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  78/411319

 

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

General Refusal

 

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/services, so resembles the marks in U.S. Registration Nos. 1539966 and 1243255 as to be likely to cause confusion, to cause mistake, or to deceive.  TMEP §§1207.01 et seq.  See the enclosed registration.

 

Determination of Likelihood of Confusion

 

In determining whether there is a likelihood of confusion, the examining attorney must consider all circumstances surrounding the sale of the goods/services.  Industrial Nucleonic Corp. v. Hinde Engineering Co., 475 F.2d 1197, 177 USPQ 386 (C.C.P.A. 1973).  These circumstances include the marketing channels, the identity of the prospective purchasers and the degree of similarity between the marks and between the goods/services.  In comparing the marks, similarity in any one of the elements of sound, appearance or meaning is sufficient to find a likelihood of confusion.  If the goods/services of the parties differ, it is necessary to show that they are related in some manner.  In re Mack, 197 USPQ 755 (TTAB 1977).  TMEP §§1207.01 et seq. 

Comparing the Marks

 

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 (C.C.P.A. 1973).  Similarity in any one of these elements is sufficient to find a likelihood of confusion. In re Mack, 197 USPQ 755 (TTAB 1977).  TMEP §§1207.01(b) et seq. 

 

The applicant’s mark is BARE ESSENTIALS and the registrant’s marks are BARE ESCENTUALS and BARE ESCENTUALS and design.  The marks are essentially phonetic equivalents and are thus similar sounding.  Similarity in sound alone may be sufficient to support a finding of likelihood of confusion.  RE/MAX of America, Inc. v. Realty Mart, Inc., 207 USPQ 960, 964 (TTAB 1980); Molenaar, Inc. v. Happy Toys Inc., 188 USPQ 469 (TTAB 1975); In re Cresco Mfg. Co., 138 USPQ 401 (TTAB 1963); TMEP §1207.01(b)(iv).  Therefore, the similarities in the elements that exist are sufficient to find a likelihood of confusion.

Goods/Services Need Not Be Identical or Competing

 

The goods/services 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/services 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).  TMEP §1207.01(a)(i). 

 

The applicant’s goods are “body scrub, foam bath, body spray, body lotion, shower gel, body shimmer, deodorant” and the registrants’ goods and services are “cosmetic skin creams, lotions and gels, perfumes, essential oils used as cosmetics, body lotions, creams and gels, bath lotions, hair shampoos and hair conditioners, colognes and toilet waters, and cosmetic powders for the skin and eyes” and “Retail Store Services and Mail Order Services in the Field of Body Care Products.”  The goods and services of the parties are related, because they are both “body care products” or store services for ‘body care products.”  The conditions surrounding the marketing of the goods and services may be such, that they could be encountered by the same purchasers under circumstances that could give rise to the mistaken belief that the goods and services come from a common source. 

 

Because of the similarities between the marks and the goods and services of the parties, a likelihood of confusion is created.

 

 

 

 

Application Not Entitled to Register

 

Information regarding pending Application Serial No. 76-527462 is enclosed.  The filing date of the referenced application precedes applicant’s filing date.  There may be a likelihood of confusion between the two marks under Trademark Act Section 2(d), 15 U.S.C. §1052(d).  If the referenced application registers, registration may be refused in this case under Section 2(d).  37 C.F.R. §2.83; TMEP §1208.01.

Response

 

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.  No set form is required for response to this Office action.  The applicant must respond to each point raised.  The applicant should simply set forth the required changes or statements and request that the Office enter them.  The applicant must sign the response.  In addition to the identifying information required at the beginning of this letter, the applicant should provide a telephone number to speed up further processing. The applicant may wish to hire a trademark attorney because of the technicalities involved in the application.  The Patent and Trademark Office cannot aid in the selection of an attorney.  37 C.F.R. §2.11. 

 

NOTICE:  TRADEMARK OPERATION RELOCATION

 

The Trademark Operation has relocated to Alexandria, Virginia.  Effective October 4, 2004, all Trademark-related paper mail (except documents sent to the Assignment Services Division for recordation, certain documents filed under the Madrid Protocol, and requests for copies of trademark documents) must be sent to:

 

Commissioner for Trademarks

P.O. Box 1451

Alexandria, VA  22313-1451

 

Applicants, attorneys and other Trademark customers are strongly encouraged to correspond with the USPTO online via the Trademark Electronic Application System (TEAS), at http://www.gov.uspto.report/teas/index.html.

 

 

USPTO

/Charles L. Jenkins, Jr./

Trademark Examining Attorney

Law Office 105

(571)272-9305

 

 

 

How to respond to this Office Action:

 

You may respond formally using the Office's Trademark Electronic Application System (TEAS) Response to Office Action form (visit http://eteas.gov.uspto.report/V2.0/oa242/WIZARD.htm and follow the instructions therein, but you must wait until at least 72 hours after receipt if the office action issued via e-mail).  PLEASE NOTE: Responses to Office Actions on applications filed under the Madrid Protocol (Section 66(a)) CANNOT currently be filed via TEAS.

 

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.