To: | Knowledge Learning Corporation (sschwartz@cozen.com) |
Subject: | U.S. TRADEMARK APPLICATION NO. 77713157 - CHAMPIONS - KLC-0650/233 |
Sent: | 6/30/2009 9:58:09 AM |
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 |
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
SERIAL NO: 77/713157
MARK: CHAMPIONS
|
|
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: Knowledge Learning Corporation
|
|
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: 6/30/2009
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
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.
The applicant has requested registration of the mark CHAMPIONS and Design, for “Printed instructional, educational, and teaching materials, namely, course books, lesson plans, work books, and teaching activity guides; printed materials, namely, newsletters, magazines, prints, posters, calendars, books, flash cards, note cards, writing pads, award certificates, and postcards; pencils and pens”; “Educational services, namely providing courses of instruction and programs, online courses of instruction and programs, supervised homework, extracurricular activities, and before and after school educational programs at the preschool, kindergarten, elementary and middle school levels in the areas of reading, writing, history, science, math, music, sports, and art; administering summer camps and recreational camps”; “Child care services; before and after school extended day care services.”
The registrants’ marks are (1) CHAMPIONS and Design, for “Education services, namely, providing after-school enrichment in the form of classes in the arts, homework help, athletic programs, and outdoor education activities including hiking, camping, mountain biking, kayaking, rock climbing, teambuilding and orienteering”; (2) CHAMPIONS ACADEMY, for “Conducting workshops and seminars in basketball skills; Training services in the field of basketball skills”; (3) CHAMPIONS and Design, for “Pre-recorded audio video tapes, audio cassettes and DVD's featuring instruction and information on the fields of health, exercise, nutrition, sports, diet, sport fashion and lifestyle”; and (4)CHAMPIONS, for “Printed educational curricula materials sold to professionals in the field of education, namely, lesson plan books and wall charts designed for and used specifically in special needs classrooms for students with mental disabilities, to teach children with special needs the life skills they need to achieve self sufficiency.”
COMPARISON OF MARKS
Marks may be confusingly similar in appearance where there are similar terms or phrases or similar parts of terms or phrases appearing in both applicant’s and registrant’s mark. See e.g., Crocker Nat’l Bank v. Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce, 228 USPQ 689 (TTAB 1986), aff’d 1 USPQ2d 1813 (Fed. Cir. 1987) (COMMCASH and COMMUNICASH); In re Phillips-Van Heusen Corp., 228 USPQ 949 (TTAB 1986) (21 CLUB and “21” CLUB (stylized)); In re Corning Glass Works, 229 USPQ 65 (TTAB 1985) (CONFIRM and CONFIRMCELLS); In re Collegian Sportswear Inc., 224 USPQ 174 (TTAB 1984) (COLLEGIAN OF CALIFORNIA and COLLEGIENNE); In re Pellerin Milnor Corp., 221 USPQ 558 (TTAB 1983) (MILTRON and MILLTRONICS); In re BASF A.G., 189 USPQ 424 (TTAB 1975) (LUTEXAL and LUTEX); TMEP §§1207.01(b)(ii) and (b)(iii).
In the present case, applicant’s mark is confusingly similar to the registered marks because its mark encompasses similar terms as the registrants’ mark, namely, CHAMPIONS.
COMPARISON OF GOODS AND SERVICES
In this case, the applicant’s goods and services are identical and/or closely related to the registrants’ goods and services because applicant specifies the goods and services overly broad (the subject matter of the printed matter is not specified, and the educational services encompasses a variety of areas/fields) so that they may encompass the specific fields, subject matter, and/or areas in which the registrants provide their printed and pre-recorded goods, and educational services (classes and workshops).
Therefore, it is presumed that the application encompasses all goods and/or services of the type described, including those in the registrant’s more specific identification, that they move in all normal channels of trade, and that they are available to all potential customers. See TMEP §1207.01(a)(iii); see, e.g., In re Americor Health Servs., 1 USPQ2d 1670, 1670-71 (TTAB 1986); In re Equitable Bancorporation, 229 USPQ 709, 710 (TTAB 1986).
Thus, in view of the relatedness of the marks and the goods and services, there is a strong likelihood that consumers would perceive that the goods and services emanate from a common source.
In view of the above circumstances, the examining attorney must resolve any doubt regarding a likelihood of confusion is resolved in favor of the prior registrant. In re Hyper Shoppes (Ohio), Inc., 837 F.2d 463, 6 USPQ2d 1025 (Fed. Cir. 1988); TMEP §§1207.01(d)(i).
Thus, the mark is refused registration on the Principal Register under Section 2(d).
Although the examining attorney has refused registration, the applicant may respond to the refusal(s) to register by submitting evidence and arguments in support of registration. If the applicant chooses to respond to the refusal to register, the applicant must also respond to the below listed informalities.
INFORMALITIES
1. IDENTIFICATION OF GOODS IN CLASS 16 IS INDEFINITE AND REQUIRES CLARIFICATION:
Applicant must clarify the identification of goods, and may adopt the following suggestion:
CLASS 16
“Printed instructional, educational, and teaching materials, namely, course books, lesson plans, work books, and teaching activity guides in the field of {indicate subject matter}; printed materials, namely, newsletters, magazines, and books in the field of {indicate subject matter}, prints, posters, calendars, flash cards, note cards, writing pads, award certificates, and postcards; pencils and pens.”
CLASS 41
The Classification of services is acceptable as provided.
CLASS 45
The Classification of services is acceptable as provided.
See TMEP §1402.01.
Descriptions of goods and/or services found in earlier-filed applications and registrations are not necessarily considered acceptable identifications when a later-filed application is examined. See TMEP §§702.03(a)(iv), 1402.14.
For guidance on writing identifications of goods and/or services, please use the online searchable Manual of Acceptable Identifications of Goods and Services at http://tess2.gov.uspto.report/netahtml/tidm.html, which is continually updated in accordance with prevailing rules and policies. See TMEP §1402.04.
2. APPLICATION NOT ENTITLED TO REGISTER-EARLIED-FILED PENDING APPLICATIONS
If applicant believes that there is no potential conflict between this application and the earlier-filed applications, then applicant may present arguments relevant to the issue in a response to this Office action. The election not to submit arguments at this time in no way limits applicant’s right to address this issue at a later point.
/Darryl M. Spruill/
Trademark Attorney
Law Office 112
(571) 272-9418 (office)
(571) 273-9418 (fax)
darryl.spruill@uspto.gov
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.