| To: | Little Brother Music, Inc. (jpwilliams@batchwilliams.com) |
| Subject: | TRADEMARK APPLICATION NO. 77137155 - LITTLE BROTHER - 34290 |
| Sent: | 6/29/2007 6:05:39 PM |
| Sent As: | ECOM112@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 Attachment - 12 Attachment - 13 Attachment - 14 Attachment - 15 Attachment - 16 |
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
|
SERIAL NO: 77/137155
MARK: LITTLE BROTHER
|
|
|
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: Little Brother Music, Inc.
|
|
|
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.
ISSUE/MAILING DATE: 6/29/2007
The assigned trademark examining attorney 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. 2996409. 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 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.
The applicant’s mark is:
LITTLE BROTHER (standard character) for “Entertainment in the nature of visual and audio performances, namely, musical band, rock group, gymnastic, dance, and ballet performances” in International Class 41.
The cited registered mark is:
BROTHER (typed drawing) (Registration No. 2996409) for “Entertainment services, namely live performances by a vocal and instrumental group” in International Class 41.
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).
In the present case, the marks are identical but for the addition of wording to the registrant’s mark. The mere addition of a term to a registered 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). Here, the marks create the same overall commercial impression.
The goods 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 goods 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).
If the goods or services of the respective parties are closely related, the degree of similarity between marks required to support a finding of likelihood of confusion is not as great as would apply with diverse goods or services. Century 21 Real Estate Corp. v. Century Life of America, 970 F.2d 874, 877, 23 USPQ2d 1698, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 1992), cert. denied 506 U.S. 1034 (1992); In re J.M. Originals Inc., 6 USPQ2d 1393 (TTAB 1987); ECI Division of E-Systems, Inc. v. Environmental Communications Inc., 207 USPQ 443 (TTAB 1980); TMEP §1207.01(b).
In the present case, the services are virtually identical. Both parties identify the identical service of live performances featuring music. Moreover, applicant’s entertainment services also feature other types of performance such as dance and ballet. Attached are copies of printouts from the USPTO X-Search database, which show 5 third-party registrations of marks used in connection with the same or similar goods 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 services listed therein, namely live performances featuring dance and music, are of a kind that may emanate from a single source. See In re Infinity Broad. Corp., 60 USPQ2d 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). Thus, there is relationship between the non-identical services of the parties.
In conclusion, the similarity between the marks and the services of the parties is sufficient to establish a likelihood of confusion. The examining attorney must resolve any doubt regarding a likelihood of confusion in favor of the prior registration. In re Hyper Shoppes (Ohio), Inc., 837 F.2d 463, 6 USPQ2d 1025 (Fed. Cir. 1988).
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 requirement(s).
The specimen is not acceptable because it does not show the applied-for mark used in connection with any of the goods and/or services specified in the application. An application must include a specimen showing the applied-for mark in use in commerce for each class of goods and/or services based on Section 1(a) in the application. Trademark Act Sections 1 and 45, 15 U.S.C. §§1051 and 1127; 37 C.F.R. §§2.34(a)(1)(iv) and 2.56; TMEP §§904 and 1301.04.
In this case, the specimen is a copy of a CD cover. This specimen does not support use of the mark with live performances; rather, it supports use of the mark with recorded media featuring music. Amending the identification of services to pre-recorded media would be outside the scope of the services identified in this application.
Therefore, applicant must submit the following:
(1) A substitute specimen showing use of the mark for each class of goods and/or services specified in the application; and
(2) The following statement, verified with an affidavit or signed declaration under 37 C.F.R. §2.20: “The specimen was in use in commerce at least as early as the filing date of the application.” 37 C.F.R. §2.59(a); TMEP §904.09. If submitting a specimen requires an amendment to the dates of use, applicant must also verify the amended dates. 37 C.F.R. §2.71(c).
Examples of specimens for services are signs, photographs, brochures, website printouts or advertisements that show the mark used in the sale or advertising of the services. TMEP §§1301.04 et seq.
If applicant cannot satisfy the above requirements, applicant may amend the Section 1(a) filing basis (use in commerce) to Section 1(b) (intent to use basis), for which no specimen is required. However, should applicant amend the basis to Section 1(b), registration cannot be granted until applicant later amends the application back to use in commerce by filing an acceptable allegation of use with a proper specimen. 15 U.S.C. §1051(c); 37 C.F.R. §§2.76, 2.88; TMEP Chapter 1100.
In order to amend to Section 1(b), applicant must submit the following statement, verified with an affidavit or signed declaration under 37 C.F.R. §2.20: “Applicant has had a bona fide intention to use the mark in commerce on or in connection with the goods or services listed in the application as of the filing date of the application.” 15 U.S.C. §1051(b); 37 C.F.R. §§2.34(a)(2) and 2.35(b)(1); TMEP §806.03(c).
Pending a proper response, registration is refused because the specimen does not show the applied-for mark in use in commerce as a trademark or service mark for the identified goods or services. 15 U.S.C. §§1051 and 1127; 37 C.F.R. §§2.34(a)(1)(iv) and 2.56.
PLEASE NOTE: If applicant chooses to submit a substitute specimen, it should be of better digital quality as parts of the image where illegible.
The following is a sample declaration under 37 C.F.R. §2.20 with a supporting statement for a substitute specimen:
The undersigned being warned that willful false statements and the like are punishable by fine or imprisonment, or both, under 18 U.S.C. §1001, and that such willful false statements and the like may jeopardize the validity of the application or document or any registration resulting there from, declares that the substitute specimen was in use in commerce at least as early as the filing date of the application; all statements made of his/her own knowledge are true; and all statements made on information and belief are believed to be true.
_____________________________
(Signature)
_____________________________
(Print or Type Name and Position)
_____________________________
(Date)
Sample Declaration—Amendment to Section 1(b)
As stated above, if the applicant cannot satisfy the specimen refusal(s)/requirement(s) and would like to amend the application filing basis to Section 1(b) intent-to-use, the following is a properly worded declaration:
Applicant has a bona fide intention to use the mark in commerce on or in connection with the goods or services listed in the application as of the filing date of the application. The undersigned, being hereby warned that willful false statements and the like so made are punishable by fine or imprisonment, or both, under 18 U.S.C. §1001, and that such willful false statements and the like may jeopardize the validity of the application or document or any resulting registration, declares that the facts set forth in the application are true; all statements made of his/her own knowledge are true; and all statements made on information and belief are believed to be true.
_____________________________
(Signature)
_____________________________
(Print or Type Name and Position)
_____________________________
(Date)
No set form is required for response to this Office action. The applicant must respond to each point raised. The applicant should simply set forth the required changes or statements and request that the Office enter them. The applicant must sign the response. Please note that all electronic communications must be signed using the "/name/" format. TMEP Section 804.05.
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) 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). 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).
PLEASE NOTE: Because it delays processing, submission of duplicate papers is discouraged. Unless specifically requested to do so by the Office, parties should not mail follow up copies of documents transmitted electronically or by fax. TMEP 306.04; Cf. ITC Entertainment Group Ltd. V. Nintendo of America Inc. 45 USPQ2d 2021 (TTAB 1998).
/mdi/
Marilyn D. Izzi
Trademark Examining Attorney
Law Office 112
(571) 270-1523 (phone)
(571) 270-2523 (fax)
<http://www.gov.uspto.report/teas/index.html> (file responses)
marilyn.izzi@uspto.gov (submit questions only)
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.
