UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE

 

 

 

FINAL OFFICE ACTION

 

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: 1/5/2009

 

THIS IS A FINAL ACTION.

 

This letter responds to applicant’s communication filed on December 4, 2008, (the “Response”) in which Applicant:

 

(1)   amended its identification of goods; and

(2)   presented arguments against the likelihood of confusion refusal.

 

No. (1) is accepted and recorded.

No. (2) is not acceptable.

 

For the reasons set forth below, the refusal under Trademark Act Section 2(d) is now made FINAL with respect to U.S. Registration No. 3210989.  See 15 U.S.C. §1052(d); 37 C.F.R. §2.64(a).

 

FINAL REFUSAL: Likelihood of Confusion

 

As noted in the prior Office action, registration of the applied-for mark is refused because of a likelihood of confusion with the mark in U.S. Registration No. 3210989.  Trademark Act Section 2(d), 15 U.S.C. §1052(d); see TMEP §§1207.01 et seq.  See the registration enclosed with the prior Office action.

 

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.

 

Comparison of the Marks

 

Applicant’s mark is, “MIDNIGHT.”  Registrant’s mark is, “MINUIT.” 

 

“MINUIT” in French translates into English as, “MIDNIGHT.”   See translation attached to prior Office action.  U.S. Registration No. 3210989 provides a translation statement: “The English translation of the word MINUIT in the mark is MIDNIGHT.”  Please see registration attached to the prior Office action.  Thus, the English word, “MIDNIGHT” is a direct translation of the French word, “MINUIT.”  Therefore, the marks are related under the doctrine of foreign equivalents. 

 

As stated in the prior Office action, under the doctrine of foreign equivalents, marks with foreign words are translated into English to determine similarity of connotation with English word marks.  See Palm Bay Imps., Inc. v. Veuve Clicquot Ponsardin Maison Fondee en 1772, 396 F.3d 1369, 1377, 73 USPQ2d 1689, 1696 (Fed. Cir. 2005).  Similarity in connotation can be sufficient to find similarity between marks.  See In re Thomas, 79 USPQ2d 1021, 1025 (TTAB 2006). 

 

The examining attorney notes that the marks, MIDNIGHT and MINUIT are more than just similar in connotation: Applicant’s mark is a direct translation of registrant’s mark.  Thus, application of the doctrine of foreign equivalents is particularly appropriate in this case. 

 

As stated in the prior Office action, the doctrine is applied when it is likely that an ordinary American purchaser would “stop and translate” the foreign term into its English equivalent.  Palm Bay, 396 F.3d at 1377, 73 USPQ2d at 1696; TMEP §1207.01(b)(vi).  “The ‘ordinary American purchaser’ in this context refers to the ordinary American purchaser who is knowledgeable in the foreign language.”  In re Thomas, 79 USPQ2d at 1024 (citing J. Thomas McCarthy, McCarthy on Trademarks and Unfair Competition §23:26 (4th ed. 2006), which states “[t]he test is whether, to those American buyers familiar with the foreign language, the word would denote its English equivalent.”).

 

Generally, the doctrine is applied when the English translation is a literal and exact translation of the foreign wording, as is the case here.  See In re Thomas, 79 USPQ2d 1021 (holding MARCHE NOIR for jewelry likely to be confused with the cited mark BLACK MARKET MINERALS for retail jewelry and mineral store services where evidence showed that MARCHE NOIR is the exact French equivalent of the English idiom “Black Market,” and the addition of MINERALS did not serve to distinguish the marks); In re Ithaca Indus., 230 USPQ 702 (TTAB 1986) (holding applicant’s mark LUPO for men’s and boys’ underwear likely to be confused with the cited registration for WOLF and design for various clothing items, where LUPO is the Italian equivalent of the English word “wolf”); In re Hub Distrib., Inc., 218 USPQ 284 (TTAB 1983) (holding the Spanish wording EL SOL for clothing likely to be confused with its English language equivalent SUN for footwear where it was determined that EL SOL was the “direct foreign language equivalent” of the term SUN).

 

Common, modern languages include Spanish, French, Italian, German, Chinese, Japanese, Russian, Polish, Hungarian, Serbian and Yiddish.  See, e.g., Weiss Noodle Co. v. Golden Cracknel & Specialty Co., 290 F.2d 845, 129 USPQ 411 (C.C.P.A. 1961) (Hungarian); In re Joint-Stock Co. “Baik,” 80 USPQ2d 1305 (TTAB 2006) (Russian); In re Perez, 21 USPQ2d 1075 (TTAB 1991) (Spanish); In re Oriental Daily News, Ltd., 230 USPQ 637 (TTAB 1986) (Chinese); In re Ithaca Indus., 230 USPQ 702 (TTAB 1986) (Italian); In re Jos. Schlitz Brewing Co., 223 USPQ 45 (TTAB 1983) (German); In re Westbrae Natural Foods, 211 USPQ 642 (TTAB 1981) (Japanese); In re Optica Int’l, 196 USPQ 775 (TTAB 1977) (French); In re Bagel Nosh, Inc., 193 USPQ 316 (TTAB 1976) (Yiddish); In re Hag Aktiengesellschaft, 155 USPQ 598 (TTAB 1967) (Serbian); In re New Yorker Cheese Co., 130 USPQ 120 (TTAB 1961) (Polish).

 

Thus, the doctrine has evolved into a guideline, not an absolute rule, and is applied only when the “ordinary American purchaser” would “stop and translate” the foreign wording in a mark.  Palm Bay, 396 F.3d at 1377, 73 USPQ2d at 1696; TMEP §1207.01(b)(vi).  The Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (“the Board”) further clarified that the “ordinary American purchaser” is one who is knowledgeable in both English and the relevant foreign language.  In re La Peregrina Ltd., 86 USPQ2d 1645, 1648 (TTAB 2008); In re Thomas, 79 USPQ2d 1021, 1024 (TTAB 2006). 

 

With respect to likelihood of confusion, the doctrine has been applied generally in the situation where the wording in one mark is entirely in English and the wording in the other mark or marks is entirely in a foreign language.  See, e.g., In re Perez, 21 USPQ2d 1075 (TTAB 1991); In re Am. Safety Razor Co.,2 USPQ2d 1459 (TTAB 1987); In re Hub Distrib., Inc., 218 USPQ 284 (TTAB 1983).  This is the most common scenario in the case law.

 

Thus, the doctrine of foreign equivalents applies in this case.  The marks are each comprised of a single word, each of which is a direct translation of the other; the “ordinary American purchaser” would “stop and translate” the foreign wording in registrant’s mark, MINUIT as MIDNIGHT; the “ordinary American purchaser” is one who is knowledgeable in both English and French; and thus the ordinary American purchaser would likely be confused as to the origin of the goods. 

 

In its Response, applicant argues that the doctrine of foreign equivalents applies where, “the purchaser making the translation is the average American consumer, not one knowledgeable in the applicable foreign language.”  Consequently, applicant argues, the refusal based upon the Thomas case should be withdrawn.   

 

The examining attorney has carefully considered applicant’s arguments and found them unpersuasive. 

 

First, applicant’s use of Palm Bay is inapposite to the instant facts.  Palm Bay involved two marks that were both in a foreign language: VEUVE CLIQUOT vs. VEUVE ROYALE.  The Palm Bay court found that “VEUVE - is distinctive, and as such its presence in both parties’ marks enhances the likelihood of confusion. Substantial evidence therefore supports the Board's finding that the marks are similar under the first DuPont factor.”  The Palm Bay court considered the doctrine of foreign equivalents, noting that the doctrine is a guideline and not an automatic ground for refusal.  In the Palm Bay case, the court concluded, there was no need to apply the doctrine because both words, i.e. VEUVE and VEUVE were in the same language. 

 

The present case is more like Thomas, which applied the doctrine of foreign equivalents where the marks were in both English and a foreign language: MARCHE NOIR vs. BLACK MARKET MINERALS.  Thus, the doctrine of foreign equivalents applies in the present case.

 

Second, applicant also argues that the most likely connotation that the average American consumer would give to MINUIT ladies’ underwear and briefs is that it relates to Peter Minuit, the Dutch governor who purchased the island of Manhattan for $24 worth of trinkets in 1626.  The examining attorney considered applicant’s argument carefully, but found a reference to a French word that means MIDNIGHT more likely.  Thus, applicant’s argument fails.  

 

Given that applicant’s mark, MIDNIGHT is a direct English translation of the French word, MINUIT; that French is a common, modern language; and given that the doctrine of foreign equivalents applies where the “ordinary American purchaser” is one who is knowledgeable in both English and the relevant foreign language, the examining attorney determines that the marks are similar. 

 

Comparison of the Goods

 

Applicant’s goods are, “Sleepwear,” in Class 025.  Registrant’s goods are, “Briefs; Ladies' underwear; Underwear; Women's underwear,” in Class 025.

 

Neither the application nor the registration contains any limitations regarding trade channels for the goods and therefore it is assumed that registrant’s and applicant’s goods are sold everywhere that is normal for such items, i.e., clothing and department stores.  Thus, it can also be assumed that the same classes of purchasers shop for these items and that consumers are accustomed to seeing them sold under the same or similar marks.  See Kangol Ltd. v. KangaROOS U.S.A., Inc., 974 F.2d 161, 23 USPQ2d 1945 (Fed. Cir. 1992); In re Smith & Mehaffey, 31 USPQ2d 1531 (TTAB 1994); TMEP §1207.01(a)(iii).

 

The overriding concern is not only to prevent buyer confusion as to the source of the goods, but to protect the registrant from adverse commercial impact due to use of a similar mark by a newcomer.  See In re Shell Oil Co., 992 F.2d 1204, 1208, 26 USPQ2d 1687, 1690 (Fed. Cir. 1993).  Therefore, any doubt regarding a likelihood of confusion determination is resolved in favor of the registrant.  TMEP §1207.01(d)(i); see Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Packard Press, Inc., 281 F.3d 1261, 1265, 62 USPQ2d 1001, 1003 (Fed. Cir. 2002); In re Hyper Shoppes (Ohio), Inc., 837 F.2d 463, 464-65, 6 USPQ2d 1025, 1025 (Fed. Cir. 1988).

 

The examining attorney refers to the following Internet excerpts, which show that applicant’s sleepwear and registrant’s briefs and underwear emanate from the same source. 

 

http://shop.nordstrom.com/S/2979804/0~2376777~2374609~2374629?mediumthumbnail=Y&origin=category&searchtype=&pbo=2374629&P=1

http://shop.nordstrom.com/S/2863854/0~2376777~2374609~2374627~2381682?mediumthumbnail=Y&origin=category&searchtype=&pbo=2381682&P=1

 

http://shop.nordstrom.com/S/3008779/0~2376777~2374609~2374629?mediumthumbnail=Y&origin=category&searchtype=&pbo=2374629&P=1

http://shop.nordstrom.com/S/3016622/0~2376777~2374609~2374627~2381682?mediumthumbnail=Y&origin=category&searchtype=&pbo=2381682&P=1

 

http://shop.nordstrom.com/S/2992008/0~2376777~2374609~2374629?mediumthumbnail=Y&origin=category&searchtype=&pbo=2374629&P=1

http://shop.nordstrom.com/S/2918375/0~2376777~2374609~2374627~2381682?mediumthumbnail=Y&origin=category&searchtype=&pbo=2381682&P=1

 

http://shop.nordstrom.com/S/3021855?Category=&Search=True&SearchType=guidednav&keyword=brief+in+Women%27s+Apparel+%3e+Natori&origin=searchresults

http://shop.nordstrom.com/S/2971175/0~2376776~2374327~2373578~6010733?mediumthumbnail=Y&origin=category&searchtype=&pbo=6010733&P=1

 

http://shop.nordstrom.com/S/2832230?Category=&Search=True&SearchType=guidednav&keyword=brief+in+Women%27s+Apparel+%3e+Hanro&origin=searchresults

http://shop.nordstrom.com/S/2948010/0~2376776~2374327~2373578~6010733?mediumthumbnail=Y&origin=category&searchtype=&pbo=6010733&P=1

 

http://shop.nordstrom.com/S/2994150/0~2376776~2374327~2373578~6010733?mediumthumbnail=Y&origin=category&searchtype=&pbo=6010733&P=1

http://shop.nordstrom.com/S/2994187?Category=&Search=True&SearchType=guidednav&keyword=brief+in+Women%27s+Apparel+%3e+Juicy+Couture&origin=searchresults

 

http://www2.victoriassecret.com/commerce/onlineProductDisplay.vs?namespace=productDisplay&origin=onlineProductDisplay.jsp&event=display&prnbr=9H-230566&page=1&cgname=OSSLPSHIZZZ&rfnbr=5243

http://www2.victoriassecret.com/commerce/onlineProductDisplay.vs?namespace=productDisplay&origin=onlineProductDisplay.jsp&event=display&prnbr=9H-159089&cgname=OSKEYPTYZZZ&rfnbr=5445

 

http://www.sears.com/shc/s/p_10153_12605_017C1503000B

http://www.sears.com/shc/s/p_10153_12605_038J0474000P

 

http://www.undergear.com/Product/SLEEP+LOUNGE/Printed+PJ/D-1000/P-PD04LPIzz/I-PD04_S_PI/navtheme/dept

http://www.undergear.com/Dept/UNDERWEAR/D-50/navtheme/dept/Ns/p_productId&cm_re=hp-_-nav2.1b-_-underwear

 

http://www.lanebryant.com/pagebuilder/lane_bryant_product_page?pagesize=3&my_nav=&cat=&subcat=&item=1908672

http://www.lanebryant.com/pagebuilder/lane_bryant_product_page?pagesize=3&my_nav=&cat=&subcat=&item=1829217

 

 

This evidence supports the conclusion that the goods of the parties are closely related and may be identical. 

 

The similarities between the marks and the goods of the parties create a likelihood of confusion.  Given the analysis above, and given that any doubt regarding a likelihood of confusion determination is resolved in favor of the registrant, the examining attorney makes the refusal of registration under Trademark Act Section 2(d), 15 U.S.C. Section 1052(d) FINAL.

 

PROPER RESPONSE TO FINAL ACTION

If applicant does not respond within six months of the mailing date of this final Office action, the application will be abandoned.  15 U.S.C. §1062(b); 37 C.F.R. §2.65(a).  Applicant may respond to this final Office action by: 

 

(1)     Submitting a response that fully satisfies all outstanding requirements, if feasible; and/or

 

(2)     Filing an appeal to the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board, with an appeal fee of $100 per class.

 

37 C.F.R. §§2.6(a)(18), 2.64(a); TBMP ch. 1200; TMEP §714.04.

 

In certain rare circumstances, a petition to the Director may be filed pursuant to 37 C.F.R. §2.63(b)(2) to review a final Office action that is limited to procedural issues.  37 C.F.R. §2.64(a); TMEP §714.04; see 37 C.F.R. §2.146(b); TBMP §1201.05; TMEP §1704 (explaining petitionable matters).  The petition fee is $100.  37 C.F.R. §2.6(a)(15).

 

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).

 

/Gilbert M. Swift/

Trademark Examining Attorney

Law Office 109

Tel. (571) 272-9028

 

 

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.

 

 

 

 

 

                                                                

IMPORTANT NOTICE

USPTO OFFICE ACTION HAS ISSUED ON 1/5/2009 FOR

APPLICATION SERIAL NO. 77447666

 

Please follow the instructions below to continue the prosecution of your application:

  

VIEW OFFICE ACTION: Click on this link http://tmportal.gov.uspto.report/external/portal/tow?DDA=Y&serial_number=77447666&doc_type=OOA&mail_date=20090105 (or copy and paste this URL into the address field of your browser), or visit http://tmportal.gov.uspto.report/external/portal/tow and enter the application serial number to access the Office action.

 

PLEASE NOTE: The Office action may not be immediately available but will be viewable within 24 hours of this notification.

 

RESPONSE MAY BE REQUIRED: You should carefully review the Office action to determine (1) if a response is required; (2) how to respond; and (3) the applicable response time period. Your response deadline will be calculated from 1/5/2009.

 

Do NOT hit “Reply” to this e-mail notification, or otherwise attempt to e-mail your response, as the USPTO does NOT accept e-mailed responses.  Instead, the USPTO recommends that you respond online using the Trademark Electronic Application System response form at http://www.gov.uspto.report/teas/eTEASpageD.htm.

 

HELP: For technical assistance in accessing the Office action, please e-mail

TDR@uspto.gov.  Please contact the assigned examining attorney with questions about the Office action. 

 

        WARNING

1. The USPTO will NOT send a separate e-mail with the Office action attached.

 

2. Failure to file any required response by the applicable deadline will result in the ABANDONMENT of your application.