To: | Farberware Licensing Company, LLC (gpgulia@duanemorris.com) |
Subject: | TRADEMARK APPLICATION NO. 77100548 - AFFINITI - U0970-00086 |
Sent: | 5/31/2007 1:01:17 PM |
Sent As: | ECOM116@USPTO.GOV |
Attachments: | Attachment - 1 |
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
SERIAL NO: 77/100548
APPLICANT: Farberware Licensing Company, LLC
|
|
CORRESPONDENT ADDRESS: |
RETURN ADDRESS: Commissioner for Trademarks P.O. Box 1451 Alexandria, VA 22313-1451
|
MARK: AFFINITI
|
|
CORRESPONDENT’S REFERENCE/DOCKET NO: U0970-00086
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 77/100548
The assigned trademark examining attorney has reviewed the referenced application and has determined the following:
Registration of the proposed mark is refused because of a likelihood of confusion with the mark in U.S. Registration No. 1618447. Trademark Act Section 2(d), 15 U.S.C. §1052(d); TMEP §§1207.01 et seq. See the enclosed registration.
Trademark Act Section 2(d) bars registration where an applied-for mark so resembles a registered mark that it is likely, when applied to the goods and/or services, to cause confusion, mistake or to deceive the potential consumer as to the source of the goods and/or services. TMEP §1207.01. 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 consider in determining whether there is a likelihood of confusion. Among these factors are the similarity of the marks as to appearance, sound, meaning and commercial impression, and the relatedness of the goods and/or services. The overriding concern is to prevent buyer confusion as to the source of the goods and/or services. In re Shell Oil Co., 992 F.2d 1204, 1208, 26 USPQ2d 1687, 1690 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Therefore, any doubt as to the existence of a likelihood of confusion must be resolved in favor of the registrant. In re Hyper Shoppes (Ohio), Inc., 837 F.2d 463, 6 USPQ2d 1025 (Fed. Cir. 1988); Lone Star Mfg. Co. v. Bill Beasley, Inc., 498 F.2d 906, 182 USPQ 368 (C.C.P.A. 1974).
The applicant is seeking the registration of AFFINITY for cookware, cooking utensils and other kitchen goods. The registered mark is AFFINITY for flatware.
The proposed mark is identical to the registered mark, giving the respective marks the same commercial impression. The respective goods are directly related kitchen goods, placing them in the same trade channels.
Therefore, consumers are likely to confuse the source of the applicant’s goods with the source of the registrant’s goods, upon encountering them in the marketplace.
For the foregoing reasons, registration is refused.
Although the trademark examining attorney has refused registration, applicant may respond to the refusal to register by submitting evidence and arguments in support of registration. If applicant chooses to respond to the refusal(s) to register, then applicant must also respond to the following requirements.
The identification of goods is indefinite and must be clarified because it is somewhat vague and encompasses goods in more than one class. Applicant may adopt the following identification, if accurate:
Electric can openers and fruit peelers, in Class 7; and/or
Non-electric can openers and fruit peelers, in Class 8; and/or
Measuring spoon set, in Class 9; and/or
Cookware, namely, pots and pans, skillets, tea pots not of precious metal, cutting boards, bake ware, baking dishes, cake pans, casseroles, dinnerware, serving ware for food, serving dishes, serving platters not of precious metal; cooking utensils, namely, turners, basting spoons, slotted spoons, serving forks, serving ladles, spaghetti serving forks, whisks, flexible spatulas, cake brushes, grills, sieves, strainers, salt and pepper mills, salt and pepper shakers, household containers for food, cooking graters, wire baskets, bottle openers, brushes for basting meat, butter dishes, glass carafes; barware, namely, cork screws, in Class 21. TMEP §1402.01.
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.
Please note that, while the identification of goods may be amended to clarify or limit the goods, adding to the goods or broadening the scope of the goods is not permitted. 37 C.F.R. §2.71(a); TMEP §1402.06. Therefore, applicant may not amend the identification to include goods that are not within the scope of the goods set forth in the present identification.
Additional Classes
The application identifies goods and/or services that are classified in at least four classes; however, the fees submitted are sufficient for only one class. In a multiple-class application, a fee for each class is required. 37 C.F.R. §2.86(a)(2); TMEP §§810-810.01 and 1403.01.
Therefore, applicant must either: (1) restrict the application to the number of class(es) covered by the fee(s) already paid, or (2) submit the fees for the additional class(es).
If applicant prosecutes this application as a combined, or multiple-class application, applicant must comply with each of the following for those goods and/or services based on an intent to use the mark in commerce under Trademark Act Section 1(b):
(1) Applicant must list the goods and/or services by international class with the classes listed in ascending numerical order; and
(2) Applicant must submit a filing fee for each international class of goods and/or services not covered by the fee already paid (current fee information should be confirmed at http://www.uspto.gov).
37 C.F.R. §2.86(a)(2); TMEP §§810 and 1403.01.
If the applicant has any questions or needs assistance in responding to this Office action, please telephone the assigned examining attorney.
/Linda M. King/
Trademark Attorney
Law Office 116
571-272-9180
Linda.King@uspto.gov
NOTICE OF NEW PROCEDURE FOR E-MAILED OFFICE ACTIONS: In late spring 2007, for any applicant who authorizes e-mail communication with the USPTO, the USPTO will no longer directly e-mail the actual Office action to the applicant. Instead, upon issuance of an Office action, the USPTO will e-mail the applicant a notice with a link/web address to access the Office action using Trademark Document Retrieval (TDR), which is located on the USPTO website at http://portal.gov.uspto.report/external/portal/tow. The Office action will not be attached to the e-mail notice. Upon receipt of the notice, the applicant can then view and print the actual Office action and any evidentiary attachments using the provided link/web address. TDR is available 24 hours a day, seven days a week, including holidays and weekends. This new process is intended to eliminate problems associated with e-mailed Office actions that contain numerous attachments.
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.