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  76/580059

 

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

 

REFUSAL – CONFUSION

 

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/services, so resembles the mark in U.S. Registration No. 1954405 as to be likely to cause confusion, to cause mistake, or to deceive.  TMEP §§1207.01 et seq.  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 (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. 

 

Already registered is the mark THC for clothing, namely T-shirts, hats, beanies, pants, shorts, baseball jerseys, jackets, sweatshirts, polo shirts and sweat pants.  The applicant’s mark is THC for apparel.

 

The marks are identical.   The applicant’s identification of goods is so broad that it includes the registrant’s goods.  Likelihood of confusion is 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., Inc., 473 F.2d 901, 177 USPQ 76 (C.C.P.A. 1973).  Since the identification of the applicant’s goods and/or services is very broad, it is presumed that the application encompasses all goods and/or services 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 to all potential customers.  TMEP §1207.01(a)(iii).  There is a great likelihood of confusion as to the source of the goods.

 

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 issues.

 

EARLIER FILED POTENTIALLY CONFLICTING APPLICATIONS

 

The examining attorney encloses information regarding pending Application Serial Nos. 78318561 and 78371869.  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.

 

IDENTIFICATION OF GOODS

 

The identification of goods is unacceptable as indefinite because each item of apparel must be specified.  The applicant may adopt the following identification, if accurate:  “Apparel, namely, ____(specify each item),” in class 25.  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.

 

APPLICATION SIGNATURE OMITTED

 

No signed verification was provided with the application.  Applicant must submit a statement attesting to the facts set forth in the application, dated and signed by a person authorized to sign under 37 C.F.R. §2.33(a), and verified with a notarized affidavit or signed declaration under 37 C.F.R. §2.20.  37 C.F.R. §§2.32(b) and 2.33. 

 

If the application is based on use in commerce under Trademark Act Section 1(a), 15 U.S.C. §1051(a), the verified statement must include an allegation 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.”  15 U.S.C. §1051(a)(3)(C); 37 C.F.R. §2.34(a)(1)(i); TMEP §§804.02, 806.01(a) and 901.

 

If the application is based on Trademark Act Section 1(b) or 44, 15 U.S.C. §1051(b) or §1126, the verified statement must include an allegation that “applicant had a bona fide intention to use the mark in commerce on or in connection with the goods or services listed in the application as of the application filing date.”  15 U.S.C. §1051(b)(3)(B); 37 C.F.R. §§2.34(a)(2)(i), 2.34(a)(3)(i) and 2.34(a)(4)(ii); TMEP §§804.02, 806.01(b), 806.01(c), 806.01(d) and 1101.

 

 

 

 

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.

 

 

 

/Chrisie Brightmire King/

Trademark Attorney

Law Office 103

(571) 272-9179

chrisie.king@uspto.gov

 

 

How to respond to this Office Action:

 

You may respond using the Office's Trademark Electronic Application System (TEAS) (visit http://www.gov.uspto.report/teas/index.html and follow the instructions therein), but you must wait until at least 72 hours after receipt of the e-mailed office action. PLEASE NOTE:  For those with applications filed pursuant to Section 66(a) of the Trademark Act, all responses to Office actions that include amendments to the identifications of goods and/or services must be filed on paper, using regular mail (or hand delivery) to submit such response. TEAS cannot be used under these circumstances. If the response does not include an amendment to the goods and/or services, then TEAS can be used to respond to the Office action.

 

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.