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  76/460321

 

 

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

 

Likelihood of Confusion - Section 2(d) 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 mark in U.S. Registration No. 2576926 as to be likely to cause confusion, to cause mistake, or to deceive.  TMEP section 1207.  See the enclosed registration.

 

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 applicant has applied to register the mark NATURAL ELEGANCE for hair care products, namely shampoo, conditioner, rinse preparations, styling gel, hair spray; skin care products, namely, cleansing preparations, liquid foam bath, shower gel, moisturizing creams and lotions, suntan creams, oils and lotions, massage lotions, shaving creams, hand creams and lotions, bar and liquid soaps; and gift baskets comprised of hair care products and skin care products, in International Class 3.  The cited registration is for the mark NATURAL ELEGANCE for dentifrice and tooth whitening gel, in International Class 3; and prophy paste, in International Class 5.

 

The marks of the parties are identical in all aspects.

 

If the marks of the respective parties are identical, the relationship between the goods or services of the respective parties need not be as close to support a finding of likelihood of confusion as might apply where differences exist between the marks.  Amcor, Inc. v. Amcor Industries, Inc., 210 USPQ 70 (TTAB 1981).  TMEP §1207.01(a). 

 

The goods of the parties are closely related in the field of personal care preparations.

 

Therefore, the applicant's mark would appear to consumers to belong to the registrant and to cause likelihood of confusion.

 

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.

 

Other Issues

If the applicant chooses to respond to the refusal to register, the applicant must also respond to the following issues.

 

Amendment of the Identification of Goods

The wording “gift baskets comprised of hair care products and skin care products” in the identification of goods is unacceptable as indefinite because the wording “products” is too broad for International Class 3.  The applicant may amend this wording to “gift baskets comprised of hair care preparations and skin care preparations,” if accurate.  TMEP §1402.01.

 

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. §2.71(a); TMEP §1402.06.  Therefore, the applicant may not amend to include any goods that are not within the scope of goods set forth in the present identification.

 

Application Based on Sections 1(b) and 44(d)

The applicant has filed asserting a bona fide intention to use the mark in commerce under Trademark Act Section 1(b), 15 U.S.C. §1051(b), and claiming priority under Section 44(d), 15 U.S.C. §1126(d), based on a foreign application.  Under these circumstances, the applicant may rely solely on its intent to use the mark in commerce as the basis for registration and not the expected foreign registration, and still claim the benefit of the priority filing date.  If the applicant chooses to do so, this Office will approve the case for publication without waiting for the applicant to submit the foreign registration.  Of course, the application must be in condition for publication in all other respects.  Moreover, while the application may be approved for publication, the mark will not be registered until an acceptable allegation of use has been filed.

 

If the applicant wishes to proceed relying on the applicant’s intent to use the mark in commerce as the sole basis for registration, with the claim of priority, the applicant should so advise the examining attorney.  TMEP §§806.02(f) and 806.04(b).

 

If the applicant does not so indicate, this Office will presume that the applicant wishes to rely on the foreign registration as an additional basis for registration and will expect the applicant to submit a true copy, a photocopy, a certification, or a certified copy of the foreign registration and, if appropriate, an English translation.  It is customary for the translator to sign the translation.  TMEP §§1004.01 and 1004.01(b).

 

Communication Encouraged

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

 

 

 

/Sophia S. Kim/

Examining Attorney

Law Office 106

703-308-9106 x236

 

 

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.