Suspension Letter

RIMMEL LONDON

Coty Beauty Germany GmbH

Suspension Letter

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE (USPTO)

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

 

U.S. APPLICATION SERIAL NO.  79147956

 

MARK:               RIMMEL LONDON

 

 

        

*79147956*

CORRESPONDENT ADDRESS:

      CABINET HIRSCH & ASSOCIES

      58 avenue Marceau

      F-75008 PARIS

      FRANCE

      

 

GENERAL TRADEMARK INFORMATION:

http://www.gov.uspto.report/trademarks/index.jsp

 

 

 

APPLICANT: Coty Germany GmbH

 

 

 

CORRESPONDENT’S REFERENCE/DOCKET NO:  

      N/A

CORRESPONDENT E-MAIL ADDRESS: 

      

 

 

 

SUSPENSION NOTICE: NO RESPONSE NEEDED

 

ISSUE/MAILING DATE:

INTERNATIONAL REGISTRATION NO. 1205706

 

This Suspension Notice is issued in response to applicant’s communication dated, 12/22/2014.

 

The trademark examining attorney is suspending action on the application for the reason stated below.  See 37 C.F.R. §2.67; TMEP §§716 et seq. 

 

PRIOR FILED APPLICATION

 

The effective filing date of the pending application identified below precedes the filing date of applicant’s application.  If the mark in the referenced application registers, applicant’s mark may be refused registration under Section 2(d) because of a likelihood of confusion with that registered mark.  See 15 U.S.C. §1052(d); 37 C.F.R. §2.83; TMEP §§1208 et seq.  Therefore, action on this application is suspended until the earlier-filed referenced application(s) is either registered or abandoned.  37 C.F.R. §2.83(c).  A copy of information relevant to this referenced application was sent previously.

 

            - Application Serial No. 85802714

 

 

ASSERTING UNITY OF CONTROL

 

Applicant indicates that it has a legal relationship with the prior cited applicant, Coty US LLC in the potentially-conflicting prior pending application.

 

However, a legal relationship between the parties is insufficient to overcome a likelihood of confusion unless the parties constitute a “single source.”  That is, the legal relationship between the parties must exhibit a “unity of control” over the nature and quality of the goods and/or services in connection with which the trademarks and/or service marks are used, and a “unity of control” over the use of the trademarks and/or service marks.  See In re Wella A.G., 5 USPQ2d 1359, 1361 (TTAB 1987); see also TMEP §1201.07.

 

Unity of control is presumed in instances where, absent contradictory evidence, one party owns (1) all of another entity, or (2) substantially all of another entity and asserts control over the activities of that other entity.  See TMEP §1201.07(b)(i)-(ii).  Such ownership is established, for example, when one party owns all or substantially all of the stock of another or when one party is a wholly owned subsidiary of another.  See In re Wella A.G., 5 USPQ2d at 1361; TMEP §1201.07(b)(i)-(ii).  It is additionally presumed when, absent contradictory evidence, applicant is shown in USPTO records as a joint owner of the cited registration, or the owner of the registration is listed as a joint owner of the application, and applicant submits a written statement asserting control over the use of the mark by virtue of joint ownership.  TMEP §1201.07(b)(ii). 

 

However, in most other situations, additional evidence is required to show unity of control.  For example, if the parties are sister corporations as in this case, or if the parties share certain stockholders, directors or officers in common, additional evidence must be provided to show how the parties constitute a single source.  See In re Pharmacia, Inc., 2 USPQ2d 1883, 1884 (TTAB 1987); TMEP §1201.07(b)(iii). 

 

Therefore, applicant must provide a written statement explaining the nature of the legal relationship between the parties.  In addition, if neither party owns all or substantially all of the other party, and USPTO records do not show their joint ownership of the application or cited registration, applicant must provide a detailed written explanation and documentary evidence showing the parties’ “unity of control” over the nature and quality of the goods and/or services in connection with which the trademarks and/or service marks are used, and the parties’ “unity of control” over the use of the trademarks and/or service marks.  See TMEP §1201.07(b)(i)-(iii).  This statement and, if necessary, explanation must be verified with an affidavit or signed declaration under 37 C.F.R. §2.20.  TMEP §1201.07(b)(ii)-(iii); see 37 C.F.R. §2.193(e)(1). 

 

While applicant has provided a brief statement in its Response that the applicant and owner of the cited application are “related” companies, it has not provided any other evidence  showing the parties’ “unity of control” over the nature and quality of the goods in connection with which the trademarks are used, and the parties’ “unity of control” over the use of the trademarks.  As well, the statement has not been verified with an affidavit or signed declaration under 37 C.F.R. §2.20.

 

 

REFUSAL(S)/REQUIREMENT(S) CONTINUED AND MAINTAINED:  The following refusal(s)/requirement(s) is/are continued and maintained:

 

  • The request for information requirement is continued and maintained:

 

 

REQUEST FOR INFORMATION REQUIREMENT

 

 

Applicant must provide a written statement explaining whether the goods are manufactured, packaged, shipped from, sold in or have any other connection with the geographic location named in the mark, “London”.  See 37 C.F.R. §2.61(b); In re AOP LLC, 107 USPQ2d 1644, 1650-51 (TTAB 2013); In re Cheezwhse.com, Inc., 85 USPQ2d 1917, 1919 (TTAB 2008); In re Planalytics, Inc., 70 USPQ2d 1453, 1457-58 (TTAB 2004); TMEP §§814, 1210.03.  Failure to comply with a request for information can be grounds for refusing registration.  In re AOP LLC, 107 USPQ2d at 1651; In re DTI P’ship LLP, 67 USPQ2d 1699, 1701-02 (TTAB 2003); TMEP §814. 

 

 

The disclaimer, color claim/location statement and claim of ownership of prior registrations requirements have been satisfied.

 

The USPTO will periodically conduct a status check of the application to determine whether suspension remains appropriate, and the trademark examining attorney will issue as needed an inquiry letter to applicant regarding the status of the matter on which suspension is based.  TMEP §§716.04, 716.05.  Applicant will be notified when suspension is no longer appropriate.  See TMEP §716.04.

 

No response to this notice is necessary; however, if applicant wants to respond, applicant should use the “Response to Suspension Inquiry or Letter of Suspension” form online at http://teasroa.gov.uspto.report/rsi/rsi.

 

 

 

/Lee-Anne Berns/

Examining Attorney

Law Office 105

571-272-8982

lee-anne.berns@uspto.gov

 

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 the Trademark Status and Document Retrieval (TSDR) system at http://tsdr.gov.uspto.report/.  Please keep a copy of the TSDR status screen.  If the status shows no change for more than six months, contact the Trademark Assistance Center by e-mail at TrademarkAssistanceCenter@uspto.gov or 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 Trademark Electronic Application System (TEAS) form at http://www.gov.uspto.report/trademarks/teas/correspondence.jsp.

 

 


uspto.report is an independent third-party trademark research tool that is not affiliated, endorsed, or sponsored by the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) or any other governmental organization. The information provided by uspto.report is based on publicly available data at the time of writing and is intended for informational purposes only.

While we strive to provide accurate and up-to-date information, we do not guarantee the accuracy, completeness, reliability, or suitability of the information displayed on this site. The use of this site is at your own risk. Any reliance you place on such information is therefore strictly at your own risk.

All official trademark data, including owner information, should be verified by visiting the official USPTO website at www.uspto.gov. This site is not intended to replace professional legal advice and should not be used as a substitute for consulting with a legal professional who is knowledgeable about trademark law.

© 2024 USPTO.report | Privacy Policy | Resources | RSS Feed of Trademarks | Trademark Filings Twitter Feed