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  76/508990

 

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

 

Likelihood of Confusion – Section 2(d)

 

The examining attorney refuses registration under Trademark Act Section 2(d), 15 U.S.C. §1052(d), because the applicant’s marks, when used on or in connection with the identified goods/services, so resembles the mark in U.S. Registration Nos. 1,482,435 and 2,439,265 as to be likely to cause confusion, to cause mistake, or to deceive.  TMEP §§1207.01 et seq.  See the enclosed registrations.

 

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 be considered in determining whether there is a likelihood of confusion under Section 2(d).  Any one of the factors listed may be dominant in any given case, depending upon the evidence of record.  In this case, the following factors are the most relevant:  similarity of the marks, similarity of the goods/services, and similarity of trade channels of the goods/services.  TMEP §§1207.01 et seq. 

 

Applicant’s mark is WILD BRAND and design.   Registrants’ marks are EWILD and WILD WEAR and stylization.  The examining attorney must look at the marks in their entireties under Section 2(d). Nevertheless, one feature of a mark may be recognized as more significant in creating a commercial impression.  Greater weight is given to that dominant feature in determining whether there is a likelihood of confusion.  In re National Data Corp., 224 USPQ 749 (Fed. Cir. 1985); Tektronix, Inc. v. Daktronics, Inc., 534 F.2d 915, 189 USPQ 693 (C.C.P.A. 1976). In re J.M. Originals Inc., 6 USPQ2d 1393 (TTAB 1988).  TMEP §1207.01(b)(viii).  The dominant literal portions of registrants’ mark is identical to the dominant literal portion of applicant’s mark.  The terms “WEAR,” “BRAND” and the prefix “E” simply describe the relevant goods and services as apparel, as bearing a trademark, and as obtainable online.  The dominant term for all three marks is the word “WILD.”

 

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 §1207.01(b).

 

If the marks of the respective parties are identical or highly similar, the examining attorney must consider the commercial relationship between the goods or services of the respective parties carefully to determine whether there is a likelihood of confusion.  In re Concordia International Forwarding Corp., 222 USPQ 355 (TTAB 1983).  TMEP §1207.01(a). 

 

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). 

 

Registrant’s goods are sweatshirts, pantyhose, socks, and shirts.  The other registrant’s services encompass on-line ordering services for a variety of general merchandise.  Applicant’s goods include sweatshirts, shirts and socks, and applicant’s services encompass on-line ordering in the field of clothing, labels, stickers, signs and decals.  Applicant’s and registrants’ goods and services overlap.  Legally identical goods are presumed to travel in the same channels of trade to the same ultimate purchasers.  See Volkswagenwerk Aktiengesellschaft v. Ridewell Corp., 201 USPQ 404, 409 (TTAB 1978).

 

Conflicting Pending Applications

 

The examining attorney encloses information regarding pending Application Serial Nos. 75/367,406 and 76/097,769.  The filing dates of the referenced applications precede the applicant’s filing date.  There may be a likelihood of confusion between the applicant’s mark and the referenced marks under Trademark Act Section 2(d), 15 U.S.C. §1052(d).  If one or more of the referenced applications matures into a registration, the examining attorney may refuse registration in this case under Section 2(d).  37 C.F.R. §2.83; TMEP §1208.01.

 

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.

 

Informality

 

If the applicant chooses to respond to the refusal to register, the applicant must also respond to the following informality.

 

A.  Recitation and Classification of Services

 

Applicant’s “design and creative services” may not be classified in International Class 35.  “Website design” should be specified as “for others” and is classified in International Class 42.  “Graphical design” should be amended to “graphic art design” and is also classified in International Class 42.  “Marketing communications” is indefinite.  “Multi-media design” must be indicated more specifically as to type of design, and is probably classified in International Class 42.

 

Applicant may wish to consult the Office’s electronic Identification Manual of Goods and Services at www.uspto.gov for other suggestions as to acceptable language.

 

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 services that are not within the scope of services set forth 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.  

 

If the applicant has any questions regarding this Office action, please telephone the assigned examining attorney.

 

 

 

/Jeri Fickes/

Trademark Examining Attorney

Law Office 108

703/308-9108 x.167

fax 703/746-8108

ecom108@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.