UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
|
SERIAL NO: 76/681020
MARK: BBJ
|
|
|
CORRESPONDENT ADDRESS: |
RESPOND TO THIS ACTION: http://www.gov.uspto.report/teas/eTEASpageD.htm
GENERAL TRADEMARK INFORMATION: http://www.gov.uspto.report/main/trademarks.htm
|
|
APPLICANT: HERNANDEZ, ROBERT
|
|
|
CORRESPONDENT’S REFERENCE/DOCKET NO: CORRESPONDENT E-MAIL ADDRESS: |
|
TO AVOID ABANDONMENT, THE OFFICE MUST RECEIVE A PROPER RESPONSE TO THIS OFFICE ACTION WITHIN 6 MONTHS OF THE ISSUE/MAILING DATE.
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. §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. 1515490 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.
The examining attorney must compare the marks 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.
When the 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 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 §1207.01(b).
Registration Number 1515490 is for the mark B.B.J. The applicant is seeking to register the mark B B J 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).
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 goods of the registrant are “clothing – namely, pants, shorts, overalls, tops and jackets.” The applicant’s goods are “clothing, footwear, and headgear,” The applicant’s goods are of a similar nature to those of the registrant. The decisions in the clothing field have held many different types of apparel to be related under Section 2(d). Cambridge Rubber Co. v. Cluett, Peabody & Co., Inc., 286 F.2d 623, 128 USPQ 549 (C.C.P.A. 1961) (“WINTER CARNIVAL” for women’s boots v. men’s and boys’ underwear); Jockey Int’l, Inc. v. Mallory & Church Corp., 25 USPQ2d 1233 (TTAB 1992) (“ELANCE” for underwear v. “ELAAN” for neckties); In re Melville Corp. 18 USPQ2d 1386 (TTAB 1991) (“ESSENTIALS” for women’s pants, blouses, shorts and jackets v. women’s shoes); In re Pix of America, Inc., 225 USPQ 691 (TTAB 1985) (“NEWPORTS” for women’s shoes v. “NEWPORT” for outer shirts); In re Mercedes Slacks, Ltd., 213 USPQ 397 (TTAB 1982) (“OMEGA” for hosiery v. trousers); In re Cook United, Inc., 185 USPQ 444 (TTAB 1975) (“GRANADA” for men’s suits, coats, and trousers v. ladies’ pantyhose and hosiery); Esquire Sportswear Mfg. Co. v. Genesco Inc., 141 USPQ 400 (TTAB 1964) (“SLEEX” for brassieres and girdles v. slacks for men and young men).
Due to the similarities between the marks and the goods of the parties, registration is refused.
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.
In the present case, the application shows two different marks: A design of three circles and the letters B B J within a rectangle appears on the separate drawing page and BBALL JUNKIES appears in the body of the application. The applied-for mark has been determined to be the design of three circles and the letters B B J within a rectangle, the mark that appears on the separate drawing page of the application.
If an application shows two different marks, one in the body of the application and one on a separate drawing page, then the mark on the separate drawing page controls for purposes of determining what the mark is. In such cases, the Office disregards the mark found in the body of the application. In re L.G. Lavorazioni Grafite S.r.l., 61 USPQ2d 1063 (Dir USPTO 2001); TMEP §807.01.
The application includes the following description of the mark: The mark consists of three circle (including a basketball, a freethrow key, and a single circle) along with the letter “BBJ.”
This description is inaccurate because it fails to include the rectangle design that is also shown on the drawing page. The following description is recommended: The mark consists of three circles representing a basketball, a freethrow key, and a single circle along with the letters B B J, all of which are contained within a rectangle.
The identification of goods is unacceptable as indefinite. The common commercial name of the clothing and the headgear must be given. This information is necessary in order to permit proper identification and classification of the goods. The applicant may adopt the following identifications, if accurate:
Clothing, namely, [list by common commercial name, e.g., shirts, pants, jackets, sweaters, sweatshirts, sweatpants, shorts]; footwear; headgear, namely, [list by common commercial name, e.g., hats and caps]; in International Class 25.
Headgear, namely, protective helmets for sports; in International Class 9.
TMEP §1402.01.
For assistance with identifying goods and/or services in trademark applications, please see the online searchable Manual of Acceptable Identifications of Goods and Services at http://tess2.gov.uspto.report/netahtml/tidm.html.
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 or services that are not within the scope of the goods and services recited in the present identification.
If the applicant adopts the suggested amendments to the identification of goods, the applicant must amend the classification to the International Class given with each recommendation above. 37 C.F.R. §§2.32(a)(7) and 2.85; TMEP §§1401 et seq.
If applicant prosecutes this application as a combined, or multiple-class application, applicant must comply with each of the following for those goods based on an intent to use the mark in commerce under Trademark Act Section 1(b):
(1) Applicant must list the goods by international class with the classes listed in ascending numerical order; and
(2) Applicant must submit a filing fee for each international class of goods not covered by the fee already paid (current fee information should be confirmed at http://www.uspto.gov).
37 C.F.R. §2.86(a)(2); TMEP §§810 and 1403.01.
There is no required format or form for responding to this Office action. The Office recommends applicants use the Trademark Electronic Application System (TEAS) to respond to Office actions online at http://www.gov.uspto.report/teas/index.html. However, if applicant responds on paper via regular mail, the response should include the following information: (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.
The response should address each refusal and/or requirement raised in the Office action. If a refusal has issued, applicant may wish to argue against the refusal, i.e., submit arguments and/or evidence as to why the refusal should be withdrawn and why the mark should register. To respond to requirements, applicant should simply set forth in writing the required changes or statements and request that the Office enter them into the application record.
The response must be signed by applicant or someone with legal authority to bind applicant (i.e., a corporate officer of a corporate applicant, the equivalent of an officer for unincorporated organizations or limited liability company applicants, a general partner of a partnership applicant, each applicant for applications with multiple individual applicants, etc.). TMEP §§712 et seq.
If the applicant has any questions or needs assistance in responding to this Office action, please telephone the assigned examining attorney.
/Mary E. Crawford/
Trademark Attorney
Law Office 102
(571) 272 - 9149
RESPOND TO THIS ACTION: If there are any questions about the Office action, please contact the assigned examining attorney. A response to this Office action should be filed using the form available at http://www.gov.uspto.report/teas/eTEASpageD.htm. If notification of this Office action was received via e-mail, no response using this form may be filed for 72 hours after receipt of the notification. Do not attempt to respond by e-mail as the USPTO does not accept e-mailed responses.
If responding by paper mail, please include the following information: the application serial number, the mark, the filing date and the name, title/position, telephone number and e-mail address of the person signing the response. Please use the following address: Commissioner for Trademarks, P.O. Box 1451, Alexandria, VA 22313-1451.
STATUS CHECK: Check the status of the application at least once every six months from the initial filing date using the USPTO Trademark Applications and Registrations Retrieval (TARR) online system at http://tarr.uspto.gov. When conducting an online status check, print and maintain a copy of the complete TARR screen. If the status of your application has not changed for more than six months, please contact the assigned examining attorney.