UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE (USPTO)
OFFICE ACTION (OFFICIAL LETTER) ABOUT APPLICANT’S TRADEMARK APPLICATION
OFFICE ACTION
STRICT DEADLINE TO RESPOND TO THIS LETTER
TO AVOID ABANDONMENT OF APPLICANT’S TRADEMARK APPLICATION, THE USPTO MUST RECEIVE APPLICANT’S COMPLETE RESPONSE TO THIS LETTER WITHIN 6
MONTHS OF THE ISSUE/MAILING DATE BELOW.
ISSUE/MAILING DATE:
The application has been removed from suspension
because the prior pending applications have either abandoned or registered. This is a non-final action.
SECTION 2(d) REFUSAL – LIKELIHOOD OF CONFUSION
Registration of the applied-for mark is refused because of a likelihood of confusion with the mark in
U.S. Registration Nos. 3791630, 3795143 and 3797705. Trademark Act Section 2(d), 15 U.S.C. §1052(d); see TMEP §§1207.01 et
seq. See the enclosed registrations.
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.
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 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).
The applicant’s mark is ANIMAX for “Creation and maintenance of web sites, including the creation of web pages to and for third parties; Design of homepages and websites; Design,
creation, hosting and maintenance of Internet sites for third parties; Designing websites for advertising purposes; Hosting of websites; Website development.”
The registered marks are:
- ANIMAX for “ENTERTAINMENT SERVICES IN THE NATURE OF PRODUCTION AND DISTRIBUTION OF LIVE AND ANIMATED ENTERTAINMENT PROGRAMMING, FEATURING ANIMATION AND ANIMATION THEMES,
STREAMED, DOWNLOADED OR OTHERWISE EXHIBITED ON WIRED OR WIRELESS DEVICES THROUGH THE INTERNET.”
- ANIMAX for “BROADCASTING OF AUDIOVISUAL PROGRAMMING VIA STREAM, DOWNLOAD OR OTHER MEANS ON WIRED OR WIRELESS DEVICES THROUGH THE INTERNET.”
- ANIMAX for “CABLE TELEVISION BROADCASTING FEATURING ANIMATED PROGRAMMING,” and “ENTERTAINMENT SERVICES, NAMELY, ANIMATED AUDIOVISUAL PROGRAMMING STREAMED, DOWNLOADED OR
OTHERWISE EXHIBITED ON WIRELESS DEVICES.”
Comparison of the Marks
The marks are identical.
Comparison of the Services
The trademark examining attorney has attached evidence from the USPTO’s
X-Search database consisting of a number of third-party marks registered for use in connection with the same or similar services as those of both applicant and registrant in this case. This evidence shows that the services listed therein, namely website design (applicant’s services) and internet broadcasting, programming or entertainment production
(registrant’s services), are of a kind that may emanate from a single source under a single mark. See In re Davey Prods. Pty
Ltd.,92 USPQ2d 1198, 1203 (TTAB 2009); 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).
Please note that where the marks of the respective parties are identical or
virtually identical, the relationship between the relevant goods and/or services need not be as close to support a finding of likelihood of confusion. See In re Shell Oil Co., 992 F.2d 1204, 1207, 26 USPQ2d 1687, 1689 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Davey Prods. Pty Ltd., 92 USPQ2d 1198, 1202 (TTAB
2009); In re Thor Tech, Inc., 90 USPQ2d 1634, 1636 (TTAB 2009); TMEP §1207.01(a).
Response Guidelines
Although applicant’s mark has been refused registration, applicant may respond to the refusal(s) by
submitting evidence and arguments in support of registration.
/Ann Sappenfield/
Trademark Examining Attorney
Law Office 117
(571) 272-9215
TO RESPOND TO THIS LETTER: Go to http://www.gov.uspto.report/trademarks/teas/response_forms.jsp. Please wait 48-72 hours from the issue/mailing date before using TEAS, to allow for necessary system updates of the application. For technical assistance with online forms, e-mail TEAS@uspto.gov. For questions about the Office action itself, please contact the assigned trademark examining attorney. E-mail communications will not be
accepted as responses to Office actions; therefore, do not respond to this Office action by e-mail.
All informal e-mail communications relevant to this application will be placed in the official application record.
WHO MUST SIGN THE RESPONSE: It must be personally signed by an individual applicant
or someone with legal authority to bind an applicant (i.e., a corporate officer, a general partner, all joint applicants). If an applicant is represented by an attorney, the attorney
must sign the response.
PERIODICALLY CHECK THE STATUS OF THE APPLICATION: To ensure that applicant does not miss crucial
deadlines or official notices, check the status of the application every three to four months using Trademark Applications and Registrations Retrieval (TARR) at http://tarr.gov.uspto.report/. Please keep a copy of the complete TARR screen. If TARR
shows no change for more than six months, call 1-800-786-9199. For more information on checking status, see http://www.gov.uspto.report/trademarks/process/status/.
TO UPDATE CORRESPONDENCE/E-MAIL ADDRESS: Use the TEAS form at http://www.gov.uspto.report/teas/eTEASpageE.htm.