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  76/478702

 

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

 

REGISTRATION

 

Likelihood of Confusion

 

The examining attorney refuses registration under Trademark Act Section 2(d), 15 U.S.C. §1052(d), because the applicant’s mark, when used on or in connection with the identified goods/services, so resembles the mark in U.S. Registration No. 2178927 as to be likely to cause confusion, to cause mistake, or to deceive.  TMEP §§1207.01 et seq.  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/services, to cause confusion, or to cause mistake or to deceive. TMEP §1207.01.  The Court in In re E. I. DuPont de Nemours & Co., 476 F.2d 1357, 177 USPQ 563 (C.C.P.A. 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/services.  The overriding concern is to prevent buyer confusion as to the source of the goods/services.  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 (C.C.P.A. 1974). 

 

The proposed mark is closely related to the prior registered mark in each of the five factors listed above in the DuPont case.  The sound, commercial meaning, and impression of the marks are closely related.  The applicant’s mark is INCANTO.  The registrant’s mark is ENCANTOS.  The two words are highly similar in sound and overall commercial impression.

 

In addition the goods/services of the parties are closely related.  The goods/services 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/services 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).  TMEP §1207.01(a)(i).  The applicant offers perfumes, eau de parfum, cologne, toilet water, essential oils, cold cream, personal deodorants, antiperspirants, cleansing lotions, skin moisturizer, body oil, skin emollient, soaps, bath soaps, bath and shower gel, body lotions, and skin lotions; the registrant offers body cream, hand cream, night cream, skin cream and hand soaps.  The goods are overlapping.  Consumers, therefore, are likely to believe that the goods/services of the parties originate from the same source.

 

Registration of the proposed mark must therefore be refused.  The applicant may, however, offer evidence in support of registration.

 

INFORMALITIES

 

If the applicant chooses to respond to the refusal to register, the applicant must also respond to the following informalities:

 

Translation of the Mark

 

The applicant must submit a translation of the mark to permit proper consideration of the application.  37 C.F.R. §2.61(b); TMEP §809.

 

Identification of Goods

 

The wording "essential oils" in the identification of goods is unacceptable as indefinite because the use of the goods is unclear.  The applicant may amend this wording to "essential oils for personal use," if accurate.  TMEP §1402.

 

The wording "cleansing lotions" in the identification of goods is unacceptable as indefinite because the use of the goods is unclear.  The applicant may amend this wording to "skin cleansing lotions," if accurate.  TMEP §1402.

 

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 or services that are not within the scope of the goods and services recited in the present identification.

 

If the applicant prosecutes this application as a combined, or multiple‑class, application, the applicant must comply with each of the following.

 

(1)  The applicant must list the goods/services 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(a); 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.  

 

Filing Bases

 

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).

 

Applicant’s Response

 

No set form is required for response to this Office action.  The applicant must respond to each point raised.  Additional information is available on-line at the Patent and Trademark Office site on the global computer network.  The site is located at WWW.USPTO.GOV.

 

/wgb/

William Breckenfeld

Trademark Attorney

Law Office 113

703-308-9113 x158 Phone

703-746-8113 Fax

ecom113@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.