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  76/455118

 

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

 

LIKELIHOOD OF CONFUSION REFUSAL

 

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. 2629042 and 2179748 as to be likely to cause confusion, or to cause mistake, or to deceive.  TMEP section 1207.  See the enclosed registrations.

 

Section 2(d) of the Trademark Act bars registration where a mark so resembles a registered mark, that it is likely, when applied to the goods, to cause confusion, or to cause mistake or to deceive. TMEP section 1207.01.  The Court in In re E. I. DuPont de Nemours & Co., 476 F.2d 1357, 177 USPQ 563 (CCPA 1973), listed the principal factors to consider in determining whether there is a likelihood of confusion.  Among these factors are the similarity of the marks as to appearance, sound, meaning and commercial impression and the similarity of the goods.  The overriding concern is to prevent buyer confusion as to the source of the goods.  Miss Universe, Inc. v. Miss Teen U.S.A., Inc., 209 USPQ 698 (N.D. Ga. 1980).  Therefore, any doubt as to the existence of a likelihood of confusion must be resolved in favor of the registrant.  Lone Star Mfg. Co. v. Bill Beasley, Inc., 498 F.2d 906, 182 USPQ 368 (CCPA 1974).

 

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).

 

COMPARISON OF THE MARKS

 

The test of likelihood of confusion is not whether the marks can be distinguished when subjected to a side‑by‑side comparison.  The issue is whether the marks create the same overall impression. Visual Information Institute, Inc. v. Vicon Industries Inc., 209 USPQ 179 (TTAB 1980).  The focus is on the recollection of the average purchaser who normally retains a general rather than specific impression of trademarks.  Chemetron Corp. v. Morris Coupling & Clamp Co., 203 USPQ 537 (TTAB 1979); Sealed Air Corp. v. Scott Paper Co., 190 USPQ 106 (TTAB 1975); TMEP section 1207.01(b).

 

Registration No. 2629042 is for the mark “UNEK,” and Registration No. 2179748 is for the mark “UNIQUE CLASSICS.”  The applicant’s mark and design is “UNĒK.”  Registrant No. 2629042’s mark and the literal portion of the applicant’s mark are virtually identical in appearance and commercial impression, and Registrant No. 2179748’s mark and the applicant’s mark are identical in sound.  Similarity in any one of these elements is sufficient to find a likelihood of confusion. In re Mack, 197 USPQ 755 (TTAB 1977).  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).    Although, Registrant No. 2179748’s mark contains the additional wording “CLASSICS,” said wording is considered descriptive of clothing items and, therefore, may be recognized as less dominant and not as significant in creating a commercial impression.  Additionally, although the applicant’s mark contains a design element, the addition of the design element does not obviate the similarity between the marks.  Coca‑Cola Bottling Co. v. Joseph E. Seagram & Sons, Inc., 526 F.2d 556, 188 USPQ 105 (CCPA 1975).  When a mark consists of a word portion and a design portion, the word portion is more likely to be impressed upon a purchaser’s memory and to be used in calling for the goods or services. In re Appetito Provisions Co., 3 USPQ2d 1553 (TTAB 1987); Amoco Oil Co. v. Amerco, Inc., 192 USPQ 729 (TTAB 1976).  TMEP §1207.01(c)(ii). 

 

 

 

 

COMPARISON OF THE GOODS

 

If the marks of the respective parties are identical or highly similar, the examining attorney must consider the commercial relationship between the goods of the respective parties carefully to determine whether there is a likelihood of confusion.  In re Concordia International Forwarding Corp., 222 USPQ 355 (TTAB 1983).  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).

 

Registration No. 2629042 is used in connection with “footwear” in International Class 25, and Registration No. 2179748 is used in connection with “clothing, namely, T-shirts, golf shirts, shorts, tank tops, cover ups, sweat shirts, and sweat pants” in International Class 25.  The applicant’s proposed mark will be used in connection with “clothing, namely, T-shirts, pants, jeans, jackets, hats, wrist bands, and sweaters” in International Class 25.  The applicant’s mark and Registrant No. 2179748’s mark are used with the identical goods, T-shirts, and the applicant’s mark and Registrant No. 2629042’s mark are used with various clothing items and the clothing-related item, footwear, respectively.  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).

 

Based on all of the foregoing, consumers are likely to be confused as to the source of the registrants’ goods and the applicant’s goods and believe that the goods emanate from a common source.  Consequently, registration is refused.

 

POTENTIALLY CONFLICTING PENDING APPLICATIONS

 

Please note that the examining attorney has found potentially conflicting pending applications.

 

POSSIBILITY OF LIKELIHOOD OF CONFUSION

 

The examining attorney encloses information regarding pending Application Serial Nos. 78/045030 and 76/407989. 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.

 

APPLICANT MAY PRESENT ARGUMENTS REGARDING REFERENCED PENDING APPLICATIONS

If the applicant believes that there is no potential conflict between this application and the earlier-filed applications, the applicant may present arguments relevant to the issue in a request to remove the application from suspension.  The election to file or not to file such a request at this time in no way limits the applicant's right to address this issue at a later point.

 

OTHER ISSUES

 

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 issues.

 

UNACCEPTABLE SPECIAL FORM DRAWING/SPECIAL FORM REQUIREMENTS

 

The requirements for a special‑form drawing are as follows:

 

(1) The drawing must appear in black and white; no color is permitted.

 

(2)  Every line and letter must be black and clear.

 

(3)  The use of gray to indicate shading is unacceptable.

 

(4)  The lining must not be too fine or too close together.

 

(5)  The preferred size of the area in which the mark is displayed is 2½ inches (6.1 cm.) high and 2½ inches (6.1 cm.) wide.  It should not be larger than 4 inches (10.3 cm.) high or 4 inches (10.3 cm.) wide.

 

(6)  If the reduction of the mark to the required size renders any details illegible, the applicant may insert a statement in the application to describe the mark and these details.

 

37 C.F.R. §2.52; TMEP §§807.01(b) and 807.07(a).  The Office will enforce these drawing requirements strictly. 

 

The Office prefers that the drawing be depicted on a separate sheet of smooth, nonshiny, white paper 8 to 8½ inches (20.3 to 21.6 cm.) wide and 11 inches (27.9 cm.) long, and that the sheet contain a heading listing, on separate lines, the applicant’s complete name; the applicant’s address; the goods or services recited in the application; and, if the application is filed under Section 1(a) of the Act, the dates of first use of the mark and of first use of the mark in commerce; or, if the application is filed under Section 44(d), the priority filing date of the foreign application.  37 C.F.R. §2.52(b); TMEP §§807.01(a), 807.01(b), 807.01(c) and 807.07(a).  Pasted or taped material does not reproduce satisfactorily, and is therefore unacceptable.  TMEP section 807.07.

 

The applicant’s special form drawing is unacceptable because it consists of pasted or taped material.  Consequently, the applicant must submit a new drawing page on which the drawing is not pasted on, is  black, clear and otherwise conforms to the aforementioned special form drawing requirements. 

 

FEE INCREASE EFFECTIVE JANUARY 1, 2003 (FOR INFORMATION ONLY)

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.

 

CHANGE OF ADDRESS (FOR INFORMATION ONLY)

 

Applicants may now file address change correspondence via a new form on TEAS.  Address changes may be performed on up to 20 cases at a time.  The Trademark Office strongly encourages applicants to use this form, available online at: http://eteas.gov.uspto.report/V2.0/ca200/WIZARD.htm

 

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

 

 

 

Sonya B. Stephens

Trademark Attorney

Law Office 108

(703)308-9108 ext 227 (phone)

(703)746-8108 (fax)

ecom108@uspto.gov (e-mail prosecution)

 

 

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.