UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE (USPTO)
OFFICE ACTION (OFFICIAL LETTER) ABOUT APPLICANT’S TRADEMARK APPLICATION
|
APPLICATION SERIAL NO. 79/084320
MARK: BABYFIRST
|
|
|
CORRESPONDENT ADDRESS: |
CLICK HERE TO RESPOND TO THIS LETTER: http://www.gov.uspto.report/teas/eTEASpageD.htm
|
|
APPLICANT: NINGBO WINWIN; INDUSTRIAL CO. LTD.
|
|
|
CORRESPONDENT’S REFERENCE/DOCKET NO: CORRESPONDENT E-MAIL ADDRESS: |
|
STRICT DEADLINE TO RESPOND TO THIS LETTER
TO AVOID ABANDONMENT OF APPLICANT’S TRADEMARK APPLICATION, THE USPTO MUST RECEIVE APPLICANT’S COMPLETE RESPONSE TO THIS LETTER WITHIN 6 MONTHS OF THE ISSUE/MAILING DATE BELOW.
INTERNATIONAL REGISTRATION NO. 0905454
This is a PROVISIONAL PARTIAL REFUSAL of the trademark in the above-referenced U.S. application that applies to only the following goods in the application: cots; high chairs for babies; infant walkers; bassinettes; cradles; cushions; pillows; sleeping bag; bolsters. See 15 U.S.C. §1141h(c).
WHO IS PERMITTED TO RESPOND TO THIS PROVISIONAL PARTIAL 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 PARTIALLY REFUSED AS FOLLOWS:
This is a partial refusal Office action; the refusal applies only to specified goods in the U.S. application.
Please note the partial abandonment advisory below.
SUMMARY OF ISSUES THAT APPLICANT MUST ADDRESS
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. 1910758. Trademark Act Section 2(d), 15 U.S.C. §1052(d); see TMEP §§1207.01 et seq. See the enclosed registration.
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.
Applicant’s mark is BABYFIRST.
Registrant’s mark is BABY’S FIRST. The respective marks are highly similar with applicant’s mark merely deleting the possessive form of BABY (by deleting the apostrophe and the “S”) and deleting the space between the terms BABY and FIRST. The initial terms are virtually identical and the second terms are identical.
Comparison of the Goods
Applicant’s relevant goods are “Cots; high chairs for babies; infant walkers; bassinettes; cradles; cushions; pillows; sleeping bag; bolsters.”
Registrant’s goods are “juvenile furniture, namely highchairs.” Accordingly, the parties’ respective goods are identical in part (i.e., high chairs) and otherwise closely related baby furniture and cushions and sleeping bags. In support of the relatedness of registrant’s high chairs and the remaining goods identified in the instant application and subject to this refusal, attached are copies of printouts from the USPTO X-Search database, which show third-party registrations of marks used in connection with the same or similar goods and/or services as those of applicant and registrant in this case. These printouts have probative value to the extent that they serve to suggest that the goods and/or services listed therein, namely, e.g., high chairs, cushions, and/or sleeping bags, are of a kind that may emanate from a single source. In re Infinity Broad. Corp. of Dallas,60 USPQ2d 1214, 1217-18 (TTAB 2001); In re Albert Trostel & Sons Co.,29 USPQ2d 1783, 1785-86 (TTAB 1993); In re Mucky Duck Mustard Co., 6 USPQ2d 1467, 1470 n.6 (TTAB 1988); TMEP §1207.01(d)(iii).
In further support of the relatedness of these goods, please see the attached market evidence showing the respective goods offered under a common mark and/or through identical channels of trade.
In view of the above, registration is refused under Section 2(d) of the Trademark Act.
Although applicant’s mark has been refused registration, applicant may respond to the refusal by submitting evidence and arguments in support of registration.
PARTIAL ABANDONMENT – ADVISORY
RESPONSE GUIDELINES
The response must be signed by the individual applicant or someone with legal authority to bind a juristic applicant (e.g., a corporate officer or general partner). See 37 C.F.R. §§2.62(b), 2.193(e)(2)(ii); TMEP §§611.03(b), 611.06 et seq., 712.01. In the case of joint applicants, all must sign. 37 C.F.R. §2.193(e)(2)(ii); TMEP §611.06(a). In addition, the proper signatory must personally sign or personally enter his/her electronic signature. See 37 C.F.R. §2.193(a), (e)(2)(ii); TMEP §§611.01(b), 611.02.
The Office recommends applicants use the Trademark Electronic Application System (TEAS) to respond to Office actions online at http://www.gov.uspto.report/teas/index.html. If applicant responds on paper via regular mail, the response should include the title “Response to Office Action” and the following information: (1) the name and law office number of the examining attorney, (2) the serial number and filing date of the application, (3) the date of issuance of this Office action, (4) applicant’s name, address, telephone number and e-mail address (if applicable), and (5) the mark. 37 C.F.R. §2.194(b)(1); TMEP §302.03(a).
Questions regarding this Office action may be directed to the undersigned examining attorney.
/Karen P. Severson/
Trademark Examining Attorney
Law Office 117
Telephone: 571-272-8285
TO RESPOND TO THIS LETTER: Use the Trademark Electronic Application System (TEAS) response form at http://teasroa.gov.uspto.report/roa/. Please wait 48-72 hours from the issue/mailing date before using TEAS, to allow for necessary system updates of the application. For technical assistance with online forms, e-mail TEAS@uspto.gov.
WHO MUST SIGN THE RESPONSE: It must be personally signed by an individual applicant or someone with legal authority to bind an applicant (i.e., a corporate officer, a general partner, all joint applicants). If an applicant is represented by an attorney, the attorney must sign the response.
PERIODICALLY CHECK THE STATUS OF THE APPLICATION: To ensure that applicant does not miss crucial deadlines or official notices, check the status of the application every three to four months using Trademark Applications and Registrations Retrieval (TARR) at http://tarr.gov.uspto.report/. Please keep a copy of the complete TARR screen. If TARR shows no change for more than six months, call 1-800-786-9199. For more information on checking status, see http://www.gov.uspto.report/trademarks/process/status/.
TO UPDATE CORRESPONDENCE/E-MAIL ADDRESS: Use the TEAS form at http://www.gov.uspto.report/teas/eTEASpageE.htm.