Offc Action Outgoing

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE

 

 

 

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:

 

The referenced application has been reviewed by the assigned trademark examining attorney.  Applicant must respond timely and completely to the issue(s) below.  15 U.S.C. §1062(b); 37 C.F.R. §§2.62, 2.65(a); TMEP §§711, 718.03.

 

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 No. 1113243.  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.

 

COMPARISON OF THE 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 applicant applied to register the mark WILE E.COYOTE.  The registration is for WILE E. COYOTE.  The marks are identical.

 

COMPARISON OF GOODS/SERVICES 

The applicant’s goods are “toys and sporting goods, including games and playthings--namely, action figures and accessories therefor; plush toys; balloons; bathtub toys; ride-on toys; equipment sold as a unit for playing card games; toy vehicles; dolls; flying discs; electronic hand-held game unit; game equipment sold as a unit for playing a board game, a card game, a manipulative game, a parlor game and an action type target game; stand alone video output game machines; jigsaw and manipulative puzzles; paper face masks; skateboards; ice skates; water squirting toys; balls--namely, playground balls, soccer balls, baseballs, basketballs; baseball gloves; swimming floats for recreational use; kickboard flotation devices for recreational use; surfboards; swim boards for recreational use; swim fins; toy bakeware and toy cookware; toy banks; toy snow globes; and Christmas tree ornaments.”  The registrant’s goods are “toy dolls.”  The goods are identical “toy dolls” and “dolls.”

 

Since the marks are identical and the goods are identical, there is a likelihood of confusion as to the source of applicant’s goods.   Therefore, applicant’s mark is not entitled to registration.

 

The applicant should respond to the following informalities:

 

CLAIM OF OWNERSHIP OF REGISTRATIONS

If applicant is the owner of U.S. Registration No. 1872561 and 2135226, then applicant must submit a claim of ownership.  37 C.F.R. §2.36; TMEP §812.  The following standard format is suggested:

 

Applicant is the owner of U.S. Registration No. 1872561 and 2135226.

 

 

IDENTIFICATION OF GOODS

The wording “toys and sporting goods” and “including” in the identification of goods is indefinite and must be clarified.  See TMEP §1402.01.  Applicant must amend the identification to specify the common commercial name of the goods.  If there is no common commercial name, applicant must describe the product and its intended uses.  See id.

 

The applicant may amend to adopt the following, if accurate:

 

• Toys and sporting goods, namely, action figures and accessories therefor; plush toys; balloons; bathtub toys; ride-on toys; equipment sold as a unit for playing card games; toy vehicles; dolls; flying discs; electronic hand-held game unit; game equipment sold as a unit for playing a board game, a card game, a manipulative game, a parlor game and an action type target game; stand alone video output game machines; jigsaw and manipulative puzzles; paper face masks; skateboards; ice skates; water squirting toys; balls--namely, playground balls, soccer balls, baseballs, basketballs; baseball gloves; swimming floats for recreational use; kickboard flotation devices for recreational use; surfboards; swim boards for recreational use; swim fins; toy bakeware and toy cookware; toy banks; toy snow globes; and Christmas tree ornaments

 

Identifications of goods can be amended only to clarify or limit the goods; adding to or broadening the scope of the goods is not permitted.  37 C.F.R. §2.71(a); see TMEP §§1402.06 et seq., 1402.07.  Therefore, applicant may not amend the identification to include goods that are not within the scope of the goods set forth in the present identification.

 

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).

 

To expedite prosecution of this application, applicant is encouraged to file its response to this Office action online via the Trademark Electronic Application System (TEAS), which is available at http://www.gov.uspto.report/teas/index.html.

 

 

Gina Hayes, Esq.

/GH/

Trademark Examining Attorney

U.S. Patent and Trademark Office

Law Office 103

571-272-9407

 

 

 

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.