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  76/503062

 

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

 

SECTION 2(d) REFUSAL    TMEP §§1207.01 et seq    Registration is refused 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, so resembles the mark in U.S. Registration No. 0096075 as to be likely to cause confusion, to cause mistake, or to deceive.    See registration information below

 

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 (C.C.P.A. 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).  TMEP §§1207.01 et seq. 

 

Applicant’s proposed mark and the cited registrant’s mark are confusingly similar,

MUG vs MUG with design.

 

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).

 

When the applicant's mark is compared to a registered mark, "the points of similarity are of greater importance than the points of difference."  Esso Standard Oil Co. v. Sun Oil Co., 229 F.2d 37, 108 USPQ 161 (D.C. Cir.), cert. denied, 351 U.S. 973, 109 USPQ 517 (1956).

 

The literal portions are the dominant and most significant features of marks because consumers will call for the goods or services in the marketplace by that portion.  In re Appetito Provisions Co., 3 USPQ2d 1553 (TTAB 1987); In re Drug Research Reports, Inc., 200 USPQ 554 (TTAB 1978).  For this reason, the examining attorney must give greater weight to the literal portions of the marks in determining whether there is a likelihood of confusion.  TMEP §1207.01(c)(ii). 

 

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.

 

 

 

IDENTIFICATION OF GOODS  TMEP §1402.01

 

Applicant submitted the following identification of goods:

• Cosmetics, namely, blush, lipstick, powder, base, perfume, eye makeup, mascara, highlighter, shampoo and conditioner, non-medicated skin care preparations, hair gel, nail polish, nail care preparations and hair care preparations

 

The wording “base”, and  “highlighter” in the identification of goods is unacceptable as indefinite. 

 

If accurate, the applicant may amend this wording to:

 

• Facial base,
• Skin lightening preparation
• Hair lighteners,  all in International class 003.

 

 

 

The applicant may wish to consult the on-line identification manual on the PTO homepage for

acceptable common names of goods and services.

 

http://www.gov.uspto.report/web/offices/tac/doc/gsmanual/

 

37 C.F.R. Section 2.71(a); TMEP §1402.06   While an application may be amended to clarify or limit the identification, additions to the identification are not permitted.  Therefor, the applicant may not amend to include any goods/services that are not within the scope of the goods/services recited in the present identification.

 

 

 

/leb/  Linda E. Blohm,  Trademark Examining Attorney

Ecom110@uspto.gov (the law office email address for OFFICIAL responses ONLY)

703.308.9110 ext.130,   Law Office 110 Facsimile 703.746.8110

 

 

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.