UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
|
SERIAL NO: 76/556982
APPLICANT: American Sports Licensing, Inc.
|
|
|
CORRESPONDENT ADDRESS: HUGH D. JAEGER LAW OFFICES OF HUGH D. JAEGER, P.A. 1000 SUPERIOR BLVD., SUITE 302 WAYZATA, MN 55391-1873
|
RETURN ADDRESS: Commissioner for Trademarks 2900 Crystal Drive Arlington, VA 22202-3514
|
|
MARK: CAIRN
|
|
|
CORRESPONDENT’S REFERENCE/DOCKET NO: N/A
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 76/556982
The assigned examining attorney has reviewed the referenced application and determined the following.
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, so resembles the marks in U.S. Registration Nos. 2096381, 2098131, 2120323, 2480488, 2324211 and 2332136 as to be likely to cause confusion, or 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 examining attorney must compare the marks for similarities in sound, appearance, meaning or connotation. In re E. I. DuPont de Nemours & Co., 476 F.2d 1357, 177 USPQ 563 (C.C.P.A. 1973). Similarity in any one of these elements is sufficient to find a likelihood of confusion. In re Mack, 197 USPQ 755 (TTAB 1977). TMEP §§1207.01(b) et seq.
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).
The marks under consideration are very similar in sound, appearance and connotation. Specifically, the marks share the dominant term “CAIRN.” The marks are compared in their entireties under a Section 2(d) analysis. 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., 753 F.2d 1056, 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 1987); TMEP §1207.01(b)(viii).
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). TMEP §1207.01(a)(i).
It is well settled that the issue of likelihood of confusion between marks must be determined on the basis of the goods or services as they are identified in the application and the registration. Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce v. Wells Fargo Bank, 811 F.2d 1490, 1 USPQ2d 1813 (Fed. Cir. 1987); Paula Payne Products Co. v. Johnson Publishing Co., 473 F.2d 901, 177 USPQ 76 (C.C.P.A. 1973). Since the identification of the applicant’s goods is very broad, it is presumed that the application encompasses all helmets of the type described, including those in the registrant’s more specific identification, that they move in all normal channels of trade and that they are available for all potential customers. TMEP §1207.01(a)(iii).
Therefore, because of the similarities between the marks and goods of the parties, a likelihood of confusion as to the source of these goods must be found to exist.
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 informalities.
The wording “HELMETS” in the identification of goods is unacceptable as indefinite. The applicant must amend the identification to specify the field in which the goods are intended to be used (i.e., bicycle helmets). TMEP §1402.01.
For 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/.
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 that are not within the scope of goods set forth in the present identification.
The application identifies goods that may be classified in two (2) international classes. “HELMETS” are classified in International Class 9, while “BICYCLES” are classified in International Class 12.[1]
Therefore, the applicant must either: (1) restrict the application to the number of class(es) covered by the fee already paid, or (2) pay the required fee for each additional class(es). 37 C.F.R. §2.86(a)(2); TMEP §§810.01, 1401.04, 1401.04(b) and 1403.01.
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 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 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.
No set form is required for response to this Office action. The applicant must respond to each point raised. The applicant should simply set forth the required changes or statements and request that the Office enter them. The applicant must sign the response. In addition to the identifying information required at the beginning of this letter, the applicant should provide a telephone number to speed up further processing.
If the applicant has any questions or needs assistance in responding to this Office action, please telephone the assigned examining attorney.
/MVS/
Maria-Victoria Suarez
Trademark Attorney
Law Office 102
(703) 308-9102, x196
Fax - (703) 872-9231
maria-victoria.suarez@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 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.
[1] The applicant must adopt the appropriate international classification for the specified goods. The International Classification of Goods and Services for the Purposes of the Registration of Marks, developed by the World Intellectual Property Organization, classifies every product and service into one of forty‑five classes. The United States Patent and Trademark Office uses this system to classify goods and services. 37 C.F.R. §6.1; TMEP §§1401 et seq.
The decision as to the proper classification of goods or services is a purely administrative matter, which is within the sole discretion of the United States Patent and Trademark Office. In re Tee‑Pak, Inc., 164 USPQ 88 (TTAB 1969).