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  78/955954

 

TEAS PLUS APPLICANTS MUST SUBMIT DOCUMENTS ELECTRONICALLY OR SUBMIT FEE:  TEAS Plus applicants should submit the following documents using the Trademark Electronic Application System (TEAS) at http://www.gov.uspto.report/teas/index.html:  (1) written responses to Office actions; (2) preliminary amendments; (3) changes of correspondence address; (4) changes of owner’s address; (5) appointments and revocations of attorney; (6) amendments to allege use; (7) statements of use; (8) requests for extension of time to file a statement of use, and (9) requests to delete a §1(b) basis.  If any of these documents are filed on paper, they must be accompanied by a $50 per class fee.  37 C.F.R. §§2.6(a)(1)(iv) and 2.23(a)(i).  Telephone responses will not incur an additional fee.  NOTE:  In addition to the above, applicant must also continue to accept correspondence from the Office via e-mail throughout the examination process in order to avoid the additional fee.  37 C.F.R. §2.23(a)(2).

 

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

 

Section 2(d) - Likelihood of Confusion Refusal

 

Registration of the proposed mark is refused because of a likelihood of confusion with the mark in U.S. Registration No. 2559853.  Trademark Act Section 2(d), 15 U.S.C. §1052(d); TMEP §§1207.01 et seq.  See the enclosed registration.

 

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.

 

Applicant seeks to register the mark GK for “jewelry.”  Registrant owns the mark KGK for “jewelry.” 

 

Comparison of Marks

 

The marks are compared for similarities in sound, appearance, meaning or connotation.  In re E .I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., 476 F.2d 1357, 177 USPQ 563 (C.C.P.A. 1973).  Similarity in any one of these elements may be sufficient to find a likelihood of confusion.  In re White Swan Ltd., 8 USPQ2d 1534, 1536 (TTAB 1988); In re Lamson Oil Co., 6 USPQ2d 1041, 1043 (TTAB 1987); In re Mack, 197 USPQ 755 (TTAB 1977); TMEP §1207.01(b).

 

The marks share the same letter combination, GK.  Marks may be confusingly similar in appearance where there are similar terms or phrases or similar parts of terms or phrases appearing in both applicant’s and registrant’s mark.  See e.g., Crocker Nat’l Bank v. Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce, 228 USPQ 689 (TTAB 1986), aff’d 1 USPQ2d 1813 (Fed. Cir. 1987) (COMMCASH and COMMUNICASH); In re Phillips-Van Heusen Corp., 228 USPQ 949 (TTAB 1986) (21 CLUB and “21” CLUB (stylized)); In re Corning Glass Works, 229 USPQ 65 (TTAB 1985) (CONFIRM and CONFIRMCELLS); In re Collegian Sportswear Inc., 224 USPQ 174 (TTAB 1984) (COLLEGIAN OF CALIFORNIA and COLLEGIENNE); In re Pellerin Milnor Corp., 221 USPQ 558 (TTAB 1983) (MILTRON and MILLTRONICS); In re BASF A.G., 189 USPQ 424 (TTAB 1975) (LUTEXAL and LUTEX); TMEP §§1207.01(b)(ii) and (b)(iii).

 

Moreover, when comparing marks comprising a series of letters, the letters do not have to be exactly the same for a likelihood of confusion to exist.  It is well settled that it is more difficult to remember a series of arbitrarily arranged letters than it is to remember words or figures, for example, such that confusion is more likely between arbitrarily arranged letters than between other types of marks.  See, e.g., Weiss Associates Inc. v. HRL Associates, Inc., 902 F.2d 1546, 14 USPQ2d 1840 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (finding confusion between TMS and TMM); Dere v. Institute for Scientific Information, Inc., 420 F.2d 1068, 164 USPQ 347 (C.C.P.A. 1970) (finding confusion between ISI and I.A.I.); Edison Brothers Stores, Inc. v. Brutting E.B. Sport-International GmbH, 230 USPQ 530 (TTAB 1986) (finding confusion between EB and EBS); Cf. In re Infinity Broadcasting Corp. of Dallas, 60 USPQ2d 1214, 1218 (TTAB 2001) (finding confusion between registrant’s KING FM and KING-TV and applicant’s KYNG).

 

This principle was set forth in the decision of the Court of Customs and Patent Appeals in Crystal Corp. v. Manhattan Chemical Mfg. Co., 75 F.2d 506, 25 USPQ 5, 6 (C.C.P.A. 1935) wherein the following reasoning was applied in holding Z.B.T. likely to be confused with T.Z.L.B. for talcum powder:  “We think that it is well known that it is more difficult to remember a series of arbitrarily arranged letters than it is to remember figures, syllables, words or phrases.  The difficulty of remembering such lettered marks makes confusion between such marks, when similar, more likely.”

 

The same principle has applied in numerous other decisions in which lettered marks comprising two letters in common, used on identical or closely related goods, have been held likely to be confused.  See, e.g., Feed Service Corp. v. FS Services, Inc., 432 F.2d 478, 167 USPQ 407 (C.C.P.A. 1970) (FSC and FS); Cluett Peabody & Co. v. J.H. Bonck Co., Inc., 390 F.2d 754, 156 USPQ 401 (C.C.P.A. 1968) (TTM and T.M.T.); Helena Rubenstein, Inc. v. Hudnut, 193 F.2d 207, 92 USPQ 147, 148 (C.C.P.A. 1951) (RHR and HR); Vitamin Corp. of America v. American Home Products Corp., 166 F.2d 203, 76 USPQ 611 (C.C.P.A. 1948) (VCA and I.V.C.); ECI Division of E-Systems, Inc. v. Environmental Communications, Inc., 207 USPQ 443 (TTAB 1980) (ECI and EC); Sales Analysis Institute, Inc. v. Sales Training, Inc., 181 USPQ 341 (TTAB 1973) (AOC and AO); Scott, Forsman & Co. v. Scientific Film Co., Inc., 165 USPQ 287 (TTAB 1970) (SFC and SF).

 

As such, the marks are confusingly similar. 

 

Comparison of Goods

 

The goods 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 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).

 

Applicant’s goods and registrant’s goods, jewelry, are identical.  If the goods or services of the respective parties are identical, as they are here, the degree of similarity between marks required to support a finding of likelihood of confusion is not as great as would apply with diverse goods or services.  Century 21 Real Estate Corp. v. Century Life of America, 970 F.2d 874, 877, 23 USPQ2d 1698, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 1992), cert. denied 506 U.S. 1034 (1992); In re J.M. Originals Inc., 6 USPQ2d 1393 (TTAB 1987); ECI Division of E-Systems, Inc. v. Environmental Communications Inc., 207 USPQ 443 (TTAB 1980); TMEP §1207.01(b).

 

 

 

In closing, 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).  Accordingly, confusion is likely and registration is refused under Section 2(d) of the Trademark Act. 

 

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 should also note the following prior-pending potentially conflicting mark.

 

Prior-Pending Application

 

Information regarding pending Application Serial No. 79024118 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 et seq.  Therefore, upon entry of a response to this Office action, action on this case may be suspended pending final disposition of the earlier-filed application.

 

If applicant believes there is no potential conflict between this application and the earlier-filed application, then applicant may present arguments relevant to the issue in a response to this Office action.  The election not to submit arguments at this time in no way limits applicant’s right to address this issue at a later point.

 

Trademark Counsel

 

Applicant may wish to hire a specialist attorney to assist in prosecuting this application because of the technicalities involved.  The Office cannot aid in the selection of a trademark attorney.  37 C.F.R. §2.11.  Applicant may wish to consult the Yellow Pages for a listing of attorneys specializing in trademark or intellectual property law, or seek guidance from its local Bar Association attorney-referral service.

 

If the applicant has any questions or needs further assistance, please telephone the assigned examining attorney.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

/Daniel J. Russell/

Trademark Examining Attorney

Law Office 105

Phone No. (571) 272-8479

Fax No. (571) 273-8479

 

 

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.