UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE

 

 

 

OFFICE ACTION

 

RESPONSE TIME LIMIT:  TO AVOID ABANDONMENT, THE OFFICE MUST RECEIVE A PROPER RESPONSE TO THIS OFFICE ACTION WITHIN 6 MONTHS OF THE MAILING OR E-MAILING DATE. 

 

 

Serial Number  76/607533

 

This letter responds to the applicant’s communication filed on July 13, 2005.   

 

FINAL REFUSAL: LIKELIHOOD OF CONFUSION

For the reasons set forth below, the refusal under Trademark Act Section 2(d), 15 U.S.C. §1052(d), is now made FINAL with respect to U.S. Registration No(s). 2830871.  In addition, the following requirement is now made FINAL: identification of goods.  Please note also that Prior Pending Application Serial #76252795 has abandoned and the citation to it has been withdrawn.

 

Registration was refused under Trademark Act Section 2(d), 15 U.S.C. §1052(d); TMEP §§1207.01 et seq., because the subject matter for which registration is sought so resembles the mark(s) shown in U.S. Registration No(s). 2830871,  as to be likely, when used on or in connection with the identified goods/services, to cause confusion, or to cause mistake, or to deceive.

 

 

 

I. Two Part Analysis

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).  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.

 

A.  Similarities between the Marks

Applicant argues that the mark sought for registration in the application at hand and registrant’s mark are dissimilar and convey a different overall commercial impression.  The marks are compared 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 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 applicant’s mark is MIDORI ILLUSION.  The conflicting similar mark is ILLUSION.  The applicant’s mark is highly similar to the registered mark in sound and appearance. Where the marks of the respective parties are identical or highly similar, then the commercial relationship between the goods or services of the respective parties must be analyzed carefully to determine whether there is a likelihood of confusion.  In re Opus One Inc., 60 USPQ2d 1812, 1815 (TTAB 2001); In re Concordia Int’l Forwarding Corp., 222 USPQ 355 (TTAB 1983); TMEP §1207.01(a).

 

B.  Similarities between the Goods/Services

As stated in the prior Office action, the goods/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/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).

 

Applicant asserts that its goods and the goods of the holder of the cited registration(s) are sufficiently dissimilar, and they are marketed through distinctly different channels of trade, and that all of such factors lead to the conclusion that confusion is not likely.      

 

The goods of the parties are marketed in the same channels of trade under circumstances that could give rise to the mistaken belief that the goods/services come from a common source.  The presumption under Trademark Act Section 7(b), 15 U.S.C. §1057(b), is that the registrant is the owner of the mark and that use of the mark extends to all goods and/or services identified in the registration.  The presumption also implies that the registrant operates in all normal channels of trade and reaches all classes of purchasers of the identified goods and/or services.  RE/MAX of America, Inc. v. Realty Mart, Inc., 207 USPQ 960, 964-5 (TTAB 1980).

 

Applicant’s goods/services are ‘Liqueur based cocktails.’ Registrant’s goods/services are ‘Red and white table wine.’  The applicant’s and registrant’s goods/services are closely related because both parties’ goods/services are essentially Liqueur, wine or spirits. 

 

In conclusion, applicant’s mark does not create a different overall commercial impression that would negate the likelihood of confusion in the marketplace.  The similarity between the marks and the goods/services of the parties is sufficient to establish a likelihood of confusion.  When applicant’s mark is compared to a registered mark, “the points of similarity are of greater importance than the points of difference.”  Esso Standard Oil Co. v. Sun Oil Co., 229 F.2d 37, 108 USPQ 161 (D.C. Cir.), cert. denied, 351 U.S. 973, 109 USPQ 517 (1956); TMEP §1207.01(b).  The examining attorney must resolve any doubt as to the issue of likelihood of confusion in favor of the registrant and against the applicant who has a legal duty to select a mark that is totally dissimilar to trademarks already being used.  Burroughs Wellcome Co. v. Warner-Lambert Co., 203 USPQ 191 (TTAB 1979).

 

If the applicant chooses to respond to the refusal to register, the applicant must also respond to the following informality.

 

Identification of Goods

The wording “Liqueur based cocktails” in the identification of goods is unacceptable as indefinite.  The applicant must amend the identification to specify the commercial name of the goods.  If there is no common commercial name for the product, the applicant must describe the product and its intended uses. TMEP §1402.01. The applicant may adopt the following identification, if accurate:

 

Prepared Liqueur based cocktails, in International Class 33. 

 

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 applicant may wish to consult the on-line identification manual on the PTO homepage for a searchable database of acceptable identifications for goods and services.  The manual is available at  http://www.gov.uspto.report/web/offices/tac/doc/gsmanual.

 

II.  Proper Response to Final Action

If applicant fails to respond to this final action within six months of the mailing date, the application will be abandoned.  15 U.S.C. §1062(b); 37 C.F.R. §2.65(a).  Applicant may respond to this final action by: 

 

(1)     submitting a response that fully satisfies all outstanding requirements, if feasible (37 C.F.R. §2.64(a)); and/or

(2)     filing an appeal to the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board, with an appeal fee of $100 per class (37 C.F.R. §§2.6(a)(18) and 2.64(a); TMEP §§715.01 and 1501 et seq.; TBMP Chapter 1200).

 

In certain circumstances, a petition to the Director may be filed to review a final action that is limited to procedural issues, pursuant to 37 C.F.R. §2.63(b)(2).  37 C.F.R. §2.64(a).  See 37 C.F.R. §2.146(b), TMEP §1704, and TBMP Chapter 1201.05 for an explanation of petitionable matter.  The petition fee is $100.  37 C.F.R. §2.6(a)(15).

 

 

 

 

//sio//

Stanley I. Osborne, Jr.

Trademark Attorney

Law Office 102

(571) 272-9205

(410) 672-3934

(571) 273-9205 (fax)

 

 

HOW TO RESPOND TO THIS OFFICE ACTION:

• ONLINE RESPONSE:  You may respond formally using the Office’s Trademark Electronic Application System (TEAS) Response to Office Action form (visit http://www.gov.uspto.report/teas/index.html and follow the instructions, but if the Office Action has been issued via email, you must wait 72 hours after receipt of the Office Action to respond via TEAS).
• REGULAR MAIL RESPONSE:  To respond by regular mail, your response should be sent to the mailing return address above and include the serial number, law office number and examining attorney’s name in your response.

 

STATUS OF APPLICATION: To check the status of your application, visit the Office’s Trademark Applications and Registrations Retrieval (TARR) system at http://tarr.uspto.gov.

 

VIEW APPLICATION DOCUMENTS ONLINE: Documents in the electronic file for pending applications can be viewed and downloaded online at http://portal.gov.uspto.report/external/portal/tow.

 

GENERAL TRADEMARK INFORMATION: For general information about trademarks, please visit the Office’s website at http://www.gov.uspto.report/main/trademarks.htm

 

FOR INQUIRIES OR QUESTIONS ABOUT THIS OFFICE ACTION, PLEASE CONTACT THE ASSIGNED EXAMINING ATTORNEY SPECIFIED ABOVE.