UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE (USPTO)
OFFICE ACTION (OFFICIAL LETTER) ABOUT APPLICANT’S TRADEMARK APPLICATION
|
U.S. APPLICATION SERIAL NO. 79165542
MARK: SOLARIS
|
|
|
CORRESPONDENT ADDRESS: |
CLICK HERE TO RESPOND TO THIS LETTER: http://www.gov.uspto.report/trademarks/teas/response_forms.jsp
|
|
APPLICANT: GRANDVISION FRANCE
|
|
|
CORRESPONDENT’S REFERENCE/DOCKET NO: CORRESPONDENT E-MAIL ADDRESS: |
|
OFFICE ACTION
INTERNATIONAL REGISTRATION NO. 1108937
STRICT DEADLINE TO RESPOND TO THIS NOTIFICATION: TO AVOID ABANDONMENT OF THE REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF PROTECTION OF THE INTERNATIONAL REGISTRATION, THE USPTO MUST RECEIVE A COMPLETE RESPONSE TO THIS PROVISIONAL FULL REFUSAL NOTIFICATION WITHIN 6 MONTHS OF THE “DATE ON WHICH THE NOTIFICATION WAS SENT TO WIPO (MAILING DATE)” LOCATED ON THE WIPO COVER LETTER ACCOMPANYING THIS NOTIFICATION.
In addition to the Mailing Date appearing on the WIPO cover letter, a holder (hereafter “applicant”) may confirm this Mailing Date using the USPTO’s Trademark Status and Document Retrieval (TSDR) system at http://tsdr.gov.uspto.report/. To do so, enter the U.S. application serial number for this application and then select “Documents.” The Mailing Date used to calculate the response deadline for this provisional full refusal is the “Create/Mail Date” of the “IB-1rst Refusal Note.”
This is a PROVISIONAL FULL REFUSAL of the request for extension of protection of the mark in the above-referenced U.S. application. See 15 U.S.C. §1141h(c). See below in this notification (hereafter “Office action”) for details regarding the provisional full refusal.
WHO IS PERMITTED TO RESPOND TO THIS PROVISIONAL FULL REFUSAL: Any response to this provisional refusal must be personally signed by an individual applicant, all joint applicants, or someone with legal authority to bind a juristic applicant (e.g., a corporate officer or general partner). 37 C.F.R. §§2.62(b), 2.193(e)(2)(ii); TMEP §712.01. If applicant hires a qualified U.S. attorney to respond on his or her behalf, then the attorney must sign the response. 37 C.F.R. §§2.193(e)(2)(i), 11.18(a); TMEP §§611.03(b), 712.01. Qualified U.S. attorneys include those 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. See 37 C.F.R. §§2.17(a), 2.62(b), 11.1, 11.14(a); TMEP §§602, 712.01. Additionally, for all responses, the proper signatory must personally sign the document or personally enter his or her electronic signature on the electronic filing. See 37 C.F.R. §2.193(a); TMEP §§611.01(b), 611.02. The name of the signatory must also be printed or typed immediately below or adjacent to the signature, or identified elsewhere in the filing. 37 C.F.R. §2.193(d); TMEP §611.01(b).
In general, foreign attorneys are not permitted to represent applicants before the USPTO (e.g., file written communications, authorize an amendment to an application, or submit legal arguments in response to a requirement or refusal). See 37 C.F.R. §11.14(c), (e); TMEP §§602.03-.03(b), 608.01.
DESIGNATION OF DOMESTIC REPRESENTATIVE: The USPTO encourages applicants who do not reside in the United States to designate a domestic representative upon whom any notice or process may be served. TMEP §610; see 15 U.S.C. §§1051(e), 1141h(d); 37 C.F.R. §2.24(a)(1)-(2). Such designations may be filed online at http://www.gov.uspto.report/trademarks/teas/correspondence.jsp.
INTRODUCTION
LIKELIHOOD OF CONFUSION REFUSAL
Registration of the applied-for mark is refused because of a likelihood of confusion with the mark in U.S. Registration No. 4123778. 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 a potential consumer would be confused, 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). A determination of likelihood of confusion under Section 2(d) is made on a case-by case basis and the factors set forth in In re E. I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., 476 F.2d 1357, 177 USPQ 563 (C.C.P.A. 1973) aid in this determination. Citigroup Inc. v. Capital City Bank Grp., Inc., 637 F.3d 1344, 1349, 98 USPQ2d 1253, 1256 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (citing On-Line Careline, Inc. v. Am. Online, Inc., 229 F.3d 1080, 1085, 56 USPQ2d 1471, 1474 (Fed. Cir. 2000)). Not all the du Pont factors, however, are necessarily relevant or of equal weight, and any one of the factors may control in a given case, depending upon the evidence of record. Citigroup Inc. v. Capital City Bank Grp., Inc., 637 F.3d at 1355, 98 USPQ2d at 1260; In re Majestic Distilling Co., 315 F.3d 1311, 1315, 65 USPQ2d 1201, 1204 (Fed. Cir. 2003); see In re E. I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., 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 and nature of the goods and/or services, and similarity of the trade channels of the goods and/or services. See In re Viterra Inc., 671 F.3d 1358, 1361-62, 101 USPQ2d 1905, 1908 (Fed. Cir. 2012); In re Dakin’s Miniatures Inc., 59 USPQ2d 1593, 1595-96 (TTAB 1999); TMEP §§1207.01 et seq.
Applicant Grandvision France seeks to register the mark SOLARIS for “Spectacles, spectacle frames, corrective spectacles and sunglasses, goggles for sports except fencing masks, spectacle glasses and optical glasses, lenses for sunglasses, corrective lenses, contact lenses, lenses, spectacle cases, containers for contact lenses, cords, chains and ties for holding spectacles, binoculars, magnifying glasses (optics); magnetic cards; magnetic loyalty cards, magnetic payment cards; magnetic gift cards” and “Retail sale services for optical goods, namely, spectacles, spectacle frames, corrective spectacles and sunglasses, goggles for sports, spectacle glasses and optical glasses, lenses for sunglasses, corrective lenses, contact lenses, lenses, spectacle cases, containers for contact lenses, cords, chains and ties for holding spectacles, binoculars, magnifying glasses (optics); dissemination of advertisements in connection with optical goods; organization of exhibitions of optical goods for commercial or advertising purposes; organization of promotional activities in connection with optical goods; advertising, radio advertising, television advertising, direct mail advertising (leaflets, prospectuses, printed matter, samples), interactive advertising offers, namely, on-line advertising on a computer network or on the Internet; public relations; opinion polling; market studies, market research, sales promotion for others; loyalty card services, namely, organization of promotional and advertising activities with a view to promoting customer loyalty; newspaper subscription services (for others)” and “Opticians' services; advice and information in the field of optics; advice regarding adjustment of optical goods to one's facial structure, namely, trying on and adjusting spectacle frames; trying on spectacles and sight testing services; adaptation of prescription spectacles.”
The registrant, Solaris, has registered the mark SOLARIS HERITAGE for “Spectacles, spectacle frames, prescription glasses and sunglasses, goggles for sports excluding fencing masks, spectacle lenses and optical lenses, lenses for sunglasses, corrective lenses, contact lenses, lenses for eyeglasses, spectacle cases, containers for contact lenses, cords, chains and ties for holding spectacles, binoculars, magnifying glasses.”
Comparison of the Marks
Marks are compared in their entireties for similarities in appearance, sound, connotation, and commercial impression. In re Viterra Inc., 671 F.3d 1358, 1362, 101 USPQ2d 1905, 1908 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (quoting 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)-(b)(v). Similarity in any one of these elements may be sufficient to find the marks confusingly similar. In re White Swan Ltd., 8 USPQ2d 1534, 1535 (TTAB 1988); see In re 1st USA Realty Prof’ls, Inc., 84 USPQ2d 1581, 1586 (TTAB 2007); TMEP §1207.01(b).
Although not identical, the marks at issue are highly similar.
Both marks comprise the identical term SOLARIS. Applicant has adopted the registered mark and merely deleted the final term HERITAGE. The 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 the registered mark, and there is no other wording to distinguish it from the registered mark.
Comparison of the Goods and/or Services
The goods and/or services of the parties need not be identical or even competitive to find a likelihood of confusion. See On-line Careline Inc. v. Am. Online Inc., 229 F.3d 1080, 1086, 56 USPQ2d 1471, 1475 (Fed. Cir. 2000); Recot, Inc. v. Becton, 214 F.3d 1322, 1329, 54 USPQ2d 1894, 1898 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (“[E]ven if the goods in question are different from, and thus not related to, one another in kind, the same goods can be related in the mind of the consuming public as to the origin of the goods.”); TMEP §1207.01(a)(i).
The respective goods and/or services need only be “related in some manner and/or if the circumstances surrounding their marketing [be] such that they could give rise to the mistaken belief that [the goods and/or services] emanate from the same source.” Coach Servs., Inc. v. Triumph Learning LLC, 668 F.3d 1356, 1369, 101 USPQ2d 1713, 1722 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (quoting 7-Eleven Inc. v. Wechsler, 83 USPQ2d 1715, 1724 (TTAB 2007)); Gen. Mills Inc. v. Fage Dairy Processing Indus. SA, 100 USPQ2d 1584, 1597 (TTAB 2011); TMEP §1207.01(a)(i).
Here, the goods and services are closely related. Both parties identify optical goods and the goods are identical in part.
The examining attorney also relies on the identification of goods and services in the present application to show relatedness of registrant’s goods to applicant’s goods and services. Applicant itself identifies optical goods together with magnetic card goods, advertising services and optical health services. Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Packard Press Inc., 281 F.3d 1261, 1267, 62 USPQ2d 1001, 1004 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (Board erred in finding that there was insufficient evidence of relatedness, “because the Board did not consider the important evidence already before it, namely the ITU application and [opposer’s multiple] registrations”). See TMEP §1207.01(a)(vi)
Conclusion
Because the marks are highly similar and the goods and services are closely related, consumers are likely to be confused as to the source of applicant’s goods and services. Accordingly, registration must be refused under Section 2(d).
The overriding concern is not only to prevent buyer confusion as to the source of the goods and/or services, but to protect the registrant from adverse commercial impact due to use of a similar mark by a newcomer. See In re Shell Oil Co., 992 F.2d 1204, 1208, 26 USPQ2d 1687, 1690 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Therefore, any doubt regarding a likelihood of confusion determination is resolved in favor of the registrant. TMEP §1207.01(d)(i); see Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Packard Press, Inc., 281 F.3d 1261, 1265, 62 USPQ2d 1001, 1003 (Fed. Cir. 2002); In re Hyper Shoppes (Ohio), Inc., 837 F.2d 463, 464-65, 6 USPQ2d 1025, 1026 (Fed. Cir. 1988).
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 Cited Mark is Owned by Applicant
(1) Record the assignment with the USPTO’s Assignment Recordation Branch (ownership transfer documents such as assignments can be filed online at http://etas.uspto.gov) and promptly notify the trademark examining attorney that the assignment has been duly recorded.
(2) Submit copies of documents evidencing the chain of title.
(3) Submit the following statement, verified with an affidavit or signed declaration under 37 C.F.R. §2.20: “Applicant is the owner of U.S. Registration No. 4123778.”
TMEP §812.01; see 15 U.S.C. §1060; 37 C.F.R. §§2.193(e)(1), 3.25, 3.73(a)-(b); TMEP §502.02(a).
Recording a document with the Assignment Recordation Branch does not constitute a response to an Office action. TMEP §503.01(d).
Applicant may submit a declaration online using the Trademark Electronic Application System (TEAS) response to Office action form at http://www.gov.uspto.report/trademarks/teas/response_forms.jsp. In the TEAS response form, answer “yes” to the wizard question regarding submitting a “signed declaration,” and follow the instructions within the form for signing. See 37 C.F.R. §§2.20, 2.33(a)-(b), 2.193(a)-(e)(1); TMEP §§611.01(c), 804.01(b).
IDENTIFICATION OF THE GOODS AND SERVICES
Applicant identifies the goods and services as follows:
Class 9:
Spectacles, spectacle frames, corrective spectacles and sunglasses, goggles for sports except fencing masks, spectacle glasses and optical glasses, lenses for sunglasses, corrective lenses, contact lenses, lenses, spectacle cases, containers for contact lenses, cords, chains and ties for holding spectacles, binoculars, magnifying glasses (optics); magnetic cards; magnetic loyalty cards, magnetic payment cards; magnetic gift cards
Class 35:
Retail sale services for optical goods, namely, spectacles, spectacle frames, corrective spectacles and sunglasses, goggles for sports, spectacle glasses and optical glasses, lenses for sunglasses, corrective lenses, contact lenses, lenses, spectacle cases, containers for contact lenses, cords, chains and ties for holding spectacles, binoculars, magnifying glasses (optics); dissemination of advertisements in connection with optical goods; organization of exhibitions of optical goods for commercial or advertising purposes; organization of promotional activities in connection with optical goods; advertising, radio advertising, television advertising, direct mail advertising (leaflets, prospectuses, printed matter, samples), interactive advertising offers, namely, on-line advertising on a computer network or on the Internet; public relations; opinion polling; market studies, market research, sales promotion for others; loyalty card services, namely, organization of promotional and advertising activities with a view to promoting customer loyalty; newspaper subscription services (for others)
Class 44:
Opticians' services; advice and information in the field of optics; advice regarding adjustment of optical goods to one's facial structure, namely, trying on and adjusting spectacle frames; trying on spectacles and sight testing services; adaptation of prescription spectacles
The wording …, lenses, …, cords, chains and ties for holding spectacles, …, magnifying glasses (optics); magnetic cards; magnetic loyalty cards, magnetic payment cards; …Retail sale services for optical goods, namely, spectacles, spectacle frames, corrective spectacles and sunglasses, goggles for sports, spectacle glasses and optical glasses, lenses for sunglasses, corrective lenses, contact lenses, lenses, spectacle cases, containers for contact lenses, cords, chains and ties for holding spectacles, binoculars, magnifying glasses (optics); dissemination of advertisements in connection with optical goods; …; organization of promotional activities in connection with optical goods; … (leaflets, prospectuses, printed matter, samples), …; loyalty card services, namely, organization of promotional and advertising activities with a view to promoting customer loyalty; newspaper subscription services (for others) …; advice and information in the field of optics; advice regarding adjustment of optical goods to one's facial structure, namely, trying on and adjusting spectacle frames; trying on spectacles and sight testing services; adaptation of prescription spectacles” in the identification of goods and services is indefinite and must be clarified because the wording does not satisfy the Office’s requirements for specificity and the nature of the goods and services is not clear. See 37 C.F.R. §2.32(a)(6); TMEP §§1402.01, 1402.03.
In an application filed under Trademark Act Section 66(a), an applicant may not change the classification of goods and/or services from that assigned by the International Bureau in the corresponding international registration. 37 C.F.R. §2.85(d); TMEP §§1401.03(d), 1904.02(b). Further, in a multiple-class Section 66(a) application, an applicant may not transfer goods and/or services from one existing international class to another. 37 C.F.R. §2.85(d); see TMEP §§1402.07(a), 1904.02(c). Therefore, any modification to this wording must identify goods and/or services in the same International Class specified in the application for these goods and/or services.
The following substitute wording is suggested, if accurate:
An applicant may only amend an identification to clarify or limit the goods, but not to add to or broaden the scope of the goods. 37 C.F.R. §2.71(a); see TMEP §§1402.06 et seq., 1402.07.
For assistance with identifying and classifying goods and services in trademark applications, please see the USPTO’s online searchable U.S. Acceptable Identification of Goods and Services Manual at http://tess2.gov.uspto.report/netahtml/tidm.html. See TMEP §1402.04.
TRADEMARK LAWYER SUGGESTED
For attorney referral information, applicant may consult the American Bar Association’s Consumers’ Guide to Legal Help at http://www.abanet.org/legalservices/findlegalhelp/home.cfm, an attorney referral service of a state or local bar association, or a local telephone directory. The USPTO may not assist an applicant in the selection of a private attorney. 37 C.F.R. §2.11.
In addition, foreign attorneys, other than authorized Canadian attorneys, are not permitted to represent applicants before the USPTO (e.g., file written communications, authorize an amendment to an application, or submit legal arguments in response to a requirement or refusal). See 37 C.F.R. §§2.17(e), 11.14(c), (e); TMEP §602.03-.03(c).
The only attorneys who may 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/attorneyswho 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(a), (e), 11.1, 11.14(a), (c); TMEP §602.
CLOSING
If applicant does not respond to this Office action within six months of the issue/mailing date, or responds by expressly abandoning the application, the application process will end, the trademark will fail to register, and the application fee will not be refunded. See 15 U.S.C. §1062(b); 37 C.F.R. §§2.65(a), 2.68(a), 2.209(a); TMEP §§405.04, 718.01, 718.02. Where the application has been abandoned for failure to respond to an Office action, applicant’s only option would be to file a timely petition to revive the application, which, if granted, would allow the application to return to active status. See 37 C.F.R. §2.66; TMEP §1714. There is a $100 fee for such petitions. See 37 C.F.R. §§2.6, 2.66(b)(1).
Do not respond via e-mail; e-mail communication will not be accepted as a response to this Office action and will not extend the deadline for filing a proper response. See 37 C.F.R. §§2.62(c), 2.191; TMEP §§304.01-.02, 709.04-.05.
/Tracy L. Fletcher/
Trademark Examining Attorney
Law Office 115
U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
Telephone: (571) 272-9471
Facsimile: (571) 273-9471
tracyfletcher@uspto.gov
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 the Trademark Electronic Application System (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. All informal e-mail communications relevant to this application will be placed in the official application record. E-mail communications will not be accepted as responses to Office actions; therefore, do not respond to this Office action by e-mail.
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 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 TEAS form at http://www.gov.uspto.report/trademarks/teas/correspondence.jsp.