[Important Email Information]

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE

 

 

 

OFFICE ACTION

 

RESPONSE TIME LIMIT:  TO AVOID ABANDONMENT, THE OFFICE MUST RECEIVE A PROPER RESPONSE TO THIS OFFICE ACTION WITHIN 6 MONTHS OF THE MAILING OR E-MAILING DATE. 

 

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  77/011265

 

The Office has reviewed the referenced application and has determined the following:

 

Section 2(d) - Likelihood of Confusion Refusal

 

Registration of the proposed mark is refused because of a likelihood of confusion with the mark in U.S. Registration No. 3034816.  Trademark Act Section 2(d), 15 U.S.C. §1052(d); TMEP §§1207.01 et seq.  See the enclosed registration.

 

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 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’s mark is “GRAND LUXXE RESIDENCE CLUB” and covers “real estate time-sharing; vacation real estate time share exchange services; vacation real estate time-sharing.”  The registrant’s mark is “GRANDLUX VACATIONS” and covers “travel agency services, namely making reservations and bookings for transportation, cruises, tours, car rentals and yacht and aircraft charters.”

 

Similarity of the Marks

 

The marks are compared in their entireties under a Section 2(d) analysis.  When 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, 40, 108 USPQ 161 (D.C. Cir. 1956) (internal citation omitted). 

 

Marks may be confusingly similar in appearance where there are similar terms or phrases or similar parts of terms or phrases appearing in both applicant’s and registrant’s mark.  See e.g., Crocker Nat’l Bank v. Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce, 228 USPQ 689 (TTAB 1986), aff’d 1 USPQ2d 1813 (Fed. Cir. 1987) (COMMCASH and COMMUNICASH); In re Phillips-Van Heusen Corp., 228 USPQ 949 (TTAB 1986) (21 CLUB and “21” CLUB (stylized)); In re Corning Glass Works, 229 USPQ 65 (TTAB 1985) (CONFIRM and CONFIRMCELLS); In re Collegian Sportswear Inc., 224 USPQ 174 (TTAB 1984) (COLLEGIAN OF CALIFORNIA and COLLEGIENNE); In re Pellerin Milnor Corp., 221 USPQ 558 (TTAB 1983) (MILTRON and MILLTRONICS); In re BASF A.G., 189 USPQ 424 (TTAB 1975) (LUTEXAL and LUTEX); TMEP §§1207.01(b)(ii) and (b)(iii).

 

In the instant case, the first words in applicant’s mark, “GRAND LUXXE,” are highly similar to the first word in registrant’s mark, “GRANDLUX.”  The addition of the “XE” to applicant’s mark, and the space between the words “GRAND” and “LUXXE,” does significantly alter the commercial impression of the terms. 

 

Disclaimed matter is typically less significant or less dominant when comparing marks.  Although a disclaimed portion of a mark certainly cannot be ignored, and the marks must be compared in their entireties, one feature of a mark may be more significant in creating a commercial impression.  In re Dixie Restaurants Inc., 105 F.3d 1405, 41 USPQ2d 1531 (Fed. Cir. 1997); In re National Data Corporation, 753 F.2d 1056, 224 USPQ 749 (Fed. Cir. 1985); and In re Appetito Provisions Co. Inc., 3 USPQ2d 1553 (TTAB 1987).  See also Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Packard Press Inc., 281 F.3d 1261, 62 USPQ 2d 1001 (Fed. Cir. 2002); Tektronix, Inc. v. Daktronics, Inc., 534 F.2d 915, 189 USPQ 693 (C.C.P.A. 1976); In re El Torito Rests. Inc., 9 USPQ2d 2002 (TTAB 1988); In re Equitable Bancorporation, 229 USPQ 709 (TTAB 1986). 

 

Here, the addition of the descriptive term “VACATIONS” to registrant’s mark and the addition of the descriptive phrase “RESIDENCE CLUB HOTEL & SPA” to applicant’s mark, are both disclaimed matter.  Please see the Disclaimer section below.  The first words in each mark, namely, “GRANDLUX” and “GRAND LUXXE” are more significant in creating a commercial impression, such that the addition of different descriptive terms and phrases to each 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). 

 

Similarity of the Services

 

The services of the parties need not be identical or directly competitive to find a likelihood of confusion.  Instead, 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 services come from a common source.  On-line Careline Inc. v. America Online Inc., 229 F.3d 1080, 56 USPQ2d 1471 (Fed. Cir. 2000); In re Martin’s Famous Pastry Shoppe, Inc., 748 F.2d 1565, 223 USPQ 1289 (Fed. Cir. 1984); In re Melville Corp., 18 USPQ2d 1386, 1388 (TTAB 1991); In re Corning Glass Works, 229 USPQ 65 (TTAB 1985); In re Rexel Inc., 223 USPQ 830 (TTAB 1984); Guardian Prods. Co., Inc. v. Scott Paper Co., 200 USPQ 738 (TTAB 1978); In re Int’l Tel. & Tel. Corp., 197 USPQ 910 (TTAB 1978); TMEP §1207.01(a)(i).

 

Here, applicant’s services, namely “real estate time-sharing; vacation real estate time share exchange services; vacation real estate time-sharing,” are highly related to registrants services, namely “travel agency services, namely making reservations and bookings for transportation, cruises, tours, car rentals and yacht and aircraft charters,” because they are often offered by the same entities in the field of travel and leisure.  Consumers booking a time-share vacation often make reservations for tours, airplane tickets, and car rentals at the same time, and will likely be confused as to source upon seeing the marks of both parties in connection with their respective services. 

 

Attached are copies of printouts from the USPTO X-Search database, which show third-party registrations of marks used in connection with the same or similar services as those of applicant and registrant in this case.  These printouts have probative value to the extent that they serve to suggest that several of the services listed therein, namely timeshare services and car and airplane reservations, are of a kind that may emanate from a single source.  See In re Infinity Broad. Corp., 60 US”PQ2d 1214, 1217-1218 (TTAB 2001); In re Albert Trostel & Sons Co., 29 USPQ2d 1783, 1785-86 (TTAB 1993); In re Mucky Duck Mustard Co., Inc., 6 USPQ2d 1467, 1470 at n.6 (TTAB 1988).  Please also see attached Internet evidence showing that the services of both parties are often provided by the same companies.

 

Any doubt regarding a likelihood of confusion is resolved in favor of the prior registrant.  Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Packard Press Inc., 281 F.3d 1261, 62 USPQ2d 1001, 1004 (Fed. Cir. 2002); In re Hyper Shoppes (Ohio), Inc., 837 F.2d 463, 6 USPQ2d 1025 (Fed. Cir. 1988); TMEP §§1207.01(d)(i).

 

If applicant chooses to respond to the refusal to register, then applicant must also respond to the following requirement.

 

Disclaimer

 

Applicant must disclaim the descriptive wording “RESIDENCE CLUB HOTEL & SPA” apart from the mark as shown because it merely describes the subject matter of applicant’s services, namely, a club whose members have ownership interests in a vacation home located at a resort offering personal services related to health and beauty, namely, a spa.  Trademark Act Section 6, 15 U.S.C. §1056; TMEP §§1213 and 1213.03(a).  Please see the attached dictionary definitions of “residence,” “hotel,” “spa,” and “timeshare” and the Internet evidence that timeshare owners are part of a “club.”

 

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 “RESIDENCE CLUB HOTEL & SPA” apart from the mark as shown.

 

See In re Owatonna Tool Co., 231 USPQ 493 (Comm’r Pats. 1983).

 

The Office can require an applicant to disclaim exclusive rights to an unregistrable part of a mark, rather than refuse registration of the entire mark.  Trademark Act Section 6(a), 15 U.S.C. §1056(a).  Under Trademark Act Section 2(e), 15 U.S.C. §1052(e), the Office can refuse registration of the entire mark where it is determined that the entire mark is merely descriptive, deceptively misdescriptive, or primarily geographically descriptive of the goods or services.  Thus, the Office may require the disclaimer of a portion of a mark which, when used in connection with the goods or services, is merely descriptive, deceptively misdescriptive, primarily geographically descriptive, or otherwise unregistrable (e.g., generic).  TMEP §1213.03(a).  If an applicant does not comply with a disclaimer requirement, the Office may refuse registration of the entire mark.  TMEP §1213.01(b).

 

A “disclaimer” is thus a written statement that an applicant adds to the application record that states that applicant does not have exclusive rights, separate and apart from the entire mark, to particular wording and/or to a design aspect.  The appearance of the applied-for mark does not change.

 

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).

 

 

 

 

 

/Lindsey H. Rubin/

Lindsey H. Rubin

Trademark Examiner

Law Office 108

Phone: (571) 272-4239

Fax: (571) 273-9108

 

 

HOW TO RESPOND TO THIS OFFICE ACTION:

• ONLINE RESPONSE:  You may respond using the Office’s Trademark Electronic Application System (TEAS) Response to Office action form available on our website at http://www.gov.uspto.report/teas/index.html.  If the Office action issued via e-mail, you must wait 72 hours after receipt of the Office action to respond via TEAS.  NOTE:  Do not respond by e-mail.  THE USPTO WILL NOT ACCEPT AN E-MAILED RESPONSE.
• REGULAR MAIL RESPONSE:  To respond by regular mail, your response should be sent to the mailing return address above, and include the serial number, law office number, and examining attorney’s name.  NOTE:  The filing date of the response will be the date of receipt in the Office, not the postmarked date.  To ensure your response is timely, use a certificate of mailing.  37 C.F.R. §2.197.

 

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.

 

 

Note:

 

In order to avoid size limitation constraints on large e-mail messages, this Office Action has been split into 3 smaller e-mail messages.  The Office Action in its entirety consists of this message as well as the following attachments that you will receive in separate messages:

 

Email 1 includes the following 4 attachments  

1. 1-1  

2. 1-2  

3. 2  

4. 3   

 

Email 2 includes the following 8 attachments  

1. 5  

2. 6  

3. 7  

4. Timeshare1-1  

5. Timeshare1-2  

6. Timeshare2  

7. Residence-1  

8. Residence-2  

 

Email 3 includes the following 4 attachments  

1. Hotel-1  

2. Hotel-2  

3. Spa-1  

4. Spa-2  

 

Please ensure that you receive all of the aforementioned attachments, and if you do not, please contact the assigned-examining attorney.