UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE (USPTO)

OFFICE ACTION (OFFICIAL LETTER) ABOUT APPLICANT’S TRADEMARK APPLICATION

 

 

 

OFFICE ACTION

 

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.

 

ISSUE/MAILING DATE:

 

INTERNATIONAL REGISTRATION NO. 1047883

 

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).

 

DESIGNATION OF DOMESTIC REPRESENTATIVE:

 

The USPTO encourages applicants who do not reside in the U.S. to designate a domestic representative upon whom notices or process may be served.  15 U.S.C. §§1051(e), 1141h(d); 37 C.F.R. §2.24(a)(1)-(2); see TMEP §610.  Such designations may be filed online at http://www.gov.uspto.report/teas/index.html. 

 

THE APPLICATION HAS BEEN PROVISIONALLY REFUSED AS FOLLOWS:

 

 

SECTION 2(d) REFUSAL – LIKELIHOOD OF CONFUSION

 

THIS REFUSAL APPLIES TO CLASS 25 ONLY.

 

Registration of the applied-for mark is refused because of a likelihood of confusion with the mark in U.S. Registration No. 2946239.  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.

 

Applicant applied to register the mark VANQUISH (and design) for various goods – in particular, clothing, footwear and headgear.

 

The registered mark is VANQUISH for womens’ [sic] and girls’ shoes and clothing, namely, tops, bottoms, sweaters, dresses, coats, jackets, hosiery, socks, lingerie, sleepwear, hats and belts.

 

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.

 

I.                    Comparison 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).

 

The question is not whether people will confuse the marks, but whether the marks will confuse people into believing that the goods and/or services they identify come from the same source.  In re West Point-Pepperell, Inc., 468 F.2d 200, 201, 175 USPQ 558, 558-59 (C.C.P.A. 1972); TMEP §1207.01(b).  For that reason, the test of likelihood of confusion is not whether the marks can be distinguished when subjected to a side-by-side comparison.  The question is whether the marks create the same overall impression.  See Recot, Inc. v. M.C. Becton, 214 F.3d 1322, 1329-30, 54 USPQ2d 1894, 1899 (Fed. Cir. 2000); Visual Info. Inst., Inc. v. Vicon Indus. Inc., 209 USPQ 179, 189 (TTAB 1980).  The focus is on the recollection of the average purchaser who normally retains a general rather than specific impression of trademarks.  Chemetron Corp. v. Morris Coupling & Clamp Co., 203 USPQ 537, 540-41 (TTAB 1979); Sealed Air Corp. v. Scott Paper Co., 190 USPQ 106, 108 (TTAB 1975); TMEP §1207.01(b).

 

The word portions of the marks are identical in appearance, sound and meaning.  Specifically, both marks share the term “VANQUISH.”  The addition of the design element in applicant’s mark does not obviate the similarity of the marks in this case.  See In re Shell Oil Co., 992 F.2d 1204, 1206, 26 USPQ2d 1687, 1688 (Fed. Cir. 1993); TMEP §1207.01(c)(ii).

 

II.                 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, it is sufficient that the goods and/or services 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 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).

 

In a likelihood of confusion analysis, the comparison of the parties’ goods/services is based on the goods and/or services as they are identified in the application and registration, without limitations or restrictions that are not reflected therein.  Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Packard Press Inc., 281 F.3d 1261, 1267-68, 62 USPQ2d 1001, 1004-05 (Fed. Cir. 2002); In re Dakin’s Miniatures, Inc., 59 USPQ2d 1593, 1595 (TTAB 1999); see TMEP §1207.01(a)(iii). 

 

In this case, applicant’s goods are identified broadly.  Therefore, it is presumed that the application encompasses all clothing, footwear and headgear, including those in the registrant’s more specific identification, that the goods move in all normal channels of trade, and that they are available to all potential customers.  See In re La Peregrina Ltd., 86 USPQ2d 1645, 1646 (TTAB 2008); In re Jump Designs LLC, 80 USPQ2d 1370, 1374 (TTAB 2006); TMEP §1207.01(a)(iii).

 

What is more, the decisions in the clothing field have held many different types of apparel to be related under Trademark Act Section 2(d).  Cambridge Rubber Co. v. Cluett, Peabody & Co., 286 F.2d 623, 128 USPQ 549 (C.C.P.A. 1961) (women’s boots related to men’s and boys’ underwear); Jockey Int’l, Inc. v. Mallory & Church Corp., 25 USPQ2d 1233 (TTAB 1992) (underwear related to neckties); In re Melville Corp., 18 USPQ2d 1386 (TTAB 1991) (women’s pants, blouses, shorts and jackets related to women’s shoes); In re Pix of Am., Inc., 225 USPQ 691 (TTAB 1985) (women’s shoes related to outer shirts); In re Mercedes Slacks, Ltd., 213 USPQ 397 (TTAB 1982) (hosiery related to trousers); In re Cook United, Inc., 185 USPQ 444 (TTAB 1975) (men’s suits, coats, and trousers related to ladies’ pantyhose and hosiery); Esquire Sportswear Mfg. Co. v. Genesco Inc., 141 USPQ 400 (TTAB 1964) (brassieres and girdles related to slacks for men and young men).

 

Attached are copies of ten (10) printouts from the USPTO X-Search database, which show third-party registrations of marks used in connection with the same or similar goods 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 listed therein, namely many different types of apparel, 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).

 

Therefore, because of the similarities between the marks and goods of the parties, a likelihood of confusion as to the source of these goods must be found to exist.

 

Although applicant’s mark has been refused registration, applicant may respond to the refusal by submitting evidence and arguments in support of registration.

 

Applicant must respond to the requirements set forth below.

 

IDENTIFICATION OF GOODS

 

The following wording in the identification of goods is indefinite and must be clarified.  See TMEP §1402.01. 

 

International Class 3

 

The wording “OTHER SUBSTANCES FOR LAUNDRY USE” in the identification of goods is indefinite and must be clarified because it does not identify specific goods.  See TMEP §§1402.01, 1402.03.

 

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

 

Therefore, any modification to this wording must identify goods in International Class 3, the classification specified in the application for these goods.

 

The following substitute wording is suggested, if appropriate: 

 

Bleaching preparations and other substances for laundry use, namely, {indicate type of goods, e.g., laundry detergents, laundry soaps, fabric softeners}.

 

International Class 18

 

The wording “GOODS MADE OF [LEATHER AND IMITATIONS OF LEATHER] AND NOT INCLUDED IN OTHER CLASSES” in the identification of goods is indefinite and must be clarified because this wording constitutes an open-ended “catch-all” word or phrase and is not acceptable because it fails to identify specific goods.  See TMEP §§1402.01, 1402.03.

 

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

 

Therefore, any modification to this wording must identify goods in International Class 18, the classification specified in the application for these goods.

 

The following substitute wording is suggested, if appropriate:

 

Leather and imitations of leathers, and goods made of these materials, namely, {indicate types of goods, e.g., attaché cases, bags and wallets, key cases}.

 

International Class 25

 

The wording “CLOTHING” and “HEADGEAR” in the identification of goods is indefinite and must be clarified because it does not specify the types of clothing for which the mark is used.  See TMEP §§1402.01, 1402.03.  Applicant must amend the identification by inserting the word “namely,” after “clothing” and “headgear” and indicating the common commercial or generic name for the goods (e.g., shirts, pants, coats, hats, caps).  See TMEP §§1402.01, 1402.03(a).

 

The international classification of goods in applications filed under Trademark Act Section 66(a) cannot be changed from the classification the International Bureau assigned to the goods in the corresponding international registration.  37 C.F.R. §2.85(d); TMEP §§1401.03(d), 1904.02(b).  Therefore, although clothing and headgear can be classified in international classes other than International Class 25 (e.g., International Classes 9, 10 and 18), any modification to the identification must identify goods in International Class 25 only, the class specified in the application for such goods.

 

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.

 

An applicant may amend an identification of goods 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 et seq. 

 

ADVISORY – CLASSIFICATION OF GOODS

 

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).

 

DESCRIPTION OF MARK REQUIRED

 

The applied-for mark is not in standard characters and applicant did not provide a description of the mark with the initial application.  Applications for marks not in standard characters must include an accurate and concise description of the entire mark that identifies literal elements as well as any design elements.  See 37 C.F.R. §2.37; TMEP §§808.01, 808.02, 808.03(b). 

 

Therefore, applicant must provide a description of the applied-for mark.  The following is suggested:

 

The mark consists of a horizontal oval bisected by a broken vertical line. The top of the lower portion of the vertical line bends to the left.  The oval sits on a horizontal line above the wording “VANQUISH”.

 

If applicant has questions about the application or this Office action, please telephone the assigned trademark examining attorney at the telephone number below.

 

 

/Maria-Victoria Suarez/

Trademark Attorney

Law Office 102

571-272-9264

maria-victoria.suarez@uspto.gov

 

 

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.