UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
SERIAL NO: 76/451724
APPLICANT: adidas International B.V.
|
|
CORRESPONDENT ADDRESS: ANGELO NOTARO NOTARO & MICHALOS P.C. 100 DUTCH HILL ROAD, SUITE 110 ORANGEBURG, NY 10962-2100
|
RETURN ADDRESS: Commissioner for Trademarks 2900 Crystal Drive Arlington, VA 22202-3513 ecom108@uspto.gov
|
MARK:
|
|
CORRESPONDENT’S REFERENCE/DOCKET NO: J287-455
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 76/451724
The examining attorney has reviewed the referenced application and has determined the following.
Mark is Likely to Cause 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. 2323085 as to be likely to cause confusion, or 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).
Analysis of Applicant’s Mark and Registered Mark
First, a comparison of the respective marks show that they are comprised either in whole or significant part of a stripped flag design. Accordingly, the applicant’s mark, a waving flag with three black stripes is similar in sound, appearance, connotation and commercial impression to Registration No. 2323085’s mark “PERRY ELLIS AMERICA” with a waving two then three black stripe design. Similarity in any one of these elements alone is sufficient to find a likelihood of confusion. In re Mack, 197 USPQ 755 (TTAB 1977).
Second, the relationship of the goods is evident because both marks are for clothing items. The decisions in this field have held many different types of apparel related under Section 2(d). Cambridge Rubber Co. v. Cluett, Peabody & Co., Inc., 286 F.2d 623, 128 USPQ 549 (C.C.P.A. 1961) (“WINTER CARNIVAL” for women’s boots v. men’s and boys’ underwear); Jockey International, Inc. v. Mallory & Church Corp., 25 USPQ2d 1233 (TTAB 1992) (“ELANCE” for underwear v. “ELAAN” for neckties); In re Melville Corp. 18 USPQ2d 1386 (TTAB 1991) (“ESSENTIALS” for women’s pants, blouses, shorts and jackets v. women’s shoes); In re Pix of America, Inc., 225 USPQ 691 (TTAB 1985) (“NEWPORTS” for women’s shoes v. “NEWPORT” for outer shirts); In re Mercedes Slacks, Ltd., 213 USPQ 397 (TTAB 1982) (“OMEGA” for hosiery v. trousers); In re Cook United, Inc., 185 USPQ 444 (TTAB 1985) (“GRANADA” for men’s suits, coats, and trousers v. ladies’ pantyhose and hosiery); Esquire Sportswear Mfg. Co. v. Genesco Inc., 141 USPQ 400 (TTAB 1964) (“SLEEX” for brassieres and girdles v. slacks for men and young men). The overlapping identifications of tights, footwear, gloves and other items illustrate the relationship. Accordingly, the mark is likely to cause consumer confusion as to source.
Other Considerations
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 applicant chooses to respond to the refusal to register, the following issues must also be addressed.
The Identification of Goods is Indefinite
The wording used as the identification of goods is unacceptable as indefinite. It is unclear from the current wording exactly what goods are used in conjunction with the mark. The applicant may amend this wording to, if accurate:
Golf apparel, namely, golf shoes, golf headwear, athletic footwear and clothing, namely, tracksuits, warm-up suits, T-shirts, shirts, sweatshirts, shorts, blouses, vests, jerseys, tights, socks, gloves, jackets, swimwear, sweaters, caps and hats, pullovers, rain suits, boots, slippers, sandals, specific purpose athletic shoes and general purpose sports shoes in Class 25. TMEP section 804.
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(b); TMEP section 804.09. Therefore, the applicant may not amend to include any goods that are not within the scope of the goods recited in the present identification.
For Your Information - 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.
If the applicant has any questions or needs assistance in responding to this office action, please telephone the assigned examining attorney.
/Jason F. Turner/
Examining Attorney
Law Office 108
(703) 308-9108 Ext. 247
(703) 746-8108 (Fax)
ecom108@uspto.gov
(703) 305-8747 (Status)
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.