UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE

 

 

 

OFFICE ACTION

 

RESPONSE TIME LIMIT:  TO AVOID ABANDONMENT, THE OFFICE MUST RECEIVE A PROPER RESPONSE TO THIS OFFICE ACTION WITHIN 6 MONTHS OF THE MAILING OR E-MAILING DATE. 

 

 

Serial Number  78/518463

 

PRIOR PENDING

The examining attorney encloses information regarding pending Application Serial No. 78233904.  The filing date of the referenced application precedes the 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 matures into a registration, the examining attorney may refuse registration in this case under Section 2(d).  37 C.F.R. §2.83; TMEP §1208.01.

 

SECTION 2(D) LIKELIHOOD OF CONFUSION REFUSAL

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 or in connection with the identified services, so resembles the mark in U.S. Registration No. 2530759  as to be likely to cause confusion, to cause mistake, or to deceive.  TMEP section 1207.  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).

 

 

The applicant uses its mark LEGENDS and the design of part of a wheat stalk on services identified as “Entertainment and amusement centers, and interactive play areas.”  The registrant uses its mark LEGENDS on services identified as “Entertainment in the nature of professional baseball games.”

 

Comparison of the Marks

The marks are compared in their entireties under a Section 2(d) analysis.  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., 753 F.2d 1056, 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 1987); TMEP §1207.01(b)(viii).

 

When a mark consists of a word portion and a design portion, the word portion is more likely to be impressed upon a purchaser’s memory and to be used in calling for the goods or services.  Therefore, the word portion is normally accorded greater weight in determining likelihood of confusion.  In re Dakin’s Miniatures Inc., 59 USPQ2d 1593, 1596 (TTAB 1999); In re Appetito Provisions Co., 3 USPQ2d 1553 (TTAB 1987); Amoco Oil Co. v. Amerco, Inc., 192 USPQ 729 (TTAB 1976); TMEP §1207.01(c)(ii).

 

The literal or word portion of the applicant’s mark is identical to the registered mark.

 

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).

 

Comparison of the Goods/Services

If the marks of the respective parties are identical, the relationship between the goods or services of the respective parties need not be as close to support a finding of likelihood of confusion as might apply where differences exist between the marks.  Amcor, Inc. v. Amcor Industries, Inc., 210 USPQ 70 (TTAB 1981).  TMEP §1207.01(a). 

 

The applicant’s services of “Entertainment and amusement centers, and interactive play areas” are broad enough to include  “Entertainment in the nature of professional baseball games.”  Likelihood of confusion is determined on the basis of the goods or services as they are identified in the application and the registration.  Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Packard Press Inc., 281 F.3d 1261, 62 USPQ2d 1001 (Fed. Cir. 2002); In re Shell Oil Co., 992 F.2d 1204, 26 USPQ2d 1687, 1690 n.4 (Fed. Cir. 1993); J & J Snack Foods Corp. v. McDonald’s Corp., 932 F.2d 1460, 18 USPQ2d 1889 (Fed. Cir. 1991); Octocom Systems Inc. v. Houston Computer Services Inc., 918 F.2d 937, 16 USPQ2d 1783 (Fed. Cir. 1990).  Since the identification of the applicant’s goods and/or services is very broad, 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.  TMEP §1207.01(a)(iii).

 

Because of the similarity between the applicant’s and registrant’s marks and because the marks are used on  the same and related services consumers are likely to mistakenly believe that the  services come from the same source.  For these reasons registration of the applicant’s mark is refused in accordance with 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 informalities.

 

IDENTIFICATION OF SERVICES

The wording “amusement centers” in the current identification is acceptable in Class 41.

 

The applicant must clarify the recitation of services by more clearly indicating the type of entertainment centers and interactive play areas.  TMEP §1402.11.

 

The following are examples of acceptable identifications for the entertainment centers and interactive play areas which the applicant may adopt, if accurate:  Children's entertainment and amusement centers, namely, interactive play areas; Providing recreational areas in the nature of children's play areas; Entertainment centers, namely, amusement arcades; Entertainment centers, namely, golf courses and providing swimming pools and batting cages; Entertainment centers featuring baseball fields;  in Class 41.

 

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 services that are not within the scope of the services recited in the present identification.

 

SPECIMEN

Applicant must submit a substitute specimen showing use of the mark for the goods and/or services specified in the application, because the specimen currently of record does not show use of the mark for any goods and/or services identified in the application.  37 C.F.R. §2.56; TMEP §§904 and 904.01 et seq..  Applicant must also submit a statement that “the substitute specimen was in use in commerce at least as early as the filing date of the application,” verified with an affidavit or a signed declaration under 37 C.F.R. §2.20.  37 C.F.R. §2.59(a); TMEP §904.09.

 

The current specimen of record comprises a map distributed to consumers and potential tenants which shows the proposed mark appearing at the top of the map.  It does not show use for applicant’s goods and/or services because it appears to be used in the promotion of  real estate development.  The specimen is given to potential tenants in order to presumably get them to rent space or possibly purchase space in the area.  The specimen is given to consumers who might utilize the items listed on the map, e.g., the Kansas City speedway, Cabela’s sporting goods store, the Nebraska Furniture Mart, the Great Wolf Lodge.

 

There is nothing in the specimen which advertises or offers an interactive play area or an amusement or entertainment center.  The mark is not being used in the sale or advertising of the identified services. 

 

The applicant must submit a specimen showing the mark as it is used in commerce with the identified services.  37 C.F.R. §2.56.  Examples of acceptable specimens are signs, photographs, brochures or advertisements that show the mark used in the sale or advertising of the services.  TMEP §§1301.04 et seq.  The applicant must verify, with an affidavit or a declaration under 37 C.F.R. §2.20, that the substitute specimen was in use in commerce at least as early as the filing date of the application.  37 C.F.R. §2.59(a); TMEP §904.09.

 

The following is an acceptable declaration in support of the substitute specimen:

 

The substitute specimen was in use in commerce at least as early as the filing date of the application.

 

The undersigned, being hereby warned that willful false statements and the like so made are punishable by fine or imprisonment, or both, under 18 U.S.C. 1001, and that such willful false statements may jeopardize the validity of the application or any resulting registration, declares that the facts set forth in this application are true; all statements made of his/her own knowledge are true; and all statements made on information and belief are believed to be true.

 

 

                                _____________________________                                    

                                                (Signature)

 

                                _____________________________

                                (Print or Type Name and Position)

 

                                _____________________________

                                                (Date)

 

 

 

/Kelley L. Wells/

Kelley L. Wells

Trademark Attorney

Law Office 105

571-272-9312

 

 

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 has been 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.