UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
SERIAL NO: 76/466243
APPLICANT: Union Rich Plastic Factory Limited
|
|
CORRESPONDENT ADDRESS: THOMAS E. SISSON JACKSON WALKER L. L. P. 112 E. PECAN STREET, SUITE 2100 SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS 78205
|
RETURN ADDRESS: Commissioner for Trademarks 2900 Crystal Drive Arlington, VA 22202-3514 ecom110@uspto.gov
|
MARK: SIENNA
|
|
CORRESPONDENT’S REFERENCE/DOCKET NO: T-6371.43
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 76/466243
The assigned examining attorney has reviewed the referenced application and determined the following.
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. 2188775 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).
Similarity of the Marks
The applicant applied to register the mark SIENNA. The registered mark is SENNA. Here, the marks are very similar.
Similarity of the Goods
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). Here, both marks are for cosmetic bags.
Overall, the similarities among the marks and the goods are so great as to create a likelihood of confusion. 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).
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.
The applicant must indicate its state of organization. 37 C.F.R. §2.32(a)(3)(ii); TMEP §§803.03(c) and 803.04.
The identification of goods is unacceptable as indefinite. The applicant may adopt the following identification, if accurate:
Computer bags, computer bags with wheels, computer cases, computer cases with wheels in International Class 9
Passport holders in International Class 16.
Luggage, soft-sided luggage, suitcases, garment bags, travel bags, document cases, briefcases, business cases, attaché cases, briefcase-type portfolios, carry on
bags, backpacks, backpacks with wheels, knapsacks, knapsacks with wheels, rucksacks, rucksacks with wheels, school bags, all-purpose sports bags, gym bags, athletic bags, handbags, shoulder bags,
casual clutch bags, tote bags, duffel bags, beach bags, passport bags, cosmetic bags sold empty, messenger bags, wallets, coin purses, computer bags, computer bags with wheels,
computer cases, computer cases with wheels in International Class 18.
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.
If the applicant prosecutes this application as a combined, or multiple‑class, application based on use in commerce under Trademark Act Section 1(a), 15 U.S.C. §1051(a), the applicant must comply with each of the following:
(1) The applicant must specifically identify the goods in each class and list the goods by international class with the classes listed in ascending numerical order. TMEP §1403.01.
(2) The applicant must submit a filing fee for each international class of goods/services not covered by the fee already paid. 37 C.F.R. §§2.6(a)(1) and 2.86(b); TMEP §§810.01 and 1403.01. Effective January 1, 2003, the fee for filing a trademark application is $335 for each class. This applies to classes added to pending applications as well as to new applications filed on or after that date.
(3) The applicant must submit:
(a) dates of first use and first use in commerce and one specimen for each class that includes goods or services based on use in commerce under Trademark Act Section 1(a). The dates of use must be at least as early as the filing date of this application, 37 C.F.R. §§2.34(a)(1) and 2.86(a), and the specimen(s) must have been in use in commerce at least as early as the filing date of the application, and/or
(b) a statement of a bona fide intention to use the mark in commerce on or in connection with all the goods or services specified in each class that includes goods or services based on a bona fide intention to use the mark in commerce under Trademark Act Section 1(b), where such statement was not included for the goods or services in the original application.
(4) The applicant must submit an affidavit or a declaration under 37 C.F.R. §2.20 signed by the applicant to verify (3) above. 37 C.F.R. §§2.59(a) and 2.71(c).
/Shaunia P. Wallace Carlyle/
Trademark Examining Attorney
Law Office 110
US Patent & Trademark Office
703-308-9110 x251
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.