Offc Action Outgoing

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE

 

OFFICE ACTION

 

TO AVOID ABANDONMENT, WE MUST RECEIVE A PROPER RESPONSE TO THIS OFFICE ACTION WITHIN 6 MONTHS OF OUR MAILING OR E-MAILING DATE. 

 

Serial Number  78/338467

 

The assigned examining attorney has reviewed the referenced application and determined the following.

Likelihood of  Confusion-Section 2(d)

The examining attorney refuses registration under Trademark Act Section 2(d), 15 U.S.C. Section 1052(d), because the applicant's mark, when used on the identified goods, is likely to be confused with the registered mark in U.S. Registration No. 961854.  See the enclosed registration.

 

The examining attorney must analyze each case in two steps to determine whether there is a likelihood of confusion.  First, the examining attorney must look at the marks themselves for similarities in appearance, sound, connotation and commercial impression.  In re E. I. DuPont de Nemours & Co., 476 F.2d 1357, 177 USPQ 563 (CCPA 1973).  Second, the examining attorney must compare the goods or services to determine if they are related or if the activities surrounding their marketing are such that confusion as to origin is likely.  In re August Storck KG, 218 USPQ 823 (TTAB 1983); In re International Telephone and Telegraph Corp., 197 USPQ 910 (TTAB 1978); Guardian Products Co., v. Scott Paper Co., 200 USPQ 738 (TTAB 1978).

 

Applicant seeks to register the mark  PRINCESS.  The registrant’s mark is PRINCESS. 

 

The examining attorney must compare the marks for similarities in sound, appearance, meaning or connotation. In re E. I. DuPont de Nemours & Co., 476 F.2d 1357, 177 USPQ 563 (CCPA 1973). Similarity in any one of these elements is sufficient to find a likelihood of confusion.  In re Mack, 197 USPQ 755 (TTAB 1977).

 

The applicant’s and registrant’s marks are similar in appearance, sound and meaning as they both contain the word PRINCESS, the only element of applicant’s and registrant’s marks. 

If the marks of the respective parties are identical or highly similar, the examining attorney must consider the commercial relationship between the goods or services of the respective parties carefully to determine whether there is a likelihood of confusion.  In re Concordia International Forwarding Corp., 222 USPQ 355 (TTAB 1983).

 

The goods of the parties need not be identical or directly competitive to find a likelihood of confusion.  They need only be related in some manner, or the conditions surrounding their marketing be such, that they could be encountered by the same purchasers under circumstances that could give rise to the mistaken belief that the goods come from a common source.  In re Martin's Famous Pastry Shoppe, Inc., 748 F.2d 1565, 223 USPQ 1289 (Fed. Cir. 1984); In re Corning Glass Works, 229 USPQ 65 (TTAB 1985); In re Rexel Inc., 223 USPQ 830 (TTAB 1984); Guardian Products Co., Inc. v. Scott Paper Co., 200 USPQ 738 (TTAB 1978); In re International Telephone & Telegraph Corp., 197 USPQ 910 (TTAB 1978).

 

Applicant's goods are acrylic, claw foot and bathtubs.  The registrant’s goods are tub enclosures, shower stall enclosures and shower doors.  The goods are related in that they are bathroom fixtures that are complementary.  The registrant’s goods, enclosures, would be used in connection with the applicant’s goods, tubs. The attached registrations that show the same mark used for both types of goods, bathtubs and bath enclosures and shower doors.

 

The goods would also be sold in the same channels of trade, bathroom fixture stores, departments, catalogues and websites.  The third-party registrations showing the same mark for both types of goods would indicate that in the marketplace consumers are use to seeing the goods provided by one entity. Consequently, confusion as to the identity of the source of the goods is likely to occur.

 

Although the examining attorney has refused registration, the applicant may respond to the refusal to register by submitting evidence and arguments in support of registration. 

 

Search Results

Information is enclosed concerning pending Application Serial No. 76-545502. There may be a likelihood of confusion under Section 2(d) of the Act between applicant’s mark and the mark in the above noted application.  The filing date of the referenced application precedes applicant’s filing date.  If the earlier-filed application registers, registration may be refused under Section 2(d).  37 C.F.R. §2.83.

 

/Angela Micheli/

Examining Attorney, Law Office 108

(703) 308-9108 ext. 253

(703) 746-6115 fax

angela.micheli@uspto.gov

 

 

How to respond to this Office Action:

 

To respond formally using the Office’s Trademark Electronic Application System (TEAS), visit http://www.gov.uspto.report/teas/index.html and follow the instructions.

 

To respond formally via regular mail, your response should be sent to the mailing Return Address listed above and include the serial number, law office and examining attorney’s name on the upper right corner of each page of your response.

 

To check the status of your application at any time, visit the Office’s Trademark Applications and Registrations Retrieval (TARR) system at http://tarr.gov.uspto.report/

 

For general and other useful information about trademarks, you are encouraged to visit the Office’s web site at http://www.gov.uspto.report/main/trademarks.htm

 

FOR INQUIRIES OR QUESTIONS ABOUT THIS OFFICE ACTION, PLEASE CONTACT THE ASSIGNED EXAMINING ATTORNEY.