UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
SERIAL NO: 76/626919
APPLICANT: K-MARKETING, INC.
|
|
CORRESPONDENT ADDRESS: |
RETURN ADDRESS: Commissioner for Trademarks P.O. Box 1451 Alexandria, VA 22313-1451
|
MARK: OLA
|
|
CORRESPONDENT’S REFERENCE/DOCKET NO: 232TM0104
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 76/626919 MARK: OLA
The assigned examining attorney has reviewed the referenced application and determined the following.
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. 2490053 be likely to cause confusion, to cause mistake, or to deceive. TMEP section 1207. 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 (CCPA 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).
The applicant has applied to register the mark “OLA.” The registered mark No. 2490053 is for the wording “OLA EL MOVIMIENTO.” The applicant’s mark and the registered mark are highly similar in that they share the wording “OLA.” Although the registered mark also contains the additional wording “EL MOVIMIENTO”, this does not diminish the common commercial impression created by both marks. The test of likelihood of confusion is not whether the marks can be distinguished when subjected to a side‑by‑side comparison. The issue is whether the marks create the same overall impression. Visual Information Institute, Inc. v. Vicon Industries Inc., 209 USPQ 179 (TTAB 1980). The focus is on the recollection of the average purchaser who normally retains a general rather than specific impression of trademarks. Chemetron Corp. v. Morris Coupling & Clamp Co., 203 USPQ 537 (TTAB 1979); Sealed Air Corp. v. Scott Paper Co., 190 USPQ 106 (TTAB 1975); TMEP section 1207.01(b).
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).
The registered mark is used in connection with "men’s and women’s clothing; namely, tee shirts, shirts, hats, pants and shorts.” The applicant intends to use the mark in connection with “Clothing, namely headwear, in the nature of multi-functional headwear that can be worn as but not limited to a bandana, scarf, sock, cap or mask; body wear in the nature of multi-functional tubular body wear that can be worn as but not limited to a skirt, belt, tube top; jackets, shirts, sweatshirts, warm-up suits, and hats” The goods of the registered mark and the goods of the applicant are identical goods, namely, clothing goods. In fact, the parties have goods in commonly, in particular, shirts, and hats. Accordingly, it is reasonable to conclude that potential consumers exposed to the goods at issue identified with the applicant’s mark and the respective registered mark may be confused as to the source of the goods.
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).
Overall the similarities between the marks and the goods are so great as to create a likelihood of confusion. The examining attorney must resolve any doubt regarding a likelihood of confusion in favor of the prior registrant. In re Hyper Shoppes (Ohio), Inc., 837 F.2d 463, 6 USPQ2d 1025 (Fed. Cir., 1988).
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 applicant chooses to respond to the refusal(s) to register, then applicant must also respond to the following requirement(s).
MEANING/TRANSLATION
The applicant must indicate whether the wording in the mark has any significance in the relevant trade or industry, any geographical significance or any meaning in a foreign language.
With respect to the Statement of Use, the assigned examining attorney has reviewed the referenced application and determined the following.
SPECIMEN DOES NOT SHOW USE OF MARK WITH THE SPECIFIED GOODS
Applicant must submit a substitute specimen showing use of the mark for the goods specified in the application. 37 C.F.R. §2.56; TMEP §904. The current specimen of record comprises a paper with the mark displayed upon it, the applicant has applied to register the mark in connection with goods. The applicant is required to provide a specimen that show the mark as it is used in connection with the specified goods. 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. 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.
Georgia Ann Carty Ellis
/Georgia Ann Carty Ellis/
Trademark Attorney
Law Office 108
(571) 272-9377
HOW TO RESPOND TO THIS OFFICE ACTION:
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 SPECIFIC INQUIRIES OR QUESTIONS ABOUT THIS OFFICE ACTION, PLEASE CONTACT THE ASSIGNED EXAMINING ATTORNEY SPECIFIED ABOVE.