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  78/478162

 

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

 

 

Section 2(d) - Likelihood of Confusion 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 mark in U.S. Registration No. 1860231 as to be likely to cause confusion, to cause mistake, or to deceive.  TMEP §§1207.01 et seq.  See the enclosed registration.

 

The Court in In re E. I. DuPont de Nemours & Co., 476 F.2d 1357, 177 USPQ 563 (C.C.P.A. 1973), listed the principal factors to be considered in determining whether there is a likelihood of confusion under Section 2(d).  Any one of the factors listed may be dominant in any given case, depending upon the evidence of record.  In this case, the following factors are the most relevant:  similarity of the marks, similarity of the goods/services, and similarity of trade channels of the goods/services.  TMEP §§1207.01 et seq. 

 

Thus, 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. 

 

 

Marks

The examining attorney must look at the marks in their entireties under Section 2(d). Nevertheless, one feature of a mark may be recognized as more significant in creating a commercial impression.  Greater weight is given to that dominant feature in determining whether there is a likelihood of confusion.  In re National Data Corp., 224 USPQ 749 (Fed. Cir. 1985); Tektronix, Inc. v. Daktronics, Inc., 534 F.2d 915, 189 USPQ 693 (C.C.P.A. 1976). In re J.M. Originals Inc., 6 USPQ2d 1393 (TTAB 1988).  TMEP §1207.01(b)(viii). 

 

When the applicant’s mark is compared to a registered mark, “the points of similarity are of greater importance than the points of difference.”  Esso Standard Oil Co. v. Sun Oil Co., 229 F.2d 37, 108 USPQ 161 (D.C. Cir.), cert. denied, 351 U.S. 973, 109 USPQ 517 (1956).  TMEP §1207.01(b).  The test of likelihood of confusion is not whether the marks can be distinguished when subjected to a side‑by‑side comparison.  The issue is whether the marks create the same overall impression. Visual Information Institute, Inc. v. Vicon Industries Inc., 209 USPQ 179 (TTAB 1980).  The focus is on the recollection of the average purchaser who normally retains a general rather than specific impression of trademarks.  Chemetron Corp. v. Morris Coupling & Clamp Co., 203 USPQ 537 (TTAB 1979); Sealed Air Corp. v. Scott Paper Co., 190 USPQ 106 (TTAB 1975); TMEP §1207.01(b).

 

Applying the above analysis, the marks are substantially similar. The registered mark is VIVID. The applicant’s mark is VIVID GIRL. To the registrant’s mark the applicant has added the term GIRL. The mere addition of a term to a registered mark is not sufficient to overcome a likelihood of confusion under Section 2(d).  Coca‑Cola Bottling Co. v. Joseph E. Seagram & Sons, Inc., 526 F.2d 556, 188 USPQ 105 (C.C.P.A. 1975) (“BENGAL” and “BENGAL LANCER”); Lilly Pulitzer, Inc. v. Lilli Ann Corp., 376 F.2d 324, 153 USPQ 406 (C.C.P.A. 1967) (“THE LILLY” and “LILLI ANN”); In re El Torito Restaurants Inc., 9 USPQ2d 2002 (TTAB 1988) (“MACHO” and “MACHO COMBOS”); In re United States Shoe Corp., 229 USPQ 707 (TTAB 1985) (“CAREER IMAGE” and “CREST CAREER IMAGES”); In re Corning Glass Works, 229 USPQ 65 (TTAB 1985) (“CONFIRM” and “CONFIRMCELLS”); In re Riddle, 225 USPQ 630 (TTAB 1985) (“ACCUTUNE” and “RICHARD PETTY’S ACCU TUNE”); In re Cosvetic Laboratories, Inc., 202 USPQ 842 (TTAB 1979) (“HEAD START” and “HEAD START COSVETIC”).  TMEP §1207.01(b)(iii).  Viewed as a whole, the applicant’s mark is substantially similar to the registered marks that confusion is likely.

 

Goods

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).  TMEP §1207.01(a)(i). 

 

As to the second part of the test, the goods are to some extent identical, since the registrant’s goods include “colognes” “perfumes” “dusting powder” and “shower gel” as do the applicant’s identification of goods. Moreover, the remaining goods in the application and the registration are related since the conditions surrounding their marketing is 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, such as in the cosmetic section of retail department store or pharmacy.

 

Conclusion

The similarities between the marks and the goods of the parties are so great as to create a likelihood of confusion. Because the applicant's mark is very similar to a mark already registered for the related goods, it cannot be registered.

 

The examining attorney must resolve any doubt regarding a likelihood of confusion in favor of the prior registrant.  In re Shell Oil Co., 992 F.2d 1204, 26 USPQ2d 1687 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Hyper Shoppes (Ohio), Inc. 837 F.2d 463, 6 USPQ2d 1025 (Fed. Cir. 1988). TMEP §§1207.01(d)(i). 

 

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 issues.

 

Identification and Classification of Goods

 

The identification of goods is unacceptable as indefinite as to some of the goods, as noted below. In addition, the applicant has misclassified some of the goods, as they should be classified in International Class 5, as noted below. The following is required as to the identification of goods:

 

 

Cosmetics, make-up, nail polish, shampoos, hair conditioners, hair care preparations, [The wording “hair styling products” is indefinite, must specify names of products or amend this wording to “hair styling preparations” if accurate], bubble bath, bath oil, cologne, shaving preparations, perfumes, [The term “astringents” is indefinite applicant may amend this wording to “astringents for cosmetic purposes” which is classified in International Class 3 or “astringents for medicinal purposes” which is classified in International Class 5], body lotions, massage oils, massage lotions, massage creams, shower gel, after sun lotions and creams, after shave lotions, anti-aging creams, anti-wrinkle creams, aromatherapy creams lotions and oils, dusting powder, [The wording “non-medicated lubricants, jams, butter and puddings all for use on the skin” is indefinite. Applicant may amend this wording to “Water-based personal lubricants, namely, non-medicated lubricants, jams, butter and puddings all for use on the skin in International Class 5, if accurate] [The wording “kits comprised of some or all of the aforementioned goods” is unacceptable as indefinite. Generally, kits are identified and classified in two ways. If the kit is for the purpose of making a single object, it would be classified by the item it is intended to make (e.g., kits for making bird feeders would be classified in Class 21, even though the individual components would be classified in other classes.) If the kit is a combination of a number of items around a theme, (e.g., first aid kits, nail care kits, student "survival" kits,) the class that would include the majority of individual items in the kit would control the classification for the entire kit. Thus, a first aid kit that comprised primarily bandages for skin wounds, antiseptic and aspirin would be classified in Class 5 even though it also included tweezers (Cl. 8) and an instruction manual (Cl. 16.) In such a kit, the identification must indicate the type of kit and list the components with the items in the predominant class set forth as the first items in the list. If the components of the kit do not appear to have a predominant class (e.g., the kit contains two or three items in each of three classes), the applicant may elect which class or classes the kit should be in, but the identification must still list the goods that control the class first in the list of components of the kit. Applicant may wish to adopt the following amended identification for these goods, if accurate: Make-up kits comprised of cosmetics and dusting powder in International Class 3.]

 

 

 

TMEP §1402.01.

 

Please note that, while the identification of goods may be amended to clarify or limit the goods, adding to the goods or broadening the scope of the goods is not permitted.  37 C.F.R. §2.71(a); TMEP §1402.06.  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.

 

For assistance with identifying goods and/or services in trademark applications, please see the online searchable Manual of Acceptable Identifications of Goods and Services at http://tess2.gov.uspto.report/netahtml/tidm.html.

 

 

Combined Applications

 

Applicant must clarify the number of classes for which registration is sought.  The submitted filing fees are insufficient to cover all the classes in the application.

 

Applicant must either: (1) restrict the application to the number of class(es) covered by the fee already paid, or (2) pay the required fee for each additional class(es).  37 C.F.R. §2.86(a)(2); TMEP §§810.0l, 1401.04, 1401.04(b) and 1403.01.

 

If applicant prosecutes this application as a combined, or multiple-class application, then applicant must comply with each of the following for those goods and/or services based on an intent to use the mark in commerce under Trademark Act Section 1(b):

 

(1)   Applicant must list the goods and/or services 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 and/or services not covered by the fee already paid.  37 C.F.R. §2.86(a)(2); TMEP §§810.01 and 1403.01.

 

Prior Pending Application

 

Information is enclosed concerning pending Application Serial No. 78358147.  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.

 

Status of Trademark Applications

 

For future reference, please note that current status and status date information is available, via the World Wide Web, for all federal trademark registration and application records maintained in the automated Trademark Reporting and Monitoring (TRAM) system.  The information may be accessed through the Office's web site at: http://tarr.uspto.gov.   If additional information regarding the status of an application or registration is required, callers may telephone the Trademark Assistance Center at 571-272-9250 and request a status check.

 

 

NOTICE:  FEE CHANGE   

 

Effective January 31, 2005 and pursuant to the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2005, Pub. L. 108-447, the following are the fees that will be charged for filing a trademark application:

 

(1) $325 per international class if filed electronically using the Trademark Electronic Application System (TEAS); or 

 

(2)   $375 per international class if filed on paper

 

These fees will be charged not only when a new application is filed, but also when payments are made to add classes to an existing application. If such payments are submitted with a TEAS response, the fee will be  $325 per class, and if such payments are made with a paper response, the fee will be $375 per class.

 

The new fee requirements will apply to any fees filed on or after January 31, 2005.

 

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.

 

 

/Monique C. Miller/

Trademark Examining Attorney

Law Office 108

(571) 272-9347

(571) 273-9108 (FAX)

 

 

 

HOW TO RESPOND TO THIS OFFICE ACTION:

• ONLINE RESPONSE:  You may respond formally using the Office’s Trademark Electronic Application System (TEAS) Response to Office Action form (visit http://www.gov.uspto.report/teas/index.html and follow the instructions, but if the Office Action issued via email you must wait 72 hours after receipt of the Office Action to respond via TEAS).
• REGULAR MAIL RESPONSE:  To respond by regular mail, your response should be sent to the mailing return address above and include the serial number, law office number and examining attorney’s name in your response.

 

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

 

VIEW APPLICATION DOCUMENTS ONLINE: Documents in the electronic file for pending applications can be viewed and downloaded online at http://portal.gov.uspto.report/external/portal/tow.

 

GENERAL TRADEMARK INFORMATION: For general information about trademarks, please visit the Office’s website at http://www.gov.uspto.report/main/trademarks.htm

 

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