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  76/505337

 

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

 

Section 2(d) - Likelihood of Confusion 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. 2,559,546 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).

 

The applicant has applied to register the mark STARBURST in stylized form and design for non-medicated lip cosmetics, namely, cosmetic preparations for moisturizing and protecting against sunburn and lip gloss.  The registered mark is STAR BURST for hair setting gel.  The proposed mark and the registered mark are similar in sound, appearance, and meaning.  The dominant element of the proposed mark, namely, the wording STARBURST is essentially identical to the registered mark.  The wording is the dominant element of the proposed mark because when a mark consists of a word portion and a design portion, the word portion is more likely to be impressed upon a purchaser’s memory and to be used in calling for the goods or services. In re Appetito Provisions Co., 3 USPQ2d 1553 (TTAB 1987); Amoco Oil Co. v. Amerco, Inc., 192 USPQ 729 (TTAB 1976).  TMEP §1207.01(c)(ii).  In addition, the goods of the parties are highly related because both the applicant and the registrant are providing cosmetics that are marketed to the same consumers in the same channels of trade.  The examining attorney has attached ten trademark registrations as evidence that hair gel and lip gloss are often marketed by the same source.  See attached.

 

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).

 

The examining attorney must also resolve any doubt regarding a likelihood of confusion in favor of the prior registrant.  In re Hyper Shoppes (Ohio), Inc., 837 F.2d 463, 6 USPQ2d 1025 (Fed. Cir., 1988).

 

Because the marks are essentially identical and the goods are similar, consumers are likely to believe that the goods of the parties emanate from the same source.  Overall, the similarities among the marks and the goods are so great as to create a likelihood of confusion.  Therefore, the applicant’s mark is denied registration on the Principal Register under Trademark Act Section 2(d). 

 

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.

 

Drawing

 

The drawing is not acceptable because it will not reproduce satisfactorily and because the lining is too fine or close together.  The applicant must submit a new drawing showing the mark clearly and conforming to the requirements for a special form drawing set forth in 37 C.F.R. §2.52.  TMEP §807.07(a).

 

The requirements for a special‑form drawing are as follows:

 

(1) The drawing must appear in black and white; no color is permitted.

 

(2)  Every line and letter must be black and clear.

 

(3)  The use of gray to indicate shading is unacceptable.

 

(4)  The lining must not be too fine or too close together.

 

(5)  The preferred size of the area in which the mark is displayed is 2½ inches (6.1 cm.) high and 2½ inches (6.1 cm.) wide.  It should not be larger than 4 inches (10.3 cm.) high or 4 inches (10.3 cm.) wide.

 

(6)  If the reduction of the mark to the required size renders any details illegible, the applicant may insert a statement in the application to describe the mark and these details.

 

37 C.F.R. §2.52; TMEP §§807.01(b) and 807.07(a).  The Office will enforce these drawing requirements strictly. 

 

The Office prefers that the drawing be depicted on a separate sheet of smooth, nonshiny, white paper 8 to 8½ inches (20.3 to 21.6 cm.) wide and 11 inches (27.9 cm.) long, and that the sheet contain a heading listing, on separate lines, the applicant’s complete name; the applicant’s address; the goods or services recited in the application; and, if the application is filed under Section 1(a) of the Act, the dates of first use of the mark and of first use of the mark in commerce; or, if the application is filed under Section 44(d), the priority filing date of the foreign application.  37 C.F.R. §2.52(b); TMEP §§807.01(a), 807.01(b), 807.01(c) and 807.07(a).

 

As of October 30, 1999, the Office no longer requires the use of lining to indicate color.  The Office will continue to accept drawings that show color by using the color linings formerly shown in 37 C.F.R. §2.52(e).  TMEP §807.09(b).  However, the applicant also has the option of identifying color in the mark by providing a clear and specific description of the color and where it appears in the mark.  If the applicant wishes to delete the lining from the mark, the applicant must submit a new black-and-white drawing of the mark that meets the requirements of 37 C.F.R. §2.52(a)(2)(i), along with a description of what the color is and where the color appears in the mark.  37 C.F.R. §2.52(a)(2)(v); TMEP §807.09(c). 

 

Description of the Mark

 

The applicant must submit a complete, concise description of the mark.  37 C.F.R. §2.37; TMEP §§808 et seq.  The applicant provided a description of the mark in the application that is not entirely complete.  The statement may be in the following form, if accurate:

 

The mark consists of the word STARBURST in stylized red letters enclosed by a yellow rectangle that contains a red border.  The upper hook of the initial letter “S” consists of a drop of water.  The mark is lined for the colors red and yellow.

Fee Increase

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.

 

 

 

 

 

Amy Lohr  /acl/

Trademark Attorney

L.O. 112

[voice mail] (703) 308-9112 ext. 237

[fax] (703) 746-8112

http://www.gov.uspto.report/teas/index.html (file responses)

 

 

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.