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. 

 

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  78/836901

 

This Office action supersedes any previous Office action issued in connection with this application.  Upon further consideration, the assigned examining attorney has reviewed the referenced application and determined the following.  Every attempt is made to address all relevant issues in the first examination of trademark applications.  The examining attorney regrets any inconvenience to the applicant at this time.

 

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, so resembles the mark in U.S. Registration No. 2068060 as to be likely to cause confusion, to cause mistake, or to deceive.  TMEP §§1207.01 et seq.  See the enclosed registration.

 

Regarding the issue of likelihood of confusion, the question is not whether people will confuse the marks, but whether the marks will confuse people into believing that the goods they identify come from the same source.  In re West Point-Pepperell, Inc., 468 F.2d 200, 175 USPQ 558 (C.C.P.A. 1972).  For that reason, the test of likelihood of confusion is not whether the marks can be distinguished when subjected to a side-by-side comparison.  The question is whether the marks create the same overall impression.  Recot, Inc. v. M.C. Becton, 214 F.2d 1322, 54 USPQ2d 1894, 1890 (Fed. Cir. 2000); Visual Information Inst., Inc. v. Vicon Indus. 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).

 

Similarity of the Marks

 

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). 

 

Applicant’s mark is CAMELOT.  Registrant’s mark is also CAMELOT.  The marks are identical in sound, meaning, and appearance, and create the same commercial impression. 

 

Relatedness of Goods/Services

 

Second, the examining attorney must compare the goods or services 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 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/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).  The examining attorney must resolve any doubt regarding a likelihood of confusion in favor of the prior registrant.  In re Hyper Shoppers (Ohio), Inc., 837 F.2d 463, 6 USPQ2d 1025 (Fed. Cir., 1988).

 

Applicant’s goods are vinyl and cloth textiles for use in the manufacture of quilts.  Registrant’s goods are for home textiles and household linens, namely, comforters, bed sheets, dust ruffles, pillow shams and duvet covers.

 

Both marks cover home textiles.  An examination of the Office register shows that manufacturers of quilts commonly manufacture other home textiles, such as comforters, bed sheets and duvet covers, and that the listed textiles are commonly provided together.  A sampling of the register is enclosed.  Based on the evidence, consumers could encounter both applicant’s and registrant’s goods in the market place and mistakenly believe that the goods come from the same source. 

 

Registration is REFUSED because it is likely that a consumer would mistakenly believe the goods emanate from the same source or origin.

 

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.

 

Applicant must advise the trademark examining attorney whether applicant intends to rely solely on the foreign registration as the basis for registration.  The foreign registration alone may serve as the basis for obtaining a U.S. registration resulting from this application.

 

Certificate of Registration Required

 

If applicant is asserting §44(e) as a basis for registration (based on the foreign registration that will issue from the application that the applicant relied on for priority), then applicant must submit a true copy, photocopy, certification or certified copy of a foreign registration from the applicant’s country of origin.  Applicant’s country of origin must either be a party to a convention or treaty relating to trademarks to which the United States is also a party, or must extend reciprocal registration rights to nationals of the United States by law.  See TMEP §§1002.01, 1003.03 and 1004.

 

If the foreign certificate of registration is not written in English, then applicant must provide an English translation signed by the translator.  See TMEP §§1004.01 and 1004.01(b).

 

Filing Basis Advisory

 

If applicant wishes to proceed relying on the applicant’s intent to use the mark in commerce under Trademark Act Section 1(b) as the sole basis for registration, with the claim of priority under Section 44(d), then applicant should so advise the trademark examining attorney.  TMEP §§806.02(f) and 806.04(b).  If applicant chooses to do so, this Office will approve the mark for publication without waiting for applicant to submit a copy of the foreign registration, once all other outstanding issues are resolved.  However, while the application may be approved for publication, the mark will not register until after an acceptable allegation of use has been filed.

 

If applicant does not indicate otherwise, this Office will presume that applicant wishes to rely on the foreign registration as an additional basis for registration.  Thus, the application will not be approved for publication until a copy of the foreign registration and, if appropriate, an English translation signed by the translator, have been filed.  TMEP §§1004.01 and 1004.01(b).

 

If applicant has questions about its application or needs assistance in responding to this Office action, please telephone the assigned trademark examining attorney directly at the number below.

 

/Sandra E. Manios/

Trademark Examining Attorney

Law Office 104

Phone:  (571) 272-7047

Fax:  (571) 273-7047

 

 

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.