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  76/566174

 

The assigned trademark examining attorney has reviewed the referenced application filed on December 19, 2003, and has determined the following.

 

REGISTRATION REFUSED--LIKELIHOOD OF CONFUSION

 

Registration of the proposed mark is refused because of a likelihood of confusion with the marks in U.S. Registration Nos. 2818905, 2134013, 1908101 and 1576426.  Trademark Act Section 2(d), 15 U.S.C. §1052(d); TMEP §§1207.01 et seq.  See the enclosed registrations.

 

A likelihood of confusion determination requires a two-part analysis.  First, the marks are compared 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).  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 and/or services, and similarity of trade channels of the goods and/or services.  See In re Opus One, Inc., 60 USPQ2d 1812 (TTAB 2001); In re Dakin’s Miniatures Inc., 59 USPQ2d 1593 (TTAB 1999); In re Azteca Restaurant Enterprises, Inc., 50 USPQ2d 1209 (TTAB 1999); In re L.C. Licensing Inc., 49 USPQ2d 1379 (TTAB 1998); TMEP §§1207.01 et seq.

 

Second, the goods or services are compared to determine whether they are similar or related or whether 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 Int’l Tel. and Tel. Corp., 197 USPQ 910 (TTAB 1978); Guardian Prods. Co., v. Scott Paper Co., 200 USPQ 738 (TTAB 1978); TMEP §§1207.01 et seq.

 

When determining whether there is a likelihood of confusion, all circumstances surrounding the sale of the goods and/or services are considered.  Industrial Nucleonics Corp. v. Hinde, 475 F.2d 1197, 177 USPQ 386 (C.C.P.A. 1973).  These circumstances include the marketing channels, the identity of the prospective purchasers and the degree of similarity between the marks and between the goods and/or services.  In comparing the marks, similarity in any one of the elements of sound, appearance or meaning is sufficient to find a likelihood of confusion.  In comparing the goods and/or services, it is necessary to show that they are related in some manner.  In re Mack, 197 USPQ 755, 757 (TTAB 1977); TMEP §§1207.01 et seq.

 

The applicant has applied for registration of the proposed mark, COSMEDIX.  The registrant’s marks are COSMEDIC and QOSMEDIX (three registrations).

 

The examining attorney must compare the marks for similarities of sound, appearance, meaning or connotation.  In re E. I. DuPont de Nemours & Co., 476 F.2d 1357, 177 USPQ 563 (CCPA 1973).  Similarity in any one of these elements is sufficient to find a likelihood of confusion. In re Mack, 197 USPQ 755 (TTAB 1977).

 

In the present case, the respective marks are nearly identical in appearance, sound, meaning and connotation.

 

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).

 

The goods of the applicant are identified as “non-medicated skin preparations and treatments” and “medicated skin preparations and treatments.”  The goods of Registration No. 2818905 are identified as “medical grade glue for cosmetic use.”  The goods of Registration No. 2134013 are identified as “applicators, including, cotton balls, cotton sticks, cotton swabs, cotton pads, foam swabs, and gauze pads used for manicures and pedicures,” “manicure and pedicure implements, namely, nail files, nail buffers, cuticle pushers, callous removal buffers, and tweezers” and “foundation sponges and puffs for applying cosmetics, pipettes and suction bulbs for cosmetics purposes; bath supplies, namely, non-medicated textured cleansing sponges; spatulas, scoops and funnels for use with beauty products; cosmetic cases, containers and jars sold empty; and blush brushes, eyeliner brushes, eyebrow brushes, lip brushes; eye shadows brushes, and mascara brushes.”  The goods of Registration No.1908101 are identified as “medicated pre-moistened disinfectant towelettes, namely anti-microbial hand wipes with cleanser.”  Finally, the goods of Registration No. 1576426 are identified as “disposable applicators for cosmetics.”

 

The goods and/or services of the parties need not be identical or directly competitive to find a likelihood of confusion.  Instead, 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 and/or 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 Melville Corp., 18 USPQ2d 1386, 1388 (TTAB 1991); In re Corning Glass Works, 229 USPQ 65 (TTAB 1985); In re Rexel Inc., 223 USPQ 830 (TTAB 1984); Guardian Prods. Co., Inc. v. Scott Paper Co., 200 USPQ 738 (TTAB 1978); In re Int’l Tel. & Tel. Corp., 197 USPQ 910 (TTAB 1978); TMEP §1207.01(a)(i).

 

In the present case, the goods of the parties could well be presumed to be from the same source inasmuch as the goods of the parties relate to cosmetic and skin-related preparations.  Consequently, the goods of the present parties clearly move in the same normal channels of trade, are available to all potential customers and may be utilized for the same or similar (i.e., related) purposes by the same classes of purchasers. 

 

Accordingly, based on the nearly identical nature of the marks and the similarity of the goods of the parties, there is a likelihood of confusion under Section 2(d) of the Trademark Act.

 

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.

 

PRIOR PENDING APPLICATION

 

Information regarding pending Application Serial No. 78292112 is enclosed.  The filing date of the referenced application precedes applicant’s filing date.  There may be a likelihood of confusion between the two marks under Trademark Act Section 2(d), 15 U.S.C. §1052(d).  If the referenced application registers, registration may be refused in this case under Section 2(d).  37 C.F.R. §2.83; TMEP §1208.01.

 

STANDARD CHARACTER DRAWING CLAIM

 

Applicant must submit the following standard character claim:  “The mark is presented in standard characters without claim to any particular font style, size, or color.”  37 C.F.R. §2.52(a).

 

IDENTIFICATION/CLASSIFICATION OF GOODS

 

The identification of goods is unacceptable as indefinite because as worded, the exact nature of the goods is unclear.  Specifically, it is unclear as to what the applicant means by “and treatments.”  Accordingly, clarification or deletion of the term is required.

 

The applicant may adopt any of the following identifications, if accurate:

 

            “Non-medicated skin care preparations,” in International Class 3.

 

            “Medicated skin care preparations,” in International Class 5.

 

            “Medicated skin preparations for use in treating [Indicate condition],” in International Class 5.

 

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 that are not within the scope of goods set forth in the present identification.  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/.

 

SPECIMEN IS UNACCEPTABLE

 

Applicant must submit (1) a substitute specimen showing the mark as it is used in commerce on the goods or on packaging for the goods, and (2) a statement that “the substitute specimen was in use in commerce at least as early as the filing date of the application,” verified with a notarized affidavit or a signed declaration under 37 C.F.R. §2.20.  37 C.F.R. §§2.56 and 2.59(a); TMEP §904.09.

 

The current specimen of record comprises merely a purchasing invoice and is unacceptable as evidence of actual trademark use because the mark is not shown on the goods or on the packaging for the goods.  Invoices, announcements, order forms, bills of lading, leaflets, brochures, publicity releases and other printed advertising material, while normally acceptable for showing use in connection with services, generally are not acceptable specimens for showing trademark use in connection with goods.  In re Bright of America, Inc., 205 USPQ 63 (TTAB 1979); See In re Ultraflight Inc., 221 USPQ 903 (TTAB 1984); TMEP §§904.05 and 904.07.

 

Examples of acceptable specimens for goods are tags, labels, instruction manuals, containers, photographs that show the mark on the goods or packaging, or displays associated with the goods at their point of sale.  TMEP §§904.04 et seq.

 

The following is a properly worded declaration under 37 C.F.R. §2.20.  At the end of the response, the applicant should insert the declaration signed by a person authorized to sign under 37 C.F.R. §2.33(a).

 

The undersigned, being hereby warned that willful false statements and the like so made are punishable by fine or imprisonment, or both, under 18 U.S.C. 1001, and that such willful false statements may jeopardize the validity of the application or any resulting registration, declares that he/she is properly authorized to execute this application on behalf of the applicant; he/she believes the applicant to be the owner of the trademark/service mark sought to be registered, that the mark is in use in commerce and was in use in commerce on or in connection with the goods or services listed in the application as of the application filing date; that to the best of his/her knowledge and belief no other person, firm, corporation, or association has the right to use the mark in commerce, either in the identical form thereof or in such near resemblance thereto as to be likely, when used on or in connection with the goods/services of such other person, to cause confusion, or to cause mistake, or to deceive; that the substitute specimen was in use in commerce at least as early as the filing date of the application and that all statements made of his/her own knowledge are true and all statements made on information and belief are believed to be true.

 

 

 

 

 

_____________________________

(Signature)

 

_____________________________

(Print or Type Name and Position)

 

_____________________________

(Date)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Howard Smiga /hs/

Trademark Examining Attorney

Law Office 102

703-308-9102, x197

703-746-8102 Fax

HowardSmiga@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.

 

PLEASE NOTE:  Because it delays processing, submission of duplicate papers is discouraged.  Unless specifically requested to do so by the Office, parties should not mail follow up copies of documents transmitted by fax.  Cf. ITC Entertainment Group Ltd. V. Nintendo of America Inc. 45 USPQ2d 2021 (TTAB 1998).

 

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.