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  78/340024

 

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

SECTION 2(d) REFUSAL – LIKELIHOOD OF CONFUSION

 

The examining attorney refuses registration under Trademark Act Section 2(d), 15 U.S.C. §1052(d), because the applicant’s mark, when used on or in connection with the identified goods, so resembles the mark in U.S. Registration No. 2387882 as to be likely to cause confusion, to cause mistake, or to deceive.  TMEP §§1207.01 et seq.  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 (C.C.P.A. 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).  TMEP §§1207.01 et seq. 

 

The examining attorney must resolve any doubt regarding a likelihood of confusion 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). 

 

Comparison of Marks

 

Applicant's proposed mark, ANNIE, is identical in sound, appearance and meaning to registrant's mark, ANNIE. Thus the commercial impression created by applicant's proposed mark is the same as that created by registrant's mark.

 

Comparison of Goods

 

Applicant seeks to register ANNIE for “toys, games and playthings; gymnastic and sporting articles (except clothing); hand-held unit for playing electronic games.” Registrant uses its mark on “puppets.” It is well settled that the issue of likelihood of confusion between marks must be determined on the basis of the goods or services as they are identified in the application and the registration. Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce v. Wells Fargo Bank, 811 F.2d 1490, 1 USPQ2d 1813 (Fed. Cir. 1987); Paula Payne Products Co. v. Johnson Publishing Co., 473 F.2d 901, 177 USPQ 76 (C.C.P.A. 1973).  Since the identification of the applicant’s goods is very broad, it is presumed that the application encompasses all goods 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 for all potential customers.  TMEP §1207.01(a)(iii). 

 

The average consumer who encounters these marks on such highly related goods would mistakenly believe that a common source provided the goods. Thus, there is a likelihood of confusion, and registration must be refused pursuant to Section 2(d) of the Trademark Act.

 

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.

 

If the applicant chooses to respond to the refusal to register, the applicant must also respond to the following requirements.

 

IDENTIFICATION OF GOODS

 

The identification of goods is unacceptable because it does not identify the common commercial name of the toys, games, playthings, and gymnastic and sporting articles and may refer to goods in more than one international class.  The applicant must amend the identification to specify the common commercial name of the goods.  If there is no common commercial name, the applicant must describe the product and its intended uses.  TMEP §1402.01. The applicant may adopt the following format, if accurate:

 

Toys, games and playthings, namely, [specify, e.g., children’s multiple activity toys, board games, card games, etc.]; gymnastic and sporting articles, namely, [specify, e.g., gymnastic apparatus, tennis rackets, etc.]; hand-held unit for playing electronic games, in International Class 28.

 

Please note that, while an application may be amended to clarify or limit the identification, additions to the identification are not permitted.  37 C.F.R. §2.71(a); TMEP §1402.06.  Therefore, the applicant may not amend to include any goods that are not within the scope of goods set forth in the present identification.

 

Please also note that parentheticals are not acceptable in the identification. Where indicated “[specify … ],” the examining attorney has merely suggested ways to cure the indefiniteness of the identification. The applicant must list the goods without parentheses.

 

MULTIPLE-CLASS APPLICATIONS

 

If the amended identification includes goods in additional classes, applicant must comply with each of the following for those goods based on an intent to use the mark in commerce under Trademark Act Section 1(b):

 

(1)   Applicant must list the goods by international class with the classes listed in ascending numerical order.  TMEP § 1403.01; and

 

(2)   Applicant must submit a filing fee for each international class of goods not covered by the fee already paid.  37 C.F.R. §2.86(a)(2); TMEP §§810.01 and 1403.01.

 

 

If the applicant has any questions or needs assistance in responding to this Office action, please telephone the assigned examining attorney.

 

/cpcain/

Catherine Pace Cain

Trademark Attorney

Law Office 113

703-308-9113 (ext. 273)

703-746-8113 (fax)

 

 

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.