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.

 

REGISTRATION

 

Likelihood of Confusion

 

Registration of the applied-for mark is refused because of a likelihood of confusion with the marks in U.S. Registration Nos. 1564334 and 2625028.  Trademark Act Section 2(d), 15 U.S.C. §1052(d); see TMEP §§1207.01 et seq.  See the enclosed registrations.

 

Trademark Act Section 2(d) bars registration of an applied-for mark that so resembles a registered mark that it is likely that a potential consumer would be confused or mistaken or deceived as to the source of the goods and/or services of the applicant and registrant.  See 15 U.S.C. §1052(d).  The court in In re E. I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., 476 F.2d 1357, 177 USPQ 563 (C.C.P.A. 1973) listed the principal factors to be considered when determining whether there is a likelihood of confusion under Section 2(d).  See TMEP §1207.01.  However, not all of the factors are necessarily relevant or of equal weight, and any one factor may be dominant in a given case, depending upon the evidence of record.  In re Majestic Distilling Co., 315 F.3d 1311, 1315, 65 USPQ2d 1201, 1204 (Fed. Cir. 2003); see In re E. I. du Pont, 476 F.2d at 1361-62, 177 USPQ at 567.

 

In this case, the following factors are the most relevant:  similarity of the marks, similarity of the goods and/or services, and similarity of trade channels of the goods and/or services.  See In re Opus One, Inc., 60 USPQ2d 1812 (TTAB 2001); In re Dakin’s Miniatures Inc., 59 USPQ2d 1593 (TTAB 1999); In re Azteca Rest. Enters., Inc., 50 USPQ2d 1209 (TTAB 1999); TMEP §§1207.01 et seq.

 

The proposed mark is closely related to the prior registered marks in each of the factors listed above in the DuPont case.  The sound, commercial meaning, and impression of the marks are closely related.  Applicant’s mark is LOWRIDER with a design.  Registrants’ marks are LOW RIDER.  The dominant portion of the marks are nearly identical creating a highly similar overall commercial impression.

 

Additionally, the goods of the parties are closely related.  The goods and/or services of the parties need not be identical or directly competitive to find a likelihood of confusion.  See Safety-Kleen Corp. v. Dresser Indus., Inc., 518 F.2d 1399, 1404, 186 USPQ 476, 480 (C.C.P.A. 1975); TMEP §1207.01(a)(i).  Rather, they need only be related in some manner, or the conditions surrounding their marketing are such that they would be encountered by the same purchasers under circumstances that would give rise to the mistaken belief that the goods and/or services come from a common source.  In re Total Quality Group, Inc., 51 USPQ2d 1474, 1476 (TTAB 1999); TMEP §1207.01(a)(i); see, e.g., On-line Careline Inc. v. Am. Online Inc., 229 F.3d 1080, 1086-87, 56 USPQ2d 1471, 1475-76 (Fed. Cir. 2000); In re Martin’s Famous Pastry Shoppe, Inc., 748 F.2d 1565, 1566-68, 223 USPQ 1289, 1290 (Fed. Cir. 1984).

 

The applicant offers LOWRIDER BIKES, BEACH CRUISER BIKES and CHOPPER BIKES BICYCLE PARTS; the registrants offer motorcycles (1564334); and bicycle fork block racks for use primarily with vehicles (2625028).  The goods are overlapping and found in the same channels of trade.  Consumers, therefore, are likely to believe that the goods/services of the parties originate from the same source.

 

Registration of the proposed mark must therefore be refused.  The applicant may, however, offer evidence in support of registration.

 

INFORMALITIES

 

If the applicant chooses to respond to the refusal to register, the applicant must also respond to the following informalities:

 

Date of First Use in Commerce

 

The application does not include the required date of first use in commerce.  Both a date of first use anywhere and a date of first use in commerce must be provided, even if they are the same.  15 U.S.C. §1051(a)(2); 37 C.F.R. §2.34(a)(1)(ii)-(iii); TMEP §§903, 903.04.

 

Therefore, applicant must (1) specify the date of first use of the mark in commerce, and (2) verify this date with an affidavit or signed declaration under 37 C.F.R. §§2.20, 2.33.  See 37 C.F.R. §2.71(c); TMEP §903.05.

 

Specimen of Use Required

 

The application is incomplete because it does not include the required specimen showing use of the applied-for mark in commerce for the goods and/or services identified in the application.  An application based on Section 1(a) of the Trademark Act must include a specimen showing the applied-for mark in use in commerce for each class of goods and/or services.  Trademark Act Sections 1(a) and 45, 15 U.S.C. §§1051(a), 1127; 37 C.F.R. §§2.34(a)(1)(iv), 2.56; TMEP §§904, 904.07(a).

 

Therefore, applicant must submit the following:

 

(1)   A specimen (i.e., an example of how applicant actually uses its mark in commerce) for each class of goods and/or services based on use in commerce; and

 

(2)    The following statement, verified with an affidavit or signed declaration under 37 C.F.R. §2.20:  “The specimen was in use in commerce at least as early as the filing date of the application.”  37 C.F.R. §2.56(a); TMEP §904.05.  If submitting a specimen requires an amendment to the dates of use, applicant must also verify the amended dates.  37 C.F.R. §2.71(c).

 

Examples of 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 §§904.03 et seq.  Examples of specimens for services are signs, photographs, brochures, website printouts or advertisements that show the mark used in the sale or advertising of the services.  TMEP §§1301.04 et seq.

 

If applicant cannot satisfy the above requirements, applicant may amend the Section 1(a) filing basis (use in commerce) to Section 1(b) (intent to use basis), for which no specimen is required.  However, should applicant amend the basis to Section 1(b), registration cannot be granted until applicant later amends the application back to use in commerce by filing an acceptable allegation of use with a proper specimen.  15 U.S.C. §1051(c); 37 C.F.R. §§2.76, 2.88; TMEP Chapter 1100. 

 

In order to amend to Section 1(b), applicant must submit the following statement, verified with an affidavit or signed declaration under 37 C.F.R. §2.20:  “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.”  15 U.S.C. §1051(b); 37 C.F.R. §§2.34(a)(2) and 2.35(b)(1); TMEP §806.03(c).

 

Pending a proper response, registration is refused because applicant has not provided evidence of use in commerce of the applied-for mark.  15 U.S.C. §§1051(a), 1127; 37 C.F.R. §§2.34(a)(1)(iv), 2.56; TMEP §§904, 904.07(a).

 

Entity Indefinite

 

The name of an individual person appears in the section of the application intended for the trademark owner’s name; however, the entity type is set forth as an individual, a corporation and a partnership.  Applicant must clarify this inconsistency.  TMEP §§803.02(a), 803.03.

 

If applicant is an individual, applicant may request that the entity be amended to “individual” and indicate his/her country of citizenship for the record.  See 15 U.S.C. §1051(a)(2); 37 C.F.R. §2.32(a)(3)(i); TMEP §§803.02(a), 803.03(a).  Alternatively, if applicant is a corporation, the correct name of the corporation and U.S. state or foreign country of incorporation or organization should be set forth.  TMEP §§803.02(c), 803.03(c).  If applicant is a partnership, applicant must specify the name of the partnership and U.S. state or foreign country of formation.  Applicant must also specify the names and citizenships of the general partners.

 

If, in response to the above request, applicant provides information indicating that it is not the owner of the mark, registration will be refused under Trademark Act Section 1 because the application was void as filed.  An application must be filed by the owner of the mark.  15 U.S.C. §1051; 37 C.F.R. §2.71(d); TMEP §§803.01, 803.06.

 

Description of the Mark

 

Applicant must submit a concise description of the mark.  37 C.F.R. §2.37; see TMEP §§808 et seq.  The following is suggested:

 

The mark consists of the wording LOWRIDER with the design of a man with a moustache wearing a hat above the wording.

 

Identification of Goods

 

The identification of goods is unacceptable as indefinite.  Applicant may not use the mark in the identification.  Applicant must clarify “bikes” as the term includes bicycles, tricycles, dirt bikes and motorcycles.  The term CHOPPER is a registered mark.  Registered marks may not be used in identifications.  See attached registration.  The applicant may adopt the following identification, if accurate:  Motorcycles, beach cruising motorcycles and bicycle parts, namely, [applicant must specify, e.g. brakes, chains] (in International Class 12).  TMEP §1402.01.

 

Identifications of goods and/or services can be amended only to clarify or limit the goods and/or services; adding to or broadening the scope of the goods and/or services is not permitted.  37 C.F.R. §2.71(a); see TMEP §§1402.06 et seq., 1402.07.  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.

 

Applicant’s Response

 

Guidelines for responding are set forth below. 

 

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.

 

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.

 

William Breckenfeld

/William Breckenfeld/

Trademark Attorney

Law Office 116

571-272-9133

571-273-9116 Fax (Official Responses Only)

 

 

RESPOND TO THIS ACTION: Applicant should file a response to this Office action online using the form at http://www.gov.uspto.report/teas/eTEASpageD.htm, waiting 48-72 hours if applicant received notification of the Office action via e-mail.  For technical assistance with the form, please e-mail TEAS@uspto.gov.  For questions about the Office action itself, please contact the assigned examining attorney.  Do not respond to this Office action by e-mail; 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.