| To: | Meltzer, Carole (derzlaw@aol.com) |
| Subject: | TRADEMARK APPLICATION NO. 77114207 - ARM CANDY - N/A |
| Sent: | 6/12/2007 2:47:57 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 |
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
|
SERIAL NO: 77/114207
MARK: ARM CANDY
|
|
|
CORRESPONDENT ADDRESS: |
RESPOND TO THIS ACTION: http://www.gov.uspto.report/teas/eTEASpageD.htm
GENERAL TRADEMARK INFORMATION: http://www.gov.uspto.report/main/trademarks.htm
|
|
APPLICANT: Meltzer, Carole
|
|
|
CORRESPONDENT’S REFERENCE/DOCKET NO: CORRESPONDENT E-MAIL ADDRESS: |
|
TO AVOID ABANDONMENT, THE OFFICE MUST RECEIVE A PROPER RESPONSE TO THIS OFFICE ACTION WITHIN 6 MONTHS OF THE ISSUE/MAILING DATE.
The assigned examining attorney has reviewed the referenced application and determined the following.
A. Refusal to Register: Likelihood of Confusion
Registration of the proposed mark is refused because of a likelihood of confusion with the marks in U.S. Registration No. 2607665. Trademark Act Section 2(d), 15 U.S.C. §1052(d); TMEP §§1207.01 et seq. See the enclosed registration.
A likelihood of confusion determination 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.
Similarity of the Marks
The examining attorney must look at the marks in their entireties under Section 2(d). Nevertheless, one feature of a mark may be recognized as more significant in creating a commercial impression. Greater weight is given to that dominant feature in determining whether there is a likelihood of confusion. In re National Data Corp., 224 USPQ 749 (Fed. Cir. 1985); Tektronix, Inc. v. Daktronics, Inc., 534 F.2d 915, 189 USPQ 693 (C.C.P.A. 1976). In re J.M. Originals Inc., 6 USPQ2d 1393 (TTAB 1988). TMEP §1207.01(b)(viii{. In this instance, the dominant wording is ARM CANDY as the wording NEW YORK is merely descriptive and thus disclaimed.
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).
Further more, when a mark consists of a word portion and a design portion, the word portion is more likely to be impressed upon a purchaser’s memory and to be used in calling for the goods or services. Therefore, the word portion is normally accorded greater weight in determining likelihood of confusion. In re Dakin’s Miniatures Inc., 59 USPQ2d 1593, 1596 (TTAB 1999); In re Appetito Provisions Co., 3 USPQ2d 1553 (TTAB 1987); Amoco Oil Co. v. Amerco, Inc., 192 USPQ 729 (TTAB 1976); TMEP §1207.01(c)(ii).
The applicant’s mark ARM CANDY and the wording in the registered mark ARM CANDY NEW YORK (with design) are similar in appearance and sound and would create the same general overall commercial impression among potential consumers. Similarity in sound alone is sufficient to find a likelihood of confusion. Molenaar, Inc. v. Happy Toys Inc., 188 USPQ 469 (TTAB 1975); In re Cresco Mfg. Co., 138 USPQ 401 (TTAB 1963). TMEP §1207.01(b)(iv).
If the marks of the respective parties are identical or highly similar, the examining attorney must consider the commercial relationship between the goods or services of the respective parties carefully to determine whether there is a likelihood of confusion. In re Concordia International Forwarding Corp., 222 USPQ 355 (TTAB 1983).
The second part of the legal analysis involves comparing the goods to determine whether they are similar or related, and could cause a mistaken belief among potential purchasers that the goods come from a common source. The goods of the parties need not be identical or directly competitive to find a likelihood of confusion. The fact that the goods of the parties differ is not controlling in determining likelihood of confusion. The issue is not likelihood of confusion between particular goods, but likelihood of confusion as to the source of those goods. See In re Rexel Inc., 223 USPQ 830, 831, (TTAB 1984), and cases cited therein; TMEP §§1207.01 et seq.
The applicant’s goods/services, namely “Bracelets; Jewelry; Jewelry chains; Jewelry for the head; Jewelry pins for use on hats; Jewelry watches; Jewelry, namely, amulets” are highly related to registrant’s goods/services, namely “clothing and handbags”. It is therefore quite likely that both applicant’s and registrant’s goods/services will travel through the same channels of trade to the same classes of purchasers. See below
Please see attached Internet evidence showing that handbags, jewelry and clothing are offered through the same channels of trade and through the same manufacture or producer.
The marks are very similar. The goods/services are highly related. The similarities among the marks and the goods/services are so great as to create a likelihood of confusion among consumers. 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. The examining attorney must resolve any doubt regarding a likelihood of confusion in favor of the prior registrant. In re Hyper Shoppes (Ohio), Inc., 837 F.2d 463, 6 USPQ2d 1025 (Fed. Cir., 1988). TMEP §§1207.01(d)(i).
ISSUE/MAILING DATE: 6/12/2007
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).
/William Rossman/
Trademark Examining Attorney
Law Office 109
William.Rossman@USPTO.Gov
(571) 272- 9029
RESPOND TO THIS ACTION: If there are any questions about the Office action, please contact the assigned examining attorney. A response to this Office Action should be filed using the Office’s Response to Office action form available at http://www.gov.uspto.report/teas/eTEASpageD.htm. If notification of this Office action was received via e-mail, no response using this form may be filed for 72 hours after receipt of the notification. Do not attempt to respond by e-mail as the USPTO does not accept e-mailed responses.
If responding by paper mail, please include the following information: the application serial number, the mark, the filing date and the name, title/position, telephone number and e-mail address of the person signing the response. Please use the following address: Commissioner for Trademarks, P.O. Box 1451, Alexandria, VA 22313-1451.
STATUS CHECK: Check the status of the application at least once every six months from the initial filing date using the USPTO Trademark Applications and Registrations Retrieval (TARR) online system at http://tarr.uspto.gov. When conducting an online status check, print and maintain a copy of the complete TARR screen. If the status of your application has not changed for more than six months, please contact the assigned examining attorney.
