UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE

 

 

 

OFFICE ACTION

 

TO AVOID ABANDONMENT, THE OFFICE MUST RECEIVE A PROPER RESPONSE TO THIS OFFICE ACTION WITHIN 6 MONTHS OF THE ISSUE/MAILING DATE.

 

ISSUE/MAILING DATE:

 

INTERNATIONAL REGISTRATION NO. 1025216

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 if applicant is not represented by an authorized attorney.  See 37 C.F.R. §2.193(e)(2)(ii).  Otherwise, applicant’s authorized attorney must respond on applicant’s behalf.  See 37 C.F.R. §2.193(e)(2)(i).  However, the only attorneys who are authorized to sign responses and 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 who represent applicants located in Canada and (a) are registered with the USPTO and in good standing as patent agents or (b) have been granted reciprocal recognition by the USPTO.

 

See 37 C.F.R. §§2.17(e), 2.62(b), 11.1, 11.5(b)(2), 11.14(a), (c); TMEP §§602, 712.03.

 

Foreign attorneys, other than authorized Canadian attorneys, are not permitted to represent applicants before the USPTO.  See 37 C.F.R. §§2.17(e), 11.14(c), (e); TMEP §602.03-.03(b).  That is, foreign attorneys may not file written communications, authorize an amendment to an application, or submit legal arguments in response to a requirement or refusal, among other things.  See 37 C.F.R. §11.5(b)(2); TMEP §§602.03(c), 608.01.  If applicant is represented by such a foreign attorney, applicant must respond directly to this provisional refusal Office action.  See 37 C.F.R. §2.193(e)(2)(ii).

 

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(a), 2.65(a); TMEP §§711, 718.03.

 

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. 3726373.  Trademark Act Section 2(d), 15 U.S.C. §1052(d); see TMEP §§1207.01 et seq. 

 

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 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.

 

Similarity of Marks

 

In a likelihood of confusion determination, the marks are compared for similarities in their appearance, sound, meaning or connotation and commercial impression.  In re E. I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., 476 F.2d 1357, 1361, 177 USPQ 563, 567 (C.C.P.A. 1973); TMEP §1207.01(b).  Similarity in any one of these elements may be sufficient to find a likelihood of confusion.  In re White Swan Ltd., 8 USPQ2d 1534, 1535 (TTAB 1988); In re Lamson Oil Co., 6 USPQ2d 1041, 1043 (TTAB 1987); see TMEP §1207.01(b).

 

Applicant’s mark is RED LION for Alcoholic beverages, excluding alcoholic beverages containing or comprising energy drinks or formulated caffeinated drinks or mixtures containing either.

 

The registered mark is RED LION for wines.

 

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 Crocker Nat’l Bank v. Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce, 228 USPQ 689 (TTAB 1986), aff’d sub nom. Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce v. Wells Fargo Bank, Nat’l Ass’n, 811 F.2d 1490, 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)-(iii).

 

Here, the respective marks are identical.

 

Similarity of Goods

 

The goods 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, it is sufficient that the goods are related in some manner and/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 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).

 

Also, if the marks of the respective parties are identical, the relationship between the goods and/or services of the respective parties need not be as close to support a finding of likelihood of confusion as might apply where differences exist between the marks.  In re Opus One Inc., 60 USPQ2d 1812, 1815 (TTAB 2001); Amcor, Inc. v. Amcor Indus., Inc., 210 USPQ 70, 78 (TTAB 1981); TMEP §1207.01(a).

 

Here, applicant and registrant each provide types of alcoholic beverages.

 

Thus, the respective goods are related if not identical.

 

Since the marks are so highly similar and the goods are so closely related, there is a likelihood that purchasers would confuse the sources of the goods or believe they stemmed from a single source.  Accordingly, registration is properly refused under Section 2(d) of the Trademark Act due to a likelihood of confusion.

 

Applicant must respond to the requirement(s) set forth below.

 

Identification of Goods

The identification of goods is indefinite and must be clarified.  See TMEP §1402.01.  Applicant must specify the common commercial or generic name for the goods.  If there is no common commercial or generic name, applicant must describe the product and intended consumer as well as its main purpose and intended uses. 

 

Applicant may adopt the following identification, if accurate: 

 

• Alcoholic beverages in the nature of [specify particular beverages], excluding alcoholic beverages containing or comprising energy drinks, formulated caffeinated drinks or mixtures containing either

 

Identifications of goods can be amended only to clarify or limit the goods; adding to or broadening the scope of the goods is not permitted.  37 C.F.R. §2.71(a); see TMEP §§1402.06 et seq., 1402.07.  Therefore, applicant may not amend the identification to include goods that are not within the scope of the goods set forth in the present identification.

 

For assistance with identifying and classifying goods and/or services in trademark applications, please see the online searchable Manual of Acceptable Identifications of Goods and Services at http://tess2.gov.uspto.report/netahtml/tidm.html.  See TMEP §1402.04.

 

The international classification of goods and/or services in applications filed under Trademark Act Section 66(a) cannot be changed from the classification given to the goods and/or services by the International Bureau in the corresponding international registration.  37 C.F.R. §2.85(d);TMEP §§1401.03(d), 1904.02(b).

 

 

 

/Marc J. Leipzig/

Law Office 115

Trademark Examining Attorney

Phone:  (571) 272-2104

 

 

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.