To: | Schreff,David J. (bedare@aol.com) |
Subject: | TRADEMARK APPLICATION NO. 77001086 - MEGA SPORTS - N/A |
Sent: | 2/7/2007 1:07:11 PM |
Sent As: | ECOM109@USPTO.GOV |
Attachments: | Attachment - 1 Attachment - 2 Attachment - 3 Attachment - 4 Attachment - 5 Attachment - 6 Attachment - 7 Attachment - 8 Attachment - 9 Attachment - 10 Attachment - 11 Attachment - 12 Attachment - 13 Attachment - 14 Attachment - 15 Attachment - 16 Attachment - 17 Attachment - 18 Attachment - 19 |
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
SERIAL NO: 77/001086
APPLICANT: Schreff,David J.
|
|
CORRESPONDENT ADDRESS: |
RETURN ADDRESS: Commissioner for Trademarks P.O. Box 1451 Alexandria, VA 22313-1451
|
MARK: MEGA SPORTS
|
|
CORRESPONDENT’S REFERENCE/DOCKET NO: N/A
CORRESPONDENT EMAIL ADDRESS: |
Please provide in all correspondence:
1. Filing date, serial number, mark and applicant's name. 2. Date of this Office Action. 3. Examining Attorney's name and Law Office number. 4. Your telephone number and e-mail address.
|
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 77/001086
The assigned examining attorney has reviewed the referenced application and determined the following.
Registration of the proposed mark is refused because of a likelihood of confusion with the marks in U.S. Registration Nos. 1547384 and 2832687. Trademark Act Section 2(d), 15 U.S.C. §1052(d); TMEP §§1207.01 et seq. See the enclosed registrations.
Taking into account the relevant du Pont factors, a likelihood of confusion determination in this case involves a two-part analysis. First, the marks are compared for similarities in appearance, sound, connotation and commercial impression. In re E .I. du Pont 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 National Novice Hockey League, Inc., 222 USPQ 638 (TTAB 1984); 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 has applied to register the mark MEGA SPORTS for “athletic sporting goods, namely, athletic wrist and joint supports; Bags specially adapted for sports equipment; Ball cages; Ball pitching machines; Balls of all kinds; Baseball bases; Baseball bats; Baseballs; Basket balls; Beach balls; Bocce balls; Bowling balls; Cricket balls; Field hockey balls; Foot balls; Golf balls; Hand balls; Lacrosse balls; Needles for pumps for inflating sports equipment; Net balls; Paddle ball games; Paddle balls; Petanque balls; Platform tennis balls; Playground balls; Pumps for inflating sports equipment, namely, basketballs,volleyballs,footballs,rubberballs; Punching balls; Racket balls; Racquet balls; Rubber action balls; Rubber balls; Rubber baseballs; Rugby balls; Soccer balls; Soft tennis balls; Sport balls; Sporting goods and equipment for speed training, namely, rings, cones, speed ladders, coaching sticks, training arches, ankle bands, resistance chutes, hurdles; Sports field equipment, namely, corner flags; Squash balls; Table tennis balls; Tennis balls; Tether balls; Volley balls.” Registration No. 1547384 is MEGA for a variety of goods including “tote bags and gym bags” and “ice skates, hockey skates, ice skate blade protectors.” Registration No. 2832687 is MEGA for “exercise machines; weight lifting equipment, namely, bars, barbells, weights, inclines, declines, benches, leg presses; wrist, arm, and leg wraps for use in weight lifting; straps, belts, hand grips, handles, gloves, and harnesses for lifting weights; ankle, leg, and wrist weight cuffs; protective floor exercise mats for weight lifting; cable attachments for weight lifting machines; weight storage racks; and dual rail guide weight lifting support racks; exercise cycles; stationary exercise bikes; pedal type exercise machines; treadmills; rowing machines; boxing and karate equipment, namely, bags, gloves and boxing swivels; protective bras and head guards; kick pads, shin pads, and target pads; step exercise machines; and jump ropes.” The applicant has merely added the generic word SPORTS to the registered marks. The mere addition of a term to a registered mark does not obviate the similarity between the marks nor does it overcome a likelihood of confusion under Section 2(d). In re Chatam International Inc., 380 F.3d 1340, 71 USPQ2d 1944 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (“GASPAR’S ALE and “JOSE GASPAR GOLD”); Coca-Cola Bottling Co. v. Joseph 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 El Torito Rests. Inc., 9 USPQ2d 2002 (TTAB 1988) (“MACHO” and “MACHO COMBOS”); In re United States Shoe Corp., 229 USPQ 707 (TTAB 1985) (“CAREER IMAGE” and “CREST CAREER IMAGES”); In re Corning Glass Works, 229 USPQ 65 (TTAB 1985) (“CONFIRM” and “CONFIRMCELLS”); In re Riddle, 225 USPQ 630 (TTAB 1985) (“ACCUTUNE” and “RICHARD PETTY’S ACCU TUNE”); In re Cosvetic Laboratories, Inc., 202 USPQ 842 (TTAB 1979) (“HEAD START” and “HEAD START COSVETIC”); TMEP §1207.01(b)(iii).
Moreover, if the goods or services of the respective parties are closely related, the degree of similarity between marks required to support a finding of likelihood of confusion is not as great as would apply with diverse goods or services. Century 21 Real Estate Corp. v. Century Life of America, 970 F.2d 874, 877, 23 USPQ2d 1698, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 1992), cert. denied 506 U.S. 1034 (1992); In re J.M. Originals Inc., 6 USPQ2d 1393 (TTAB 1987); ECI Division of E-Systems, Inc. v. Environmental Communications Inc., 207 USPQ 443 (TTAB 1980); TMEP §1207.01(b). Here, the applicant and registrants all sell sporting goods and equipment.
The marks are nearly identical. The goods are very highly related. The similarities between the marks and the goods 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).
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.
Prior Pending Applications – Potential for Additional Refusals under Section 2(d)
Information regarding pending Application Serial Nos. 78978069, 78978058, 78978051 and 78795855 is also enclosed. The filing dates of the referenced applications precede applicant’s filing date. There may be a likelihood of confusion under Trademark Act Section 2(d) between applicant’s mark and the referenced marks. If one or more of the referenced applications 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 applications.
If applicant believes that there is no potential conflict between this application and the earlier-filed applications, 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.
If the applicant chooses to respond to the refusal to register, the applicant must also respond to the following informality.
Disclaimer
Applicant must disclaim the descriptive wording “SPORTS” apart from the mark as shown because it merely describes the main feature of applicant’s goods – they are for SPORTS. Trademark Act Section 6, 15 U.S.C. §1056; TMEP §§1213 and 1213.03(a).
A disclaimer does not physically remove the disclaimed matter from the mark, but rather is a written statement that applicant does not claim exclusive rights to the disclaimed wording and/or design separate and apart from the mark as shown in the drawing.
The computerized printing format for the Office’s Trademark Official Gazette requires a standardized format for a disclaimer. TMEP §1213.08(a)(i). The following is the standard format used by the Office:
No claim is made to the exclusive right to use “SPORTS” apart from the mark as shown.
See In re Owatonna Tool Co., 231 USPQ 493 (Comm’r Pats. 1983).
No set form is required for response to this Office action. The applicant must respond to each point raised. The applicant should simply set forth the required changes or statements and request that the Office enter them. The applicant must sign the response. In addition to the identifying information required at the beginning of this letter, the applicant should provide a telephone number to speed up further processing.
The applicant may wish to hire a trademark attorney because of the technicalities involved in the application. The Patent and Trademark Office cannot aid in the selection of an attorney. 37 C.F.R. §2.11.
In all correspondence to the Patent and Trademark Office, the applicant should list the name and law office of the examining attorney, the serial number of this application, the mailing date of this Office action, and the applicant’s telephone number.
TEAS PLUS APPLICANTS MUST SUBMIT DOCUMENTS ELECTRONICALLY OR SUBMIT FEE: TEAS Plus applicants should submit the following documents using the Trademark Electronic Application System (TEAS) at http://www.gov.uspto.report/teas/index.html: (1) written responses to Office actions; (2) preliminary amendments; (3) changes of correspondence address; (4) changes of owner’s address; (5) appointments and revocations of attorney; (6) amendments to allege use; (7) statements of use; (8) requests for extension of time to file a statement of use, and (9) requests to delete a §1(b) basis. If any of these documents are filed on paper, they must be accompanied by a $50 per class fee. 37 C.F.R. §§2.6(a)(1)(iv) and 2.23(a)(i). Telephone responses will not incur an additional fee. NOTE: In addition to the above, applicant must also continue to accept correspondence from the Office via e-mail throughout the examination process in order to avoid the additional fee. 37 C.F.R. §2.23(a)(2).
If the applicant has any questions or needs assistance in responding to this Office action, please telephone the assigned examining attorney.
/Julie A. Watson/
Trademark Attorney
Law Office 109
(571) 272-9236
(571) 273-9109 (fax)
HOW TO RESPOND TO THIS OFFICE ACTION:
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.