To: | Develop Clothing, LLC (attorneys@brandxperts.com) |
Subject: | TRADEMARK APPLICATION NO. 78823564 - DEVELOP - 721.001 |
Sent: | 9/1/06 4:41:49 PM |
Sent As: | ECOM103@USPTO.GOV |
Attachments: | Attachment - 1 Attachment - 2 Attachment - 3 Attachment - 4 Attachment - 5 Attachment - 6 |
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
SERIAL NO: 78/823564
APPLICANT: Develop Clothing, LLC
|
|
CORRESPONDENT ADDRESS: |
RETURN ADDRESS: Commissioner for Trademarks P.O. Box 1451 Alexandria, VA 22313-1451
|
MARK: DEVELOP
|
|
CORRESPONDENT’S REFERENCE/DOCKET NO: 721.001
CORRESPONDENT EMAIL ADDRESS: |
Please provide in all correspondence:
1. Filing date, serial number, mark and applicant's name. 2. Date of this Office Action. 3. Examining Attorney's name and Law Office number. 4. Your telephone number and e-mail address.
|
MAILING/E-MAILING DATE INFORMATION: If the mailing or e-mailing date of this Office action does not appear above, this information can be obtained by visiting the USPTO website at http://tarr.gov.uspto.report/, inserting the application serial number, and viewing the prosecution history for the mailing date of the most recently issued Office communication.
Serial Number 78/823564
The assigned trademark examining attorney has reviewed the referenced application and has determined the following:
Registration Refused Based on Likelihood of Confusion with Registered Marks:
Registration of the proposed mark is refused because of a likelihood of confusion with the mark in U.S. Registration No. 2610200, 2538613, and 2843574. Trademark Act Section 2(d), 15 U.S.C. §1052(d); TMEP §§1207.01 et seq. See the enclosed registration.
Test for Likelihood of Confusion:
Taking into account the relevant Du Pont factors, a likelihood of confusion determination in this case involves a two-part analysis. First, the marks are compared for similarities in appearance, sound, connotation and commercial impression. In re E .I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., 476 F.2d 1357, 177 USPQ 563 (C.C.P.A. 1973). Second, the goods or services are compared to determine whether they are similar or related or whether the activities surrounding their marketing are such that confusion as to origin is likely. In re National Novice Hockey League, Inc., 222 USPQ 638 (TTAB 1984); In re August Storck KG, 218 USPQ 823 (TTAB 1983); In re Int’l Tel. and Tel. Corp., 197 USPQ 910 (TTAB 1978); Guardian Prods. Co., v. Scott Paper Co., 200 USPQ 738 (TTAB 1978); TMEP §§1207.01 et seq.
The goods and/or services of the parties need not be identical or directly competitive to find a likelihood of confusion. Instead, they need only be related in some manner, or the conditions surrounding their marketing are such that they would be encountered by the same purchasers under circumstances that would give rise to the mistaken belief that the goods and/or services come from a common source. On-line Careline Inc. v. America Online Inc., 229 F.3d 1080, 56 USPQ2d 1471 (Fed. Cir. 2000); In re Martin’s Famous Pastry Shoppe, Inc., 748 F.2d 1565, 223 USPQ 1289 (Fed. Cir. 1984); In re Melville Corp., 18 USPQ2d 1386, 1388 (TTAB 1991); In re Corning Glass Works, 229 USPQ 65 (TTAB 1985); In re Rexel Inc., 223 USPQ 830 (TTAB 1984); Guardian Prods. Co., Inc. v. Scott Paper Co., 200 USPQ 738 (TTAB 1978); In re Int’l Tel. & Tel. Corp., 197 USPQ 910 (TTAB 1978); TMEP §1207.01(a)(i).
Any doubt regarding a likelihood of confusion is resolved in favor of the prior registrant. Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Packard Press Inc., 281 F.3d 1261, 62 USPQ2d 1001, 1004 (Fed. Cir. 2002); In re Hyper Shoppes (Ohio), Inc., 837 F.2d 463, 6 USPQ2d 1025 (Fed. Cir. 1988); TMEP §§1207.01(d)(i).
Comparison of the Parties’ Marks:
Applicant’s proposed mark is “DEVELOP” in standard characters. Registrant’s marks are both for “DEVELOPMENT” in typed form.
The parties’ marks are similar in that Applicant’s mark is but the verb form of Registrant’s mark, producing a similar sound and commercial impression.
Comparison of the Parties’ Goods:
Applicant produces, e.g., coats, shirts, jackets, and pants. Registrant produces, e.g., identical goods.
Accordingly, given the parties’ similar marks and identical goods, registration is refused pursuant to Trademark Act §2(d).
Although the trademark-examining attorney has refused registration, applicant may respond to the refusal to register by submitting evidence and arguments in support of registration.
/Rebeccah Gan/
Rebeccah Gan
Law Office 103
Phone: (571) 272-5870
Fax: (571) 273-9103
HOW TO RESPOND TO THIS OFFICE ACTION:
· ONLINE RESPONSE: You may respond using the Office’s Trademark Electronic Application System (TEAS) Response to Office action form available on our website at http://www.gov.uspto.report/teas/index.html. If the Office action issued via e-mail, you must wait 72 hours after receipt of the Office action to respond via TEAS. NOTE: Do not respond by e-mail. THE USPTO WILL NOT ACCEPT AN E-MAILED RESPONSE.
· 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. NOTE: The filing date of the response will be the date of receipt in the Office, not the postmarked date. To ensure your response is timely, use a certificate of mailing. 37 C.F.R. §2.197.
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.