UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
|
SERIAL NO: 79/065442
MARK: BUDDY
|
|
|
CORRESPONDENT ADDRESS: |
RESPOND TO THIS ACTION: http://www.gov.uspto.report/teas/eTEASpageD.htm
GENERAL TRADEMARK INFORMATION: http://www.gov.uspto.report/main/trademarks.htm
|
|
APPLICANT: ZENG LiJin
|
|
|
CORRESPONDENT’S REFERENCE/DOCKET NO: CORRESPONDENT E-MAIL ADDRESS: |
|
TO AVOID ABANDONMENT, THE OFFICE MUST RECEIVE A PROPER RESPONSE TO THIS OFFICE ACTION WITHIN 6 MONTHS OF THE ISSUE/MAILING DATE.
INTERNATIONAL REGISTRATION NO. 0993656.
This is a PROVISIONAL FULL REFUSAL of the trademark and/or service mark in the above-referenced U.S. application. See 15 U.S.C. §1141h(c).
WHO IS PERMITTED TO RESPOND TO THIS PROVISIONAL FULL REFUSAL:
Applicant may respond directly to this provisional refusal Office action, or applicant’s attorney may respond on applicant’s behalf. However, the only attorneys who can practice before the USPTO in trademark matters are as follows:
(1) Attorneys in good standing with a bar of the highest court of any U.S. state, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and other federal territories and possessions of the United States; and
(2) Canadian agents/attorneys whorepresent applicants residing in Canada and who have received reciprocal recognition by the USPTO under 37 C.F.R. §11.14(c).
37 C.F.R. §§11.1, 11.14; TMEP §602.
Foreign attorneys are not permitted to practice before the USPTO, other than properly authorized Canadian attorneys. TMEP §602.06(b). Filing written communications, authorizing an amendment to an application, or submitting legal arguments in response to a requirement or refusal constitutes representation of a party in a trademark matter. A response signed by an unauthorized foreign attorney is considered an incomplete response. See TMEP §§602.03, 712.03.
THE APPLICATION HAS BEEN PROVISIONALLY REFUSED AS FOLLOWS:
The referenced application has been reviewed by the assigned trademark examining attorney. Applicant must respond timely and completely to the issue(s) below. 15 U.S.C. §1062(b); 37 C.F.R. §§2.62, 2.65(a); TMEP §§711, 718.03.
SECTION 2(d) REFUSAL – LIKELIHOOD OF CONFUSION
Registration of the applied-for mark is refused because of a likelihood of confusion with the mark in U.S. Registration No. 2814254. Trademark Act Section 2(d), 15 U.S.C. §1052(d); see TMEP §§1207.01 et seq. See the enclosed registration.
Trademark Act Section 2(d) bars registration of an applied-for mark that so resembles a registered mark that it is likely that a potential consumer would be confused or mistaken or deceived as to the source of the goods and/or services of the applicant and registrant. See 15 U.S.C. §1052(d). The court in In re E. I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., 476 F.2d 1357, 177 USPQ 563 (C.C.P.A. 1973) listed the principal factors to be considered when determining whether there is a likelihood of confusion under Section 2(d). See TMEP §1207.01. However, not all of the factors are necessarily relevant or of equal weight, and any one factor may be dominant in a given case, depending upon the evidence of record. In re Majestic Distilling Co., 315 F.3d 1311, 1315, 65 USPQ2d 1201, 1204 (Fed. Cir. 2003); see In re E. I. du Pont, 476 F.2d at 1361-62, 177 USPQ at 567.
In this case, the following factors are the most relevant: similarity of the marks, similarity of the goods and/or services, and similarity of trade channels of the goods and/or services. See In re Opus One, Inc., 60 USPQ2d 1812 (TTAB 2001); In re Dakin’s Miniatures Inc., 59 USPQ2d 1593 (TTAB 1999); In re Azteca Rest. Enters., Inc., 50 USPQ2d 1209 (TTAB 1999); TMEP §§1207.01 et seq.
The applicant applied to register the mark BUDDY for clock hands (clock and watch making); clock hands (clock and watch making); wristwatches; chronographs (watches); chronometers; clocks and watches, electric; atomic clocks; watches; stopwatches; clocks
The registered mark is WATCHBUDDY for jewelry, namely, imitation jewelry and jewelry of precious metal and stones, horological and chronometric instruments, namely, clocks and watches. The marks are very similar.
Comparison of Goods
The goods and/or services of the parties need not be identical or directly competitive to find a likelihood of confusion. See Safety-Kleen Corp. v. Dresser Indus., Inc., 518 F.2d 1399, 1404, 186 USPQ 476, 480 (C.C.P.A. 1975); TMEP §1207.01(a)(i). Rather, 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. In re Total Quality Group, Inc., 51 USPQ2d 1474, 1476 (TTAB 1999); TMEP §1207.01(a)(i); see, e.g., On-line Careline Inc. v. Am. Online Inc., 229 F.3d 1080, 1086-87, 56 USPQ2d 1471, 1475-76 (Fed. Cir. 2000); In re Martin’s Famous Pastry Shoppe, Inc., 748 F.2d 1565, 1566-68, 223 USPQ 1289, 1290 (Fed. Cir. 1984).
The goods of the parties are closely related: both include clocks and watches, which can be used and/or sold together. The examining attorney must consider any goods in the registrant’s normal fields of expansion to determine whether the registrant’s goods and services are related to the applicant’s identified services under Section 2(d). In re General Motors Corp., 196 USPQ 574 (TTAB 1977). TMEP §1207.01(a)(v).
In this case, since the applicant and the registrant have the similar marks, customers are likely to be confused and believe that the applicant’s goods emanate from the same source as the registrant’s goods and services. The examining attorney must resolve any doubt regarding a likelihood of confusion in favor of the prior registrant. In re Hyper Shoppes (Ohio), Inc., 837 F.2d 463, 6 USPQ2d 1025 (Fed. Cir., 1988). TMEP §§1207.01(d)(i).
Informalities
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 issues.
Entity
Acceptable entity types include an individual, a partnership, a corporation, or a joint venture. See 37 C.F.R. §2.32(a)(3); TMEP §§803.03 et seq.
If applicant’s entity type is an individual, applicant must indicate his or her national citizenship for the record. 37 C.F.R. §2.32(a)(3)(i); TMEP §803.04. If applicant’s entity type is a corporation or association, applicant must set forth the country under whose laws applicant is organized or incorporated. 37 C.F.R. §2.32(a)(3)(ii); TMEP §§803.03(c), 803.04. If applicant’s entity type is a partnership or joint venture, applicant must specify the country under whose laws the partnership or joint venture is organized. 37 C.F.R. §2.32(a)(3)(ii); TMEP §§803.03(b), 803.04.
The identification of goods is unacceptable as indefinite. TMEP §1402.01. The applicant may adopt the following identification:
In Class 14: Clock hands for clock and watch making; wristwatches; chronographs; chronometers; electric clocks and watches, atomic clocks; watches; stopwatches; clocks
Description of the Mark
The mark consists of the wording BUDDY in stylized front.
If the applicant has any questions or needs assistance in responding to this Office action, please telephone the assigned examining attorney.
/Kevon L. Chisolm/
Trademark Attorney
Law Office 103
(571)-272-9270
RESPOND TO THIS ACTION: Applicant should file a response to this Office action online using the form at http://www.gov.uspto.report/teas/eTEASpageD.htm, waiting 48-72 hours if applicant received notification of the Office action via e-mail. For technical assistance with the form, please e-mail TEAS@uspto.gov. For questions about the Office action itself, please contact the assigned examining attorney. Do not respond to this Office action by e-mail; the USPTO does not accept e-mailed responses.
If responding by paper mail, please include the following information: the application serial number, the mark, the filing date and the name, title/position, telephone number and e-mail address of the person signing the response. Please use the following address: Commissioner for Trademarks, P.O. Box 1451, Alexandria, VA 22313-1451.
STATUS CHECK: Check the status of the application at least once every six months from the initial filing date using the USPTO Trademark Applications and Registrations Retrieval (TARR) online system at http://tarr.uspto.gov. When conducting an online status check, print and maintain a copy of the complete TARR screen. If the status of your application has not changed for more than six months, please contact the assigned examining attorney.