UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE (USPTO)
OFFICE ACTION (OFFICIAL LETTER) ABOUT APPLICANT’S TRADEMARK APPLICATION
APPLICATION SERIAL NO. 76705533
MARK: ON THE SPOT
|
|
CORRESPONDENT ADDRESS: |
CLICK HERE TO RESPOND TO THIS LETTER: http://www.gov.uspto.report/trademarks/teas/response_forms.jsp
|
APPLICANT: CAMBIO ENTERTAINMENT, LLC
|
|
CORRESPONDENT’S REFERENCE/DOCKET NO: CORRESPONDENT E-MAIL ADDRESS: |
|
TO AVOID ABANDONMENT OF APPLICANT’S TRADEMARK APPLICATION, THE USPTO MUST RECEIVE APPLICANT’S COMPLETE RESPONSE TO THIS LETTER WITHIN 6 MONTHS OF THE ISSUE/MAILING DATE BELOW.
The present application was suspended pending disposition of previously noted prior pending Application Serial No. The noted application has registered and the present mark is now refused as follows:
LIKELIHOOD OF CONFUSION REFUSAL
Applicant seeks to register the mark ON THE SPOT and design for “Entertainment in the nature of talent contests; providing information about music, the music industry, talent contests, and entertainment via computer networks and telecommunications networks; providing a website featuring online musical videos, musical performances, and related film clips; entertainment services, namely, an ongoing series featuring talent contests provided via the Internet and telecommunications networks.”
Registrant has registered the mark THE SPOT for “Entertainment services, namely, an on-going dramatic series provided over the Internet.”
The marks are highly similar. Applicant has merely added the preposition “ON” and a design to the registered mark. The mere addition of a term to a registered mark generally does not obviate the similarity between the marks nor does it overcome a likelihood of confusion under Trademark Act Section 2(d). See In re Chatam Int’l Inc., 380 F.3d 1340, 71 USPQ2d 1944 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (GASPAR’S ALE and JOSE GASPAR GOLD); Coca-Cola Bottling Co. v. Jos. E. Seagram & Sons, Inc., 526 F.2d 556, 188 USPQ 105 (C.C.P.A. 1975) (BENGAL and BENGAL LANCER); Lilly Pulitzer, Inc. v. Lilli Ann Corp., 376 F.2d 324, 153 USPQ 406 (C.C.P.A. 1967) (THE LILLY and LILLI ANN); In re Toshiba Med. Sys. Corp., 91 USPQ2d 1266 (TTAB 2009) (TITAN and VANTAGE TITAN); In re El Torito Rests., Inc., 9 USPQ2d 2002 (TTAB 1988) (MACHO and MACHO COMBOS); In re Corning Glass Works, 229 USPQ 65 (TTAB 1985) (CONFIRM and CONFIRMCELLS); In re U.S. Shoe Corp., 229 USPQ 707 (TTAB 1985) (CAREER IMAGE and CREST CAREER IMAGES); In re Riddle, 225 USPQ 630 (TTAB 1985) (ACCUTUNE and RICHARD PETTY’S ACCU TUNE); TMEP §1207.01(b)(iii).
Further, the addition of a design element does not obviate the similarity of the marks in this case. See In re Shell Oil Co., 992 F.2d 1204, 1206, 26 USPQ2d 1687, 1688 (Fed. Cir. 1993); TMEP §1207.01(c)(ii). For a composite mark containing both words and a design, the word portion may be more likely to be impressed upon a purchaser’s memory and to be used when requesting the goods and/or services. In re Dakin’s Miniatures, Inc., 59 USPQ2d 1593, 1596 (TTAB 1999); TMEP §1207.01(c)(ii); see In re Viterra Inc., 671 F.3d 1358, 1362, 101 USPQ2d 1905, 1908, 1911 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (citing CBS Inc. v. Morrow, 708 F. 2d 1579, 1581-82, 218 USPQ 198, 200 (Fed. Cir 1983)). Thus, although such marks must be compared in their entireties, the word portion is often considered the dominant feature and is accorded greater weight in determining whether marks are confusingly similar, even where the word portion has been disclaimed. In re Viterra Inc., 671 F.3d at 1366, 101 USPQ2d at 1911 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (citing Giant Food, Inc. v. Nation’s Foodservice, Inc., 710 F.2d 1565, 1570-71, 218 USPQ2d 390, 395 (Fed. Cir. 1983)).
Here, the services are closely related. Both parties identify an ongoing series via the Internet. Further, applicant’s other entertainment services are also closely related to registrant’s ongoing series. The examining attorney also relies on the identification of goods and services in the present application to show relatedness of registrant’s goods to applicant’s goods and services. Applicant itself identifies a variety of entertainment services together with its ongoing series. Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Packard Press Inc., 281 F.3d 1261, 1267, 62 USPQ2d 1001, 1004 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (Board erred in finding that there was insufficient evidence of relatedness, “because the Board did not consider the important evidence already before it, namely the ITU application and [opposer’s multiple] registrations”). See TMEP §1207.01(a)(vi)
IDENTIFICATION OF THE SERVICES
Applicant identifies the services as follows and argues against the requirement for an amended acceptable identification of the services.
Class 41: Entertainment in the nature of talent contests; providing information about music, the music industry, talent contests, and entertainment via computer networks and telecommunications networks; providing a website featuring online musical videos, musical performances, and related film clips; entertainment services, namely, an ongoing series featuring talent contests provided via the Internet and telecommunications networks
The wording “providing information about music, the music industry, talent contests, and entertainment via computer networks and telecommunications networks” in the identification of services is indefinite and must be clarified because the wording does not satisfy the Office’s requirements for specificity and the nature of the services is not clear. See TMEP §1402.01.
Information services are classified according to the subject matter of the information provided. TMEP §1402.11(b). Following are examples of proper classification: “providing information pertaining to purchasing an automobile” in International Class 35; “providing information regarding financing and insuring an automobile” in International Class 36; and “providing information regarding the repair and maintenance of automobiles” in International Class 37. If the information is provided online or via a website, this information should also be included in the identification of services, e.g., “providing online information in the field of health care information” in International Class 44. Therefore, to enable proper classification and examination of the application, applicant must specify the subject matter of the “information services.”
Applicant must amend the objectionable wording to specify the common commercial or generic name for the services. If there is no common commercial or generic name for the services, then applicant must describe the nature of the services as well as their main purpose, channels of trade, and the intended consumer(s).
Applicant may adopt one or more of the following amended identification of the services, if accurate:
For assistance with identifying and classifying 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 . See TMEP §1402.04.
MULTICLASS APPLICATION REQUIREMENTS
Therefore, applicant must either restrict the application to the number of classes covered by the fees already paid, or submit the fees for the additional class(es).
(1) Applicant must list the goods and/or services by international class.
(2) Applicant must submit an application filing fee for each international class of goods and/or services not covered by the fee(s) already paid (confirm current fee information at http://www.gov.uspto.report/trademarks/tm_fee_info.jsp).
(3) For each international class of goods and/or services, applicant must also submit the following:
(a) Dates of first use of the mark anywhere and dates of first use of the mark in commerce, or a statement that the dates of use in the initial application apply to that class. The dates of use, both anywhere and in commerce, must be at least as early as the filing date of the application.
(b) One specimen showing the mark in use in commerce for each international class of goods and/or services. Applicant must have used the specimen in commerce at least as early as the filing date of the application. If a single specimen supports multiple international classes, applicant should indicate which classes the specimen supports. Examples of specimens for goods are tags, labels, instruction manuals, containers, photographs that show the mark on the actual goods or packaging, or displays associated with the goods at their point of sale. See 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 actual sale or advertising of the services. See TMEP §§1301.04 et seq.
(c) The following statement: “The specimen was in use in commerce on or in connection with the goods and/or services listed in the application at least as early as the filing date of the application.”
(d) Applicant must verify the statements in 3(a) and 3(c) (above) in an affidavit or signed declaration under 37 C.F.R. §2.20. Verification is not required where (1) the dates of use for the added class are stated to be the same as the dates of use specified in the initial application, and (2) the original specimens are acceptable for the added class(es).
See 15 U.S.C. §§1051(a), 1112, 1127; 37 C.F.R. §§2.32(a)(5), 2.34(a)(1), 2.56(a), 2.71(c), 2.86(a), 2.193(e)(1); TMEP §§1403.01, 1403.02(c).
With respect to the specimen requirement in 3(b) above in which a specimen is required for each international class of goods and/or services, the specimen(s) of record is acceptable for International Class 41 only. Applicant must submit additional specimens if different international classes are added to the application.
CLOSING
/Tracy Fletcher/
Trademark Examining Attorney
Law Office 115
U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
Telephone: (571) 272-9471
Facsimile: (571) 273-9471
tracy.fletcher@uspto.gov
TO RESPOND TO THIS LETTER: Go to http://www.gov.uspto.report/trademarks/teas/response_forms.jsp. Please wait 48-72 hours from the issue/mailing date before using TEAS, to allow for necessary system updates of the application. For technical assistance with online forms, e-mail TEAS@uspto.gov. For questions about the Office action itself, please contact the assigned trademark examining attorney. E-mail communications will not be accepted as responses to Office actions; therefore, do not respond to this Office action by e-mail.
All informal e-mail communications relevant to this application will be placed in the official application record.
WHO MUST SIGN THE RESPONSE: It must be personally signed by an individual applicant or someone with legal authority to bind an applicant (i.e., a corporate officer, a general partner, all joint applicants). If an applicant is represented by an attorney, the attorney must sign the response.
PERIODICALLY CHECK THE STATUS OF THE APPLICATION: To ensure that applicant does not miss crucial deadlines or official notices, check the status of the application every three to four months using Trademark Applications and Registrations Retrieval (TARR) at http://tarr.gov.uspto.report/. Please keep a copy of the complete TARR screen. If TARR shows no change for more than six months, call 1-800-786-9199. For more information on checking status, see http://www.gov.uspto.report/trademarks/process/status/.
TO UPDATE CORRESPONDENCE/E-MAIL ADDRESS: Use the TEAS form at http://www.gov.uspto.report/teas/eTEASpageE.htm.