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  76/476291

 

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 marks in U.S. Registration Nos. 2265658,2127953 and 1979183 as to be likely to cause confusion, to cause mistake, or to deceive.  TMEP section 1207.  See the enclosed registrations.

 

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 proposed mark consists simply of the term “RED DOG”.  The registered marks are for “RED DOG” with a design, “RED DOG RULES” in a typed version and “RED DOG” also in typed form. It is well settled that marks may be confusingly similar in appearance notwithstanding the addition, deletion or substitution of letters or words.  See, e.g. Weiss Associates Inc. v. HRL Associates, Inc.,  14 USPQ2d 1840 (Fed. Cir. 1990);  In re United States Shoe Corp., 229 USPQ 707 (TTAB 1985) (CAREER IMAGE for clothing held confusingly similar to CREST CAREER IMAGES for uniforms); In re Apparel Ventures, Inc., 229 USPQ 225 (USPQ 1986) (SPARKS BY SASSAFRASS for clothing held confusingly similar to SPARKS for footwear).

These marks are confusingly similar because they all employ the term “RED DOG” for beer.  In the case of the design and word marks, the goods are identical, and if the goods are identical or closely related, the degree of similarity between marks required to support a finding of likelihood of confusion is not as great as would apply with diverse goods or services.  ECI Division of E Systems, Inc. v. Environmental Communications Inc., 207 USPQ 443 (TTAB 1980).  As such, the contemporaneous use of the term “RED DOG” when used to identify beer, is sufficient to warrant a refusal to register the mark pursuant to Section 2(d).

 

            Comparison of the Goods

 

In the present case, the goods are identical, as all parties have identified beer.   If the goods or services of the respective parties are identical or closely related, the degree of similarity between marks required to support a finding of likelihood of confusion is not as great as would apply with diverse goods or services.  ECI Division of E Systems, Inc. v. Environmental Communications Inc., 207 USPQ 443 (TTAB 1980).

 

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 does respond, please address the following informalities.

 

Identification of the Goods

 

The wording "other non-alcoholic beverages in Class 32 and alcoholic beverages in Class 33" in the identification of goods is unacceptable as indefinite.  The applicant must amend the identification to specify the commercial name of the goods.  If there is no common commercial name for the product, the applicant must describe the product and its intended uses. TMEP section 804.

 

In the identification, the applicant must use the common commercial names for the goods, be as complete and specific as possible and avoid the use of indefinite words and phrases.  If the applicant chooses to use indefinite terms, such as "accessories," "components," "devices," "equipment," "materials," "parts," "systems" and "products," then those words must be followed by the word "namely" and the goods listed by their common commercial names.  TMEP sections 804 and 804.08(c).

 

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(a); TMEP section 804.09.  Therefore, the applicant may not amend to include any goods that are not within the scope of goods set forth in the present identification.

 

The applicant may adopt the following identification, if accurate: 

 

Class 32:            Beers; mineral and aerated waters and other non-alcoholic beverages, namely (please specify); fruit drinks and fruit juices; syrups and other preparations for making beverages.

 

Class 33:            Alcoholic beverages, namely wine and distilled spirits.  TMEP section 804.

 

Please see the PTO web site for acceptable language for the non-alcoholic beverages at

 

Trademark Acceptable Identification of Goods and Services Manual http://www.gov.uspto.report/web/offices/tac/doc/gsmanual/

 

Basis for Application

 

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. Section 1051(b), and claiming priority under Section 44(d), 15 U.S.C. Section 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 a certified copy of 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.  If the applicant does so, the applicant may not subsequently rely on the foreign registration.  TMEP section 1006.01.

 

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 the certification or certified copy of the foreign registration and, if appropriate, an English translation.  It is customary for the translator to sign the translation.

 

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.

 

 

Susan Leslie DuBois

Examining Attorney

Law Office 111

703-308-9111 ext.413

EMAIL: ecomm111@uspto.gov

 

 

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.