UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
SERIAL NO: 76/506908
APPLICANT: BEAUTY SKIN DEEP, INC.
|
|
CORRESPONDENT ADDRESS: ROBERT M. DOWNEY ROBERT M DOWNEY, P.A. 150 E PALMETTO PARK RD STE 350 BOCA RATON FL 33432
|
RETURN ADDRESS: Commissioner for Trademarks 2900 Crystal Drive Arlington, VA 22202-3514 ecom103@uspto.gov
|
MARK: NUFACE
|
|
CORRESPONDENT’S REFERENCE/DOCKET NO: PERCTA103
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 76/506908
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. §1052(d), because the applicant’s mark, when used on or in connection with the identified goods/services, so resembles the marks in U.S. Registration Nos. 2409908, 2189249, and 2059370 as to be likely to cause confusion, to cause mistake, or to deceive. TMEP §§1207.01 et seq. 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 (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.
The applicant has applied to register the mark NUFACE. The marks in the cited registrations are NEW FACES, NEW FACES, and NEW FACES SKIN CARE CENTERS. The terms SKIN CARE CENTERS are disclaimed in the last cited registration. The applicant’s mark is the phonetic equivalent of the marks in the cited registrations.
The applicant’s goods are cosmetics, namely, creams and moisturizing creams for alleviating wrinkles in skin. The goods in the first cited registration are skin care products that include face moisturizer and various exfoliating and antioxidant products. The services in the two remaining application are health care services in the fields of dermatology and cosmetic skin care. The goods and services of the parties travel in the same channels of trade and are marketed to the same consumers. Consumers would be likely to believe that they originate from the same source.
Overall, the similarities among the marks and the goods and services of the parties are so great as to create a likelihood of confusion. The examining attorney must 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).
Response
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.
Identification of Goods - Indefinite
The identification of goods is unacceptable as indefinite because of the language “creams”. The applicant must specify this item. The applicant may refer to the attached printouts from the Trademark ID Manual and must amend the identification. For additional assistance regarding an acceptable listing of goods and/or services, please see the on‑line searchable Manual of Acceptable Identifications of Goods and Services, at http://www.gov.uspto.report/web/offices/tac/doc/gsmanual/. TMEP §1402.01.
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.
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.
If the applicant has any questions or needs assistance in responding to this Office action, please telephone the assigned examining attorney.
/Cheryl L. Steplight/
Trademark Examining Attorney
Law Office 103
202.581.2054 ext. 198
703.746.8103 (Fax)
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.