To: | Entertainment Enterprises Ltd (bwerbin@herrick.com) |
Subject: | U.S. TRADEMARK APPLICATION NO. 77487760 - GREENHOUSE - 12364-0001 |
Sent: | 9/21/2009 2:33:49 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 Attachment - 12 Attachment - 13 Attachment - 14 Attachment - 15 Attachment - 16 Attachment - 17 Attachment - 18 Attachment - 19 Attachment - 20 Attachment - 21 Attachment - 22 Attachment - 23 Attachment - 24 Attachment - 25 Attachment - 26 Attachment - 27 Attachment - 28 Attachment - 29 Attachment - 30 |
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
SERIAL NO: 77/487760
MARK: GREENHOUSE
|
|
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: Entertainment Enterprises Ltd
|
|
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: 9/21/2009
In the previous action, the examining attorney suspended the application pending the outcome of prior pending applications. The prior pending applications have all registered or abandoned, and so the following refusal is now made.
SECTION 2(d) REFUSAL – LIKELIHOOD OF CONFUSION
Comparison of Marks
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.
Here, the marks are GREENHOUSE, and applicant’s GREENHOUSE with a design element. The word portion of the mark is identical. The word portions of the marks are nearly identical in appearance, sound and meaning. The addition of the design element does not obviate the similarity of the marks in this case. See In re Shell Oil Co., 992 F.2d 1204, 1206, 26 USPQ2d 1687, 1688 (Fed. Cir. 1993); TMEP §1207.01(c)(ii).
Comparison of Goods/Services
Registrant’s services are “Restaurant Services and Take-out Restaurant Services” in class 43. Applicant’s services are “Restaurant, bar and lounge services” in class 43 and “Entertainment services, namely night clubs; music provided by DJs and live musical performances by bands and other performers at nightclubs.” The Restaurant and bar services are identical in both applications. Further applicant’s nightclub services are related to the restaurant services in that restaurants often have these types of nightclub services attached to them. They appear advertised in the same channels of trade, appeal to the same types of consumers and are of the type that come from the same source.
Although applicant’s mark has been refused registration, applicant may respond to the refusal(s) by submitting evidence and arguments in support of registration.
If the applicant has any questions or needs assistance regarding this action, please telephone the assigned examining attorney.
/Frank J Lattuca/
Trademark Examining Attorney
Law Office 109
Tel: (571) 270-1518
Fax: (571) 273-9109
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.