Offc Action Outgoing

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE

 

 

 

OFFICE ACTION

 

TO AVOID ABANDONMENT, THE OFFICE MUST RECEIVE A PROPER RESPONSE TO THIS OFFICE ACTION WITHIN 6 MONTHS OF THE ISSUE/MAILING DATE.

 

ISSUE/MAILING DATE:

 

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

 

LIKELIHOOD OF CONFUSION

 

Registration of the proposed mark is refused because of a likelihood of confusion with the marks in U.S. Registration Nos. 2612990 and 1544526.  Trademark Act Section 2(d), 15 U.S.C. §1052(d); TMEP §§1207.01 et seq.  See the enclosed registrations.

 

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.

 

The applicant applied to register FAT CAT  for golf clubs, golf club shafts, golf bags, golf club travel bags, golf club covers golf club travel duffel bags, golf caps, wind shirts and golf shirts The registered marks are:  JAZZ FAT CAT P2W for golf clubs and PHAT CATZ for athletic shoes.

 

The marks are compared in their entireties under a Section 2(d) analysis.  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., 753 F.2d 1056, 224 USPQ 749 (Fed. Cir. 1985); Tektronix, Inc. v. Daktronics, Inc., 534 F.2d 915, 189 USPQ 693 (C.C.P.A. 1976). In re J.M. Originals Inc., 6 USPQ2d 1393 (TTAB 1987); TMEP §1207.01(b)(viii).  The dominant part of these marks is the wording FAT CAT, in one spelling or another.

 

As to Registration No. 2612990, JAZZ FAT CAT P2W, this applicant is Jazz Sports Limited, while the registrant in that case is Jazz Golf Equipment, Inc.  If the mark in the cited registration has been assigned to applicant, applicant can provide evidence of ownership of the mark by satisfying one of the following:

 

(1)   Record the assignment with the Assignment Services Division of the Office and provide a written statement to the trademark examining attorney that the assignment has been duly recorded;

(2)   Submit copies of documents evidencing chain of title; or

(3)   Submit the following statement, verified with an affidavit or signed declaration under 37 C.F.R. §2.20:  “Applicant is the owner of U.S. Registration No. 2612990.”   Claiming ownership to prior related registrations is also explained later in this letter.

 

TMEP §812.01; see 15 U.S.C. §1060; 37 C.F.R. §§3.25, 3.73; TMEP §502.02(a).

 

The goods of the parties are identical. The only difference between the marks is that the registration contains additional wording.  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.

 

As to Registration No. 1544526, the marks are essentially phonetic equivalents and are thus similar sounding.  Similarity in sound alone may be sufficient to support a finding of likelihood of confusion.  RE/MAX of America, Inc. v. Realty Mart, Inc., 207 USPQ 960, 964 (TTAB 1980); Molenaar, Inc. v. Happy Toys Inc., 188 USPQ 469 (TTAB 1975); In re Cresco Mfg. Co., 138 USPQ 401 (TTAB 1963); TMEP §1207.01(b)(iv).

 

Athletic shoes and athletic clothing are closely related goods.  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).

 

 

All of these marks are used to identify clothing, athletic clothing and golf equipment.  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 which is totally dissimilar to trademarks already being used.  Burroughs Wellcome Co. v. Warner‑Lambert Co., 203 USPQ 191 (TTAB 1979).

 

 

Information About Prior Pending Application[s]

 

Information regarding pending Application Serial No. 77261832 is enclosed.  The filing date of the referenced application precedes applicant’s filing date.  There may be a likelihood of confusion between the two marks under Trademark Act Section 2(d), 15 U.S.C. §1052(d).  If the referenced application registers, registration may be refused in this case under Section 2(d).  37 C.F.R. §2.83; TMEP §§1208 et seq.  Therefore, upon entry of a response to this Office action, action on this case may be suspended pending final disposition of the earlier-filed application.

 

If applicant believes there is no potential conflict between this application and the earlier-filed application, then applicant may present arguments relevant to the issue in a response to this Office action.  The election not to submit arguments at this time in no way limits applicant’s right to address this issue at a later point.

 

 

 

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.

 

COMMON OWNERSHIP OF CITED REGISTRATIONS

 

If applicant is the owner of U.S. Registration Nos. 2612990 and/or 1544526, then applicant must submit a claim of ownership.  37 C.F.R. §2.36; TMEP §812.  The following standard format is suggested:

 

Applicant is the owner of U.S. Registration Nos. (list relevant registration numbers owned by applicant).

 

 

 

GOODS

 

The wording referenced below in the identification of goods is indefinite and must be clarified because it includes goods that belong in more than one class.  Applicant must amend the identification to specify the common commercial name of the goods.  If there is no common commercial name, applicant must describe the product and its intended uses.  TMEP §1402.01.  The applicant must also amend the application to classify the goods in the correct classes.  37 C.F.R. §§2.32(a)(7) and 2.85; TMEP §§1401.02(a) and 1401.03(b).

 

Clothing belongs in Class 25. Sporting goods belong in Class 28.  The applicant may amend to any or all of the following, as may be accurate:

 

 

Class 25:          golf caps, wind shirts and golf shirts

 

 

 

Class 28:          golf clubs, golf club shafts, golf bags, golf club travel bags,  golf club covers, golf club travel duffel bags

 

 

 

Please note that, while the identification of goods and/or services may be amended to clarify or limit the goods and/or services, adding to the goods and/or services or broadening the scope of the goods and/or services is not permitted.  37 C.F.R. §2.71(a); TMEP §§1402.01 and 1402.03(a).   Therefore, applicant may not amend the identification to include goods and/or services that are not within the scope of the goods and/or services set forth in the present identification.

 

 

The applicant is advised that the above suggestions may not be a complete listing of acceptable specifications available to the applicant, but are instead provided only as suggestions.  It is the applicant's duty to properly identify and classify the goods and services.   TMEP Section 1402.01(e).  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/ or  http://tess2.gov.uspto.report/netahtml/tidm.html.

 

Please also note that the applicant may not use the indefinite wording “and/or,” “or,” or “etc.” in its identification of goods/services.  The applicant must use the more definite word “and” when listing more than one item.  The applicant may not use parentheticals in its description of goods/services.  The examining attorney used them above merely to indicate wording that requires further amendment.

 

 

 

MULTI-CLASS FILING RULES

 

The application identifies goods and/or services that are classified in at least two classes; however, the fees submitted are sufficient for only one class(es).  In a multiple-class application, a fee for each class is required.  37 C.F.R. §2.86(a)(2); TMEP §§810-810.01 and 1403.01.

 

Therefore, applicant must either:  (1) restrict the application to the number of class(es) covered by the fee(s) already paid, or (2) submit the fees for the additional class(es). 

 

If applicant prosecutes this application as a combined, or multiple-class application, applicant must comply with each of the following for those goods and/or services based on an intent to use the mark in commerce under Trademark Act Section 1(b):

 

(1)   Applicant must list the goods and/or services 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 and/or services 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.

 

The filing fee for adding classes to an application is as follows:

 

(1)     $325 per class, when the fees are submitted with a response filed online via the Trademark Electronic Application System (TEAS) at http://www.gov.uspto.report/teas/index.html; and

 

(2)     $375 per class, when the fees are submitted with a paper response. 

 

37 C.F.R. §§2.6(a)(i) and (ii); TMEP §810.

 

 

STANDARD CHARACTER CLAIM REQUIRED

 

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).

 

 

 

NOTE: APPLICABLE LEGAL AUTHORITIES

The following legal authorities govern the processing of trademark and service mark applications by the Office:  The Trademark Act, 15 U.S.C. §§1051 et seq., the Trademark Rules of Practice, 37 C.F.R. Part 2, and the Office’s Trademark Manual of Examining Procedure (TMEP) (4th ed., 2005).

“TMEP” refers to the Office’s Trademark Manual of Examining Procedure (4th ed., 2005), available on the United States Patent and Trademark Office website at  http://tess2.gov.uspto.report/netahtml/tidm.html   This is a detailed guidebook written by the Office to explain the laws and procedures that govern the trademark application, registration and post registration processes.   

The Trademark Applications and Registrations Retrieval (TARR) database on the USPTO website at http://tarr.uspto.gov provides detailed, up to the minute information about the status and prosecution history of trademark applications and registrations.  Please note that an application serial number or registration number is needed to be able to access this database.  TARR is available 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.

 

 

 

/Elissa Garber Kon/

Examining Attorney, Law Office 106

Phone:  (571) 272-9181

Fax:  (571) 273-9106

Email:  elissagarber.kon@uspto.gov

 

 

 

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.