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. 1100802

 

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.

 

(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/trademarks/teas/index.jsp. 

 

THE APPLICATION HAS BEEN PROVISIONALLY REFUSED AS FOLLOWS:

 

Registration of the applied-for mark is refused because of a likelihood of confusion with the marks in U.S. Registration Nos. 3589767 and 4089452.  Trademark Act Section 2(d), 15 U.S.C. §1052(d); see TMEP §§1207.01 et seq.  See the enclosed registrations.

 

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 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.  Citigroup Inc. v. Capital City Bank Grp., Inc., 637 F.3d 1344, 1355, 98 USPQ2d 1253, 1260 (Fed. Cir. 2011); 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 Dakin’s Miniatures Inc., 59 USPQ2d 1593 (TTAB 1999); TMEP §§1207.01 et seq.

 

Taking into account the relevant du Pont factors, a likelihood of confusion determination in this case involves a two-part analysis.  See In re E. I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., 476 F.2d 1357, 1361-62, 177 USPQ 563, 567 (C.C.P.A. 1973); In re 1st USA Realty Prof’ls Inc., 84 USPQ2d 1581, 1584 (TTAB 2007); see also In re Dixie Rests. Inc., 105 F.3d 1405, 1406-07, 41 USPQ2d 1531, 1533 (Fed. Cir. 1997).  The marks are compared for similarities in their appearance, sound, connotation and commercial impression.  TMEP §§1207.01, 1207.01(b).  The goods and/or services are compared to determine whether they are similar or commercially related or travel in the same trade channels.  See Herbko Int’l, Inc. v. Kappa Books, Inc., 308 F.3d 1156, 1164-65, 64 USPQ2d 1375, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2002); Han Beauty, Inc. v. Alberto-Culver Co., 236 F.3d 1333, 1336, 57 USPQ2d 1557, 1559 (Fed. Cir. 2001); TMEP §§1207.01, 1207.01(a)(vi).

 

Similarity of the Marks

 

The applicant’s mark, ARCTIC and design, is similar to the registered marks, ARCTIC EXPERIENCE and ARCTIC LITE, in that the dominant element in each mark is ARCTIC.

 

The applicant’s mark includes a design.  However, when a mark consists of a word portion and a design portion, the word portion is more likely to be impressed upon a purchaser’s memory and to be used in calling for the goods and/or services; therefore, the word portion is normally accorded greater weight in determining whether marks are confusingly similar.  In re Dakin’s Miniatures, Inc., 59 USPQ2d 1593, 1596 (TTAB 1999); TMEP §1207.01(c)(ii); see CBS Inc. v. Morrow, 708 F. 2d 1579, 1581-82, 218 USPQ 198, 200 (Fed. Cir 1983); In re Kysela Pere et Fils, Ltd., 98 USPQ2d 1261, 1267-68 (TTAB 2011).

 

The registered marks both contain another word.  However, an applicant’s mere deletion of wording from a registered mark may not be sufficient to overcome a likelihood of confusion.  See In re Mighty Leaf Tea, 601 F.3d 1342, 94 USPQ2d 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2010); In re Optica Int’l, 196 USPQ 775, 778 (TTAB 1977); TMEP §1207.01(b)(ii)-(iii).  Applicant’s mark does not create a distinct commercial impression because it contains the same common wording as registrant’s mark, and there is no other wording to distinguish it from registrant’s mark.

 

Similarity of the Goods

 

The applicant’s goods include beer, which is identical to one of the goods in each of the cited registrations.  The applicant’s goods also include mineral and aerated waters, which are identical to one of the goods in the second cited registration.  The remainder of the applicant’s goods are related to the registered goods because they are all beverages.

 

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 to show that because of the conditions surrounding their marketing, or because they are otherwise related in some manner, the goods and/or services would be encountered by the same consumers under circumstances such that offering the goods and/or services under confusingly similar marks would lead to the mistaken belief that they come from, or are in some way associated with, the same source.  In re Iolo Techs., LLC, 95 USPQ2d 1498, 1499 (TTAB 2010); see In re Martin’s Famous Pastry Shoppe, Inc., 748 F.2d 1565, 1566-68, 223 USPQ 1289, 1290 (Fed. Cir. 1984); TMEP §1207.01(a)(i).

 

If the goods and/or services of the respective parties are “similar in kind and/or closely related,” the degree of similarity between the marks required to support a finding of likelihood of confusion is not as great as would be required with diverse goods and/or services.  In re J.M. Originals Inc., 6 USPQ2d 1393, 1394 (TTAB 1987); see Shen Mfg. Co. v. Ritz Hotel Ltd., 393 F.3d 1238, 1242, 73 USPQ2d 1350, 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2004); TMEP §1207.01(b).

 

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

 

If applicant responds to the refusal, applicant must also respond to the requirement(s) set forth below.

 

Mark Description

 

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 the word “ARCTIC” and a snow flake design.

 

Identification of Goods

 

Applicant must clarify the identification of goods by specifying the particular “other non-alcoholic drinks,” e.g. lemonade.  See TMEP §1402.01.

 

Applicant must clarify the identification of goods by specifying the beverages made with the “other preparations for making beverages,” e.g. fruit juice.  See TMEP §1402.01.

 

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. 

 

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.

 

 

 

 

/James A. Rauen/

Trademark Examining Attorney

Law Office 109

571-272-9211

james.rauen@uspto.gov (e-mail for informal communications only)

 

TO RESPOND TO THIS LETTER:  Go to http://www.gov.uspto.report/trademarks/teas/response_forms.jsp.  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.  For questions about the Office action itself, please contact the assigned trademark examining attorney.  E-mail communications will not be accepted as responses to Office actions; therefore, do not respond to this Office action by e-mail.

 

All informal e-mail communications relevant to this application will be placed in the official application record.

 

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.