Offc Action Outgoing

Action on this application was suspended pending the disposition of Application Serial No. 78730269. The referenced prior-pending application has since registered. Therefore, registration is refused as follows.

Refusal: Likelihood of Confusion Refusal Under Section 2(d)

Registration of the applied-for mark is refused because of a likelihood of confusion with the mark in U.S. Registration No. 3681544. Trademark Act Section 2(d), 15 U.S.C. §1052(d); see TMEP §§1207.01 et seq. See the enclosed registration.

Trademark Act Section 2(d) bars registration of an applied-for mark that so resembles a registered mark that it is likely that a potential consumer would be confused or mistaken or deceived as to the source of the goods and/or services of the applicant and registrant. See 15 U.S.C. §1052(d). 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 be considered when determining whether there is a likelihood of confusion under Section 2(d). See TMEP §1207.01. However, not all of the factors are necessarily relevant or of equal weight, and any one factor may be dominant in a given case, depending upon the evidence of record. In re Majestic Distilling Co., 315 F.3d 1311, 1315, 65 USPQ2d 1201, 1204 (Fed. Cir. 2003); see In re E. I. du Pont, 476 F.2d at 1361-62, 177 USPQ at 567.

In this case, the following factors are the most relevant: similarity of the marks, similarity of the goods and/or services, and similarity of trade channels of the goods and/or services. See In re Opus One, Inc., 60 USPQ2d 1812 (TTAB 2001); In re Dakin’s Miniatures Inc., 59 USPQ2d 1593 (TTAB 1999); In re Azteca Rest. Enters., Inc., 50 USPQ2d 1209 (TTAB 1999); TMEP §§1207.01 et seq.

Applicant seeks to register the mark 69 stylized for “hair shampoo, hair conditioners, hair rinses, hair spray, hair tonics, sun block and sunscreen, colognes, perfumes, toilet water sprays, face and body paint.” The already registered mark is 69 (standard character mark) for “and face moisturizers, non-medicated creams, to maintain moisture of vaginal tissues” and “Adult sex aids, namely, Electric and Non-Electric massage devices for massaging or vibrating portions of the face and body; stimulation devices for aiding in arousal and sexual performance; and vibrators.”

Comparison of Marks

In a likelihood of confusion determination, the marks are compared for similarities in their appearance, sound, meaning or connotation and commercial impression. In re E. I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., 476 F.2d 1357, 1361, 177 USPQ 563, 567 (C.C.P.A. 1973); TMEP §1207.01(b). Similarity in any one of these elements may be sufficient to find a likelihood of confusion. In re White Swan Ltd., 8 USPQ2d 1534, 1535 (TTAB 1988); In re Lamson Oil Co., 6 USPQ2d 1041, 1043 (TTAB 1987); see TMEP §1207.01(b).

The question is not whether people will confuse the marks, but whether the marks will confuse people into believing that the goods and/or services they identify come from the same source. In re West Point-Pepperell, Inc., 468 F.2d 200, 201, 175 USPQ 558, 558-59 (C.C.P.A. 1972); TMEP §1207.01(b). For that reason, the test of likelihood of confusion is not whether the marks can be distinguished when subjected to a side-by-side comparison. The question is whether the marks create the same overall impression. See Recot, Inc. v. M.C. Becton, 214 F.2d 1322, 1329-30, 54 USPQ2d 1894, 1899 (Fed. Cir. 2000); Visual Info. Inst., Inc. v. Vicon Indus. Inc., 209 USPQ 179, 189 (TTAB 1980). The focus is on the recollection of the average purchaser who normally retains a general rather than specific impression of trademarks. Chemetron Corp. v. Morris Coupling & Clamp Co., 203 USPQ 537, 540-41 (TTAB 1979); Sealed Air Corp. v. Scott Paper Co., 190 USPQ 106, 108 (TTAB 1975); TMEP §1207.01(b).

The marks are compared in their entireties under a Trademark Act Section 2(d) analysis. See TMEP §1207.01(b). 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 Nat’l Data Corp., 753 F.2d 1056, 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 1987); see TMEP §1207.01(b)(viii), (c)(ii).

A mark in typed or standard characters may be displayed in any lettering style; the rights reside in the wording or other literal element itself and not in any particular display. TMEP §1207.01(c)(iii); see 37 C.F.R. §2.52(a). Thus, a mark presented in stylized characters or otherwise in special form will not generally avoid likelihood of confusion with a mark in typed or standard characters because the marks could be presented in the same manner of display. See, e.g., In re Melville Corp., 18 USPQ2d 1386, 1387-88 (TTAB 1991); In re Pollio Dairy Prods. Corp., 8 USPQ2d 2012, 2015 (TTAB 1988).

The marks are essentially identical. That is, both consist simply of the number 69. Purchasers are likely to view the common (and only element) of the marks are identifying the same source for the goods. And moreover, while applicant seeks registration for a stylized mark, registrant’s mark is in standard character format, giving registrant the right to use the mark in any format it chooses – including one identical to that of applicant.

Accordingly, the marks are confusingly similar in appearance, sound, connotation and overall commercial impression.

Comparison of Goods or Services

The goods and/or services of the parties need not be identical or directly competitive to find a likelihood of confusion. See Safety-Kleen Corp. v. Dresser Indus., Inc., 518 F.2d 1399, 1404, 186 USPQ 476, 480 (C.C.P.A. 1975); TMEP §1207.01(a)(i). Rather, 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 goods and/or services come from a common source. In re Total Quality Group, Inc., 51 USPQ2d 1474, 1476 (TTAB 1999); TMEP §1207.01(a)(i); see, e.g., On-line Careline Inc. v. Am. Online Inc., 229 F.3d 1080, 1086-87, 56 USPQ2d 1471, 1475-76 (Fed. Cir. 2000); In re Martin’s Famous Pastry Shoppe, Inc., 748 F.2d 1565, 1566-68, 223 USPQ 1289, 1290 (Fed. Cir. 1984).

Any goods or services in the registrant’s normal fields of expansion should be considered when determining whether the registrant’s goods and/or services are related to the applicant’s goods and/or services. TMEP §1207.01(a)(v); see In re 1st USA Realty Prof’ls, Inc., 84 USPQ2d 1581 1584 (TTAB 2007). Evidence that third parties offer the goods and/or services of both the registrant and applicant suggest that it is likely that the registrant would expand their business to include applicant’s goods and/or services. In that event, customers are likely to believe the goods and/or services at issue come from or, are in some way connected with, the same source. In re 1st USA Realty Prof’ls, 84 USPQ2d at 1584 n.4; see TMEP §1207.01(a)(v).

A determination of whether there is a likelihood of confusion is made solely on the basis of the goods and/or services identified in the application and registration, without limitations or restrictions that are not reflected therein. In re Dakin’s Miniatures, Inc., 59 USPQ2d 1593, 1595 (TTAB 1999); TMEP §1207.01(a)(iii). If the cited registration describes the goods and/or services broadly and there are no limitations as to their nature, type, channels of trade or classes of purchasers, then it is presumed that the registration encompasses all goods and/or services of the type described, that they move in all normal channels of trade, and that they are available to all potential customers. In re Linkvest S.A., 24 USPQ2d 1716, 1716 (TTAB 1992); In re Elbaum, 211 USPQ 639, 640 (TTAB 1981); TMEP §1207.01(a)(iii).

The goods of applicant are highly related to those of registrant; both have personal care-type products. 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 goods and/or services as those of applicant and registrant in this case. These printouts have probative value to the extent that they serve to suggest that the goods listed in the application and registration, are of a kind that may emanate from a single source. In re Infinity Broad. Corp. of Dallas,60 USPQ2d 1214, 1217-18 (TTAB 2001); In re Albert Trostel & Sons Co.,29 USPQ2d 1783, 1785-86 (TTAB 1993); In re Mucky Duck Mustard Co., 6 USPQ2d 1467, 1470 n.6 (TTAB 1988); TMEP §1207.01(d)(iii).

Thus, it is presumed that such goods will travel through the same channels of trade and be encountered by the same class of purchasers will are likely to mistakenly believe they come from the same source.

Accordingly, the mark is refused registration under Section 2(d) of the Trademark Act.

Response Guidelines

There is no required format or form for responding to an Office action. The Office recommends applicants use the Trademark Electronic Application System (TEAS) to respond to Office actions online at http://www.gov.uspto.report/teas/index.html. However, if applicant responds on paper via regular mail, the response should include the title “Response to Office Action” and the following information: (1) the name and law office number of the examining attorney, (2) the serial number and filing date of the application, (3) the mailing date of this Office action, (4) applicant’s name, address, telephone number and e-mail address (if applicable), and (5) the mark. 37 C.F.R. §2.194(b)(1); TMEP §302.03(a).

The response should address each refusal and/or requirement raised in the Office action. If a refusal has issued, applicant can argue against the refusal; i.e., applicant can submit arguments and evidence as to why the refusal should be withdrawn and the mark should register. To respond to requirements, applicant should set forth in writing the required changes or statements and request that the Office enter them into the application record.

The response must be personally signed or the electronic signature manually entered by applicant or someone with legal authority to bind applicant (i.e., a corporate officer of a corporate applicant, the equivalent of an officer for unincorporated organizations or limited liability company applicants, a general partner of a partnership applicant, each applicant for applications with multiple individual applicants). TMEP §§605.02, 712.

Applicant should include the following information on all correspondence with the Office: (1) the name and law office number of the trademark examining attorney, (2) the serial number and filing date of the application, (3) the mailing date of this Office action, (4) applicant’s name, address, telephone number and e-mail address (if applicable), and (5) the mark. 37 C.F.R. §2.194(b)(1); TMEP §302.03(a).

If applicant has questions about its application or needs assistance in responding to this Office action, please telephone the assigned trademark examining attorney.

/Susan Kastriner Lawrence/

Trademark Examining Attorney

Law Office 116

(571) 272-9186

RESPOND TO THIS ACTION: Applicant should file a response to this Office action online using the form at http://www.gov.uspto.report/teas/eTEASpageD.htm, waiting 48-72 hours if applicant received notification of the Office action via e-mail. For technical assistance with the form, please e-mail TEAS@uspto.gov. For questions about the Office action itself, please contact the assigned examining attorney. Do not respond to this Office action by e-mail; 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.

Offc Action Outgoing [image/jpeg]