UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
|
SERIAL NO: 76/577810
APPLICANT: Richards, Mark
|
|
|
CORRESPONDENT ADDRESS: |
RETURN ADDRESS: Commissioner for Trademarks 2900 Crystal Drive Arlington, VA 22202-3514
|
|
MARK: FULL METAL JACKET
|
|
|
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 76/577810
The assigned examining attorney has reviewed the referenced application and determined the following.
Refusal - 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. 1985434 as to be likely to cause confusion, to cause mistake, or to deceive. TMEP section 1207. See the enclosed registration.
The Court in In re E. I. DuPont de Nemours & Co., 476 F.2d 1357, 177 USPQ 563 (CCPA 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 or services, and similarity of trade channels of the goods or services.
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 (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).
The registrant’s mark is FULL METAL JACKET. The applicant’s mark is FULL METAL JACKET. The marks are identical in sound, appearance, meaning and connotation. The applicant has appropriated the registrant’s mark.
The goods or 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 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 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 registrant’s goods include protective and anti-glare eyewear, namely, goggles, sunglasses, spectacles. The applicant’s services are retail services featuring optics, night vision goggles and other militaria. Both parties sell goggles and other optics. The goods appeal to the same consumers and flow through common channels of trade.
For the foregoing reasons, the examining attorney refuses registration under Trademark Act Section 2(d).
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 applicants are identified as Stephen Richards and Mark Richards. If the application is owned by joint applicants, they should state that fact for the record. TMEP Section 803.03(d).
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).
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. To reach the undersigned attorney by telephone after October 26, 2004, please call (571) 272 - 9397. Thank you.
NOTICE: TRADEMARK OPERATION RELOCATING OCTOBER AND NOVEMBER 2004
The Trademark Operation is relocating to Alexandria, Virginia, in October and November 2004. Effective October 4, 2004, all Trademark-related paper mail (except documents sent to the Assignment Services Division for recordation, certain documents filed under the Madrid Protocol, and requests for copies of trademark documents) must be sent to:
Commissioner for Trademarks
P.O. Box 1451
Alexandria, VA 22313-1451
Applicants, registration owners, attorneys and other Trademark customers are strongly encouraged to correspond with the USPTO online via the Trademark Electronic Application System (TEAS), at www.uspto.gov.
USPTO
/Tracy Whittaker-Brown/
Trademark Examining Attorney
U.S. Patent & Trademark Office
Law Office 111
703-308-9111, ext. 468
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.