UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
SERIAL NO: 76/550658
APPLICANT: Marly Products
|
|
CORRESPONDENT ADDRESS: TIMOTHY E. NAUMAN FAY, SHARPE, FAGAN, MINNICH & MCKEE 1100 SUPERIOR AVENUE, SEVENTH FLOOR CLEVELAND, OHIO 44114
|
RETURN ADDRESS: Commissioner for Trademarks 2900 Crystal Drive Arlington, VA 22202-3514
|
MARK: MARLY SKIN GUARD
|
|
CORRESPONDENT’S REFERENCE/DOCKET NO: VPCZ 5 00038
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 76/550658
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. 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. 2648089 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).
For the reasons discussed below, the examining attorney concludes that confusion as to the source of the goods is likely between the applicant’s mark and the registrant’s mark.
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).
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 (CCPA 1976). In re J.M. Originals Inc., 6 USPQ2d 1393 (TTAB 1988).
The marks share the wording [] SKIN[]G[]ARD. Such wording is more significant in creating a commercial impression.
The wording portions [] SKIN GUARD and SKINGARD are phonetic equivalents. Similarity in sound alone is sufficient to find a likelihood of confusion. Molenaar, Inc. v. Happy Toys Inc., 188 USPQ 469 (TTAB 1975); In re Cresco Mfg. Co., 138 USPQ 401 (TTAB 1963). TMEP §1207.01(b)(iv).
B. Similarity between the Goods
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 applicant’s goods may be used for the same types of things that the registrant’s goods are used for, e.g. for protection against solar radiation, for repelling jelly fish, etc. The goods may be sold in the same channels of trade and offered by the same types of providers. See the third-party registrations taken from the X-Search Database that evidence the fact that both medicated and non-medicated skin care preparations may be offered by a common provider. Therefore, there is a likelihood that the purchasers of the goods are likely to believe that the goods emanate from a common source.
In conclusion, the similarity between the marks and the goods of the parties is sufficient to establish 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).
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.
DISCLAIMER
Applicant must disclaim the descriptive wording “SKIN” apart from the mark as shown because it merely describes the part of the body that the goods are used on. Trademark Act Section 6, 15 U.S.C. §1056; TMEP §§1213 and 1213.03(a).
The following is the accepted standard format for a disclaimer:
No claim is made to the exclusive right to use “SKIN” apart from the mark as shown.
If the applicant has any questions or needs assistance in responding to this Office action, please telephone the assigned examining attorney.
//tmg//
Tonja M. Gaskins
Trademark Examining Attorney
Law Office 112
(703) 308-9112, ext. 198
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 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.