To: | Kissame, Inc. (KissameInc@hotmail.com) |
Subject: | TRADEMARK APPLICATION NO. 77011631 - ENDLESS - N/A |
Sent: | 2/23/2007 4:28:05 PM |
Sent As: | ECOM106@USPTO.GOV |
Attachments: | Attachment - 1 Attachment - 2 |
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
SERIAL NO: 77/011631
APPLICANT: Kissame, Inc.
|
|
CORRESPONDENT ADDRESS: |
RETURN ADDRESS: Commissioner for Trademarks P.O. Box 1451 Alexandria, VA 22313-1451
|
MARK: ENDLESS
|
|
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 77/011631
The assigned examining attorney has reviewed the referenced application and determined the following.
The examining attorney refuses registration under Trademark Act Section 2(d), 15 U.S.C. Section 1052(d), because the applicant's mark, when used on or in connection with the identified goods/services, so resembles the mark in U.S. Registration No. 2883822 as to be likely to cause confusion, to cause mistake, or to deceive. §§1207.01 et seq. . See the enclosed registration.
The examining attorney must analyze each case in two steps to determine whether there is a likelihood of confusion. First, the examining attorney must look at the marks themselves for similarities in appearance, sound, connotation and commercial impression. In re E. I. DuPont de Nemours & Co., 476 F.2d 1357, 177 USPQ 563 (CCPA 1973). Second, the examining attorney must compare the goods or services to determine if they are related or if 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 International Telephone and Telegraph Corp., 197 USPQ 910 (TTAB 1978); Guardian Products Co., v. Scott Paper Co., 200 USPQ 738 (TTAB 1978).
Applicant seeks to register the term ENDLESS in stylized form for use in connection with footwear and shoes, handbags, all-purpose carrying bags, tote bags, traveling bags, shoulder bags, clutch purses, all-purpose athletic bags, backpacks, wallets, coin purses and cosmetic bags (sold empty). Registrant owns the mark ENDLESS in typed drawing form for use in connection with clothing, namely, pants, shirts, hats, sweatshirts, jackets, vests.
The marks are identical in sound and meaning and essentially identical in appearance. Applicant’s mark is in stylized form, but registrant’s typed drawing can be used in any ordinary stylization.
Registration of a mark in typed or standard character form means that the mark may be displayed in any lettering style. 37 C.F.R. §2.52(a). The rights associated with a mark in typed or standard character form reside in the wording itself, and registrant is free to adopt any style of lettering, including lettering identical to that used by applicant. Therefore, applicant’s presentation of its mark in special form will not avoid likelihood of confusion with a mark that is registered in typed or standard character form because the marks could be used in the same manner of display. See In re Melville Corp., 18 USPQ2d 1386, 1387-88 (TTAB 1991); In re Pollio Dairy Prods. Corp., 8 USPQ2d 2012, 2015 (TTAB 1988); Sunnen Prods. Co. v. Sunex Int’l Inc., 1 USPQ2d 1744, 1747 (TTAB 1987); In re Hester Indus., Inc., 231 USPQ 881, 882, n.6 (TTAB 1986); United Rum Merchants, Ltd. v. Fregal, Inc., 216 USPQ 217, 220 (TTAB 1982); Frances Denney, Inc. v. Vive Parfums, Ltd., 190 USPQ 302, 303-04 (TTAB 1976); TMEP §1207.01(c)(iii).
The goods/services in each instance are closely related. Applicant’s goods would appear in the same channels of trade as registrant’s goods and registrant’s clothing items are closely related to applicant’s footwear and bags. Confusion is likely.
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.
Applicant must delete all parentheses in the identification/recitation of goods/services.
/Chris Wells/
Examining Attorney
Law Office 106
(571) 272-9238
FAX (571) 273-9106
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.