UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
SERIAL NO: 76/450354
APPLICANT: DVH Industries, Inc.
|
|
CORRESPONDENT ADDRESS: CHRISTOPHER P. KELLY REPPERT KELLY, LLC 31A MOUNTAIN BOULEVARD WARREN NJ 07059
|
RETURN ADDRESS: Commissioner for Trademarks 2900 Crystal Drive Arlington, VA 22202-3514 ecom108@uspto.gov
|
MARK: UNDEFEATED
|
|
CORRESPONDENT’S REFERENCE/DOCKET NO: N/A
CORRESPONDENT EMAIL ADDRESS: rkcounsel@att.net |
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 76/450354
Upon maturation of prior-filed U.S. Application Serial No. 76/366232 into a registration, the examining attorney has determined the following.
A. Likelihood of Confusion
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 mark in U.S. Registration No. 2,754,149 as to be likely to cause confusion, to cause mistake, or to deceive. TMEP section 1207. 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 applicant’s mark is UNDEFEATED. The registrant’s mark is also UNDEFEATED. The marks are identical in all respects. Moreover, the applicant’s goods are shirts, pants, jeans, shorts, socks, coats, jackets, sweatshirts, sweaters, suits, belts, footwear and ties, while the registrant’s services are retail store services featuring a wide variety of shoes, including athletic shoes. The goods and services are closely related because retail store services featuring shoes, and shoes themselves are commonly marketed and provided by the same party under the same mark. This same party will also routinely market and sell other clothing articles under that same mark. Based on the foregoing, the goods and services are related in a manner that could give rise to a mistaken belief that they come from the same source. Therefore, a likelihood of confusion exists between the marks.
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 that is totally dissimilar to trademarks already being used. Burroughs Wellcome Co. v. Warner‑Lambert Co., 203 USPQ 191 (TTAB 1979).
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.
B. Requirements for 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.
In all correspondence to the Patent and Trademark Office, the applicant should list the name and law office of the examining attorney, the serial number of this application, the mailing date of this Office action, and the applicant's telephone number.
If the applicant has any questions or needs assistance in responding to this Office action, please telephone the assigned examining attorney.
Regards,
/Scott M. Oslick/
Trademark Examining Attorney
Law Office 108
(703) 308-9108 x117 (Telephone)
(703) 746-8108 (Fax - Official Responses Only)
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.