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  76/619952

 

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

 

Section 2(d) - Likelihood of Confusion Refusal

 

Registration of the proposed mark is refused because of a likelihood of confusion with the mark in U.S. Registration No. 1,941,195.  Trademark Act Section 2(d), 15 U.S.C. §1052(d); TMEP §§1207.01 et seq.  See the enclosed registration.

 

Taking into account the relevant Du Pont factors, a likelihood of confusion determination in this case involves a two-part analysis.  First, the marks are compared for similarities in appearance, sound, connotation and commercial impression.  In re E .I. du Pont 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 National Novice Hockey League, Inc., 222 USPQ 638 (TTAB 1984); 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.

 

In this case, the applicant’s mark, KNOWEAR, is highly similar to the registrant’s mark, KNOW-WEAR and design.  The literal portions of both marks are nearly identical in appearance, sound and meaning.  The addition of the design element does not obviate the similarity between the marks in this case.  In re Shell Oil Company, 992 F.2d 1204, 26 USPQ2d 1687 (Fed. Cir. 1993); Coca-Cola Bottling Co. v. Joseph E. Seagram & Sons, Inc., 526 F.2d 556, 188 USPQ 105 (C.C.P.A. 1975); TMEP §1207.01(c)(ii).

 

Furthermore, the goods are closely related and overlapping.  The applicant’s goods are “clothing / pants, shirts, jackets, shoes.”  The registrant’s goods are “clothing, namely jackets, pullovers (tops), sweats, sweaters, pants, skirts, vests, T-shirts, headbands, gloves.”  Neither the application nor the registration(s) contain any limitations regarding trade channels for the goods and therefore it is assumed that registrant’s and applicant’s goods are sold everywhere that is normal for such items, i.e., clothing and department stores.  Thus, it can also be assumed that the same classes of purchasers shop for these items and that consumers are accustomed to seeing them sold under the same or similar marks.  See Kangol Ltd. V. KangaROOS U.S.A. Inc., 974 F.2d 161, 23 USPQ2d 1945 (Fed. Cir. 1992); In re Smith and Mehaffey, 31 USPQ2d 1531 (TTAB 1994).

 

Because the marks are highly similar and the goods are closely related and overlapping, there is a substantial likelihood that consumers would be confused 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 informalities.

 

Basis Unclear

 

Applicant must clarify the basis under which the application was filed because the application indicates an intent-to-use basis but  a Section 1(a) basis is also indicated.

 

An application may be filed based on the following:

 

(1)  use of the mark in commerce under Trademark Act Section 1(a), 15 U.S.C. §1051(a) (TMEP §806.01(a));

 

(2)  a bona fide intention to use the mark in commerce under Trademark Act Section 1(b), 15

U.S.C.      § 1051(b) (TMEP §806.01(b));

 

(3)  a claim of priority, based on a foreign application filed within six months prior to the United States application, under Trademark Act Section 44(d), 15 U.S.C. § 1126(d) (TMEP §806.01(c));

 

(4)  foreign registration of a mark in the applicant's country of origin under Trademark Act Section 44(e), 15 U.S.C. §1126(e) (TMEP §806.01(d)).

 

Applicant must specify at least one basis for filing and the applicant must submit all of the requirements for the basis asserted. TMEP § 806. Depending on the circumstances, applicant may be entitled to assert more than one basis for filing. In such a case, applicant must: (1) satisfy all requirements for each basis claimed; (2) clearly indicate that it is claiming more than one basis, and (3) separately list each basis, followed by the goods or services to which that basis applies. See 37 C.F.R. §2.34. TMEP §§806.02 et seq.

 

Although multi-basis applications are permitted, applicant may not assert both use in commerce under Trademark Act Section 1(a) and intent to use the mark in commerce under Trademark Act Section 1(b) for the same goods or services. 37 C.F.R. §2.34(b)(l); TMEP §806.02(b).

 

It appears that the applicant intended a Section 1(b) basis.  Applicant must submit the following statement in order to satisfy the application requirements for asserting a basis for registration under Section 1(b) of the Trademark Act:

 

Applicant has 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 filing date of the application.

 

Trademark Act Section 1(b), 15 U.S.C. § 1051(b).  This statement must be verified with an affidavit or a signed declaration under 37 C.F.R, §2.20.  Trademark Act Section 1(b), 15 U.S.C. §1051(b); 37 C.F.R. §2.34(a)(2); TMEP §§806.01(b) and 804.02.

 

Joint Applicants

 

Applicant must clarify its entity type because there is an inconsistency in the application.  Specifically, the application indicates that the applicants are individual, a corporation, and a partnership.

 

A mark is usually owned by a single business entity or one individual.  If both named applicants own the mark jointly, they must state that they are joint applicants.  TMEP §803.03(d).  Applicant cannot amend the application to designate another entity as the applicant.  If the application was filed in the name of the wrong party, then this application is considered void.  In such a case, the true owner may refile a new application for the mark, with a new filing fee.  TMEP §803.06.

 

Standard Character Drawing Claim

 

Applicant must submit the following standard character claim:  “The mark consists of standard characters without claim to any particular font style, size, or color.”  37 C.F.R. §2.52(a); TMEP §807.03(a).

 

Identification of Goods

 

The wording “clothing” in the identification of goods needs clarification because it is indefinite.  TMEP §1402.01.  Applicant may adopt the following identification of goods, if accurate: 

 

Clothing, namely, pants, shirts, jackets, shoes in Class 25.

 

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/.

 

Signed Declaration Required

 

Applicant must submit a written statement attesting to the facts set forth in the application, and confirming 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.  This statement must be 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.  15 U.S.C. §1051(b)(3)(B); 37 C.F.R. §§2.34(a)(2)(i), (a)(3)(i) and (a)(4)(ii); TMEP §§804.02, 806.01(b), 806.01(c), 806.01(d) and 1101.  No signed verification was provided with the application.

 

To satisfy this requirement, applicant may add the following declaration paragraph at the end of its response, properly signed and dated:

 

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 and the like 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, or, if the application is being filed under 15 U.S.C. §1051(b), 1126(d) or 1126(e), he/she believes applicant to be entitled to use such mark in commerce; that the 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; that the facts set forth in the application are true and correct; 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; 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)

 

Response

 

Please note that there is no required format or form for responding to this Office action.  However, applicant should include the following information on all correspondence with the Office:  (1) the name and law office number of the examining attorney; (2) the serial number of this application; (3) the mailing date of this Office action; and, (4) applicant's telephone number.

 

When responding to this Office action, applicant must make sure to respond in writing to each refusal and requirement raised.  If there is a refusal to register the proposed mark, then applicant may wish to argue against the refusal, i.e., explain why it should be withdrawn and why the mark should register.  If there are other requirements, then applicant should simply set forth in writing the required changes or statements and request that the Office enter them into the application record.  Applicant must also sign and date its response.

 

Applicant may wish to hire a specialist attorney to assist in prosecuting this application because of the technicalities involved.  The Office cannot aid in the selection of a trademark attorney.  37 C.F.R. §2.11.  Applicant may wish to consult the Yellow Pages for a listing of attorneys specializing in trademark or intellectual property law, or seek guidance from its local Bar Association attorney-referral service.

 

NOTICE:  FEE CHANGE   

 

Effective January 31, 2005 and pursuant to the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2005, Pub. L. 108-447, the following are the fees that will be charged for filing a trademark application:

 

(1) $325 per international class if filed electronically using the Trademark Electronic Application System (TEAS); or 

 

(2)   $375 per international class if filed on paper

 

These fees will be charged not only when a new application is filed, but also when payments are made to add classes to an existing application. If such payments are submitted with a TEAS response, the fee will be  $325 per class, and if such payments are made with a paper response, the fee will be $375 per class.

 

The new fee requirements will apply to any fees filed on or after January 31, 2005.

 

NOTICE:  TRADEMARK OPERATION RELOCATION

 

The Trademark Operation has relocated to Alexandria, Virginia.  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, attorneys and other Trademark customers are strongly encouraged to correspond with the USPTO online via the Trademark Electronic Application System (TEAS), at http://www.gov.uspto.report/teas/index.html.

 

 

/Ronald McMorrow/

Examining Attorney

Law Office 105

(571) 272-9306

 

 

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 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.