UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
SERIAL NO: 78/959375
APPLICANT: St. Louis Rams Partnership
|
|
CORRESPONDENT ADDRESS: |
RETURN ADDRESS: Commissioner for Trademarks P.O. Box 1451 Alexandria, VA 22313-1451
|
MARK: RAMS
|
|
CORRESPONDENT’S REFERENCE/DOCKET NO: RAMS - 25
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 78/959375
The assigned examining attorney has reviewed the referenced application and determined the following.
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 goods, so resembles the mark in U.S. Registration Nos. 1246429 and 3038308 as to be likely to cause confusion, to cause mistake, or to deceive. §§1207.01 et seq. . 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).
Applicant seeks to register the term RAMS in standard characters for use in connection with various clothing items. Registrant owns the mark RAM in typed drawing form for use in connection with a similar listing of clothing items. The marks are essentially identical, differing only in an added “s” in applicant’s mark. Use of the marks on closely related clothing items will give rise to consumer confusion.
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.
IMPROPER CLASSIFICATION PARTICULAR ITEM
The applicant has classified the term “towels” incorrectly. The applicant must amend the application to classify the goods/services in International Class 24. 37 C.F.R. §§2.32(a)(7) and 2.85; TMEP §§1401.02(a) and 1401.03(b).
REQUIREMENTS FOR A MULTIPLE-CLASS APPLICATION
If the applicant prosecutes this application as a combined, or multiple‑class, application, the applicant must comply with each of the following:
(1) The applicant must specifically identify the goods in each class and list the goods by international class with the classes listed in ascending numerical order. TMEP section 1113.01.
(2) The applicant must submit a filing fee for each international class of goods not covered by the fee already paid. 37 C.F.R. Sections 2.6(a)(1) and 2.86(b); TMEP sections 810.01 and 1113.01. See new filing fees below. This applies to classes added to pending applications as well as to new applications filed on or after that date.
(3) The applicant must submit:
(a) dates of first use and first use in commerce and one specimen for each class that includes goods or services based on use in commerce under Trademark Act Section 1(a). The dates of use must be at least as early as the filing date of this application. 37 C.F.R. Sections 2.34(a)(1) and 2.86(a), and the specimen(s) must have been in use in commerce at least as early as the filing date of the application, and/or
(b) a statement of a bona fide intention to use the mark in commerce on or in connection with all the goods or services specified in each class that includes goods or services based on a bona fide intention to use the mark in commerce under Trademark Act Section 1(b).
(4) The applicant must submit an affidavit or a declaration under 37 C.F.R. Section 2.20 signed by the applicant to verify (3) above. 37 C.F.R. Sections 2.59(a) and 2.71(c).
The filing fee for adding classes to an application is as follows:
(1) $325 per class, when the fees are submitted with a response filed online via the Trademark Electronic Application System (TEAS) at http://www.gov.uspto.report/teas/index.html; and
(2) $375 per class, when the fees are submitted with a paper response.
37 C.F.R. §§2.6(a)(i) and (ii); TMEP §810.
/Chris Wells/
Examining Attorney
Law Office 106
(571) 272-9238
FAX (571) 273-9105
HOW TO RESPOND TO THIS OFFICE ACTION:
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.