  Burroughs Wellcome Co. v. Warner‑Lambert Co., 203 USPQ 191 (TTAB 1979).  Accordingly, the mark is refused registration under Section 2(d).

 

Response

No set form is required for response to this Office action.  The applicant must respond to each point raised.  The applicant should simply set forth the required changes or statements and request that the Office enter them.  The applicant must sign the response.  In addition to the identifying information required at the beginning of this letter, the applicant should provide a telephone number to speed up further processing.

 

If the applicant does not have an attorney the applicant may wish to hire a trademark attorney because of the technicalities involved in the application.  The Patent and Trademark Office cannot aid in the selection of an attorney.  37 C.F.R. §2.11. 

 

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

 

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/services will be $335.00 per class for classes added on or after January 1, 2003.

 

 

/Idi Aisha Clarke/

Trademark Attorney

Law Office 105

(703) 308-9105 Ext. 248

Fax: (703) 872-9825

 

 

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.