Offc Action Outgoing

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. 

 

MAILING/E-MAILING DATE INFORMATION:  If the mailing or e-mailing date of this Office action does not appear above, this information can be obtained by visiting the USPTO website at http://tarr.gov.uspto.report/, inserting the application serial number, and viewing the prosecution history for the mailing date of the most recently issued Office communication.

 

Serial Number  76/644006

 

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

 

Section 2(d) - Likelihood of Confusion Refusal

The examining attorney refuses registration under Trademark Act Section 2(d), 15 U.S.C. §1052(d), because applicant’s mark, when used on or in connection with the identified goods, so resembles the mark in U.S. Registration No. 2957141 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. 

 

Applicant seeks to register “XCEL” for use on “light beverages, namely energy drinks.”

 

The registered mark is “EXCEL LITE” for “low calorie pre-sweetened powdered mix used in the preparation of soft drinks,” with “LITE” disclaimed apart from the mark as shown.

 

Applicant’s mark closely resembles the registrant’s mark because it is completely incorporated in sound and meaning by the registrant’s mark.  The fact that the registrant’s mark includes the entirety of applicant’s mark may lead the ordinary consumer to perceive that the source of the marks is the same, namely “EXCEL” or “XCEL.” 

 

The mere deletion of wording from a registered mark is not sufficient to overcome a likelihood of confusion under Section 2(d).  See In re Optical Int’l, 196 USPQ 775 (TTAB 1977) (where applicant filed to register the mark OPTIQUE for optical wear, deletion of the term BOUTIQUE is insufficient to distinguish the mark, per se, from the registered mark OPTIQUE BOUTIQUE when used in connection with competing optical wear).  In the present case, applicant’s mark does not create a distinct commercial impression because it contains the same common wording as registrant’s mark, and there is no other wording to distinguish it from registrant’s mark.  The additional wording in the registrant’s mark is descriptive of the goods.  The dominant portion of the registrant’s mark is identical in sound and meaning to applicant’s mark.  Thus, the marks in question are very similar.

 

Furthermore, applicant’s and the registrant’s goods are closely related, because they are both drinks or mixes for drinks.  Attached are copies of printouts from the USPTO X-Search database, which show third-party registrations of marks used in connection with the same or similar goods as those of applicant and registrant in this case.  These printouts have probative value to the extent that they serve to suggest that the goods listed therein, namely drink mixes and energy drinks, are of a kind that may emanate from a single source.  See In re Infinity Broad. Corp., 60 USPQ2d 1214, 1217-1218 (TTAB 2001); In re Albert Trostel & Sons Co., 29 USPQ2d 1783, 1785-86 (TTAB 1993); In re Mucky Duck Mustard Co., Inc., 6 USPQ2d 1467, 1470 at n.6 (TTAB 1988).

 

The goods 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 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).  TMEP §1207.01(a)(i). 

 

The same consumers will be exposed to the goods identified with both marks.  The similarities among the marks and the goods of the parties are so great as to create a likelihood of confusion. 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.  In re Hyper Shoppes (Ohio), Inc., 837 F.2d 463, 6 USPQ2d 1025 (Fed. Cir., 1988).  TMEP §§1207.01(d)(i). 

 

Applicant’s mark closely resembles the registrant’s mark and the goods identified by these marks are closely related.  When used on these goods, applicant’s mark may cause confusion or mistake to the ordinary consumers as to the source of such goods in relation to the registrant’s mark.  Based on the above discussion, the examining attorney has determined to refuse registration of applicant’s mark.

 

Possible Likelihood of Confusion

Information is enclosed concerning pending Application Serial Nos. 75922990 and 76456166.  There may be a likelihood of confusion under Section 2(d) of the Act between applicant’s mark and the marks in the above noted applications.  The filing dates of the referenced applications precede applicant’s filing date.  If one or more of these earlier-filed applications registers, registration may be refused under Section 2(d).  37 C.F.R. §2.83.

 

Although the examining attorney has refused registration, applicant may respond to the refusal to register by submitting evidence and arguments in support of registration. 

 

If applicant has questions about its application or needs assistance in responding to this Office action, please telephone the assigned trademark examining attorney directly at the number below.

 

 

 

/Dawn Han/

Trademark Examining Attorney

Law Office 107

(571) 272-9432

dawn.han@uspto.gov

 

 

 

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.