To: | GrandVision Group Holding B.V. (TM-CT@cantorcolburn.com) |
Subject: | U.S. TRADEMARK APPLICATION NO. 79167884 - FUZION - NO10406TUS |
Sent: | 1/23/2016 1:23:04 PM |
Sent As: | ECOM101@USPTO.GOV |
Attachments: | Attachment - 1 Attachment - 2 Attachment - 3 Attachment - 4 Attachment - 5 Attachment - 6 Attachment - 7 Attachment - 8 Attachment - 9 Attachment - 10 Attachment - 11 |
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE (USPTO)
OFFICE ACTION (OFFICIAL LETTER) ABOUT APPLICANT’S TRADEMARK APPLICATION
U.S. APPLICATION SERIAL NO. 79167884
MARK: FUZION
|
|
CORRESPONDENT ADDRESS: |
CLICK HERE TO RESPOND TO THIS LETTER: http://www.gov.uspto.report/trademarks/teas/response_forms.jsp
|
APPLICANT: GrandVision Group Holding B.V.
|
|
CORRESPONDENT’S REFERENCE/DOCKET NO: CORRESPONDENT E-MAIL ADDRESS: |
|
OFFICE ACTION
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: 1/23/2016
THIS IS A FINAL ACTION.
INTERNATIONAL REGISTRATION NO. 1173774
Applicant must respond within six months of the date of issuance of this final Office action or the application will be abandoned. 15 U.S.C. §1062(b); 37 C.F.R. §2.65(a). Applicant may respond by providing one or both of the following:
(1) A response that fully satisfies all outstanding requirements and/or resolves all outstanding refusals.
(2) An appeal to the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board, with the appeal fee of $100 per class.
37 C.F.R. §2.63(b)(1)-(2); TMEP §714.04; see 37 C.F.R. §2.6(a)(18); TBMP ch. 1200.
In certain rare circumstances, an applicant may respond by filing a petition to the Director pursuant to 37 C.F.R. §2.63(b)(2) to review procedural issues. TMEP §714.04; see 37 C.F.R. §2.146(b); TBMP §1201.05; TMEP §1704 (explaining petitionable matters). The petition fee is $100. 37 C.F.R. §2.6(a)(15).
Applicant must respond within six months of the date of issuance of this final Office action or the application will be abandoned. 15 U.S.C. §1062(b); 37 C.F.R. §2.65(a). Applicant may respond by providing one or both of the following:
(1) A response that fully satisfies all outstanding requirements and/or resolves all outstanding refusals.
(2) An appeal to the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board, with the appeal fee of $100 per class.
37 C.F.R. §2.63(b)(1)-(2); TMEP §714.04; see 37 C.F.R. §2.6(a)(18); TBMP ch. 1200.
In certain rare circumstances, an applicant may respond by filing a petition to the Director pursuant to 37 C.F.R. §2.63(b)(2) to review procedural issues. TMEP §714.04; see 37 C.F.R. §2.146(b); TBMP §1201.05; TMEP §1704 (explaining petitionable matters). The petition fee is $100. 37 C.F.R. §2.6(a)(15).
This is responsive to the communication received January 16, 2016. The explanations regarding the legal entity and meaning of the mark as acceptable.
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. 3848245. Trademark Act Section 2(d), 15 U.S.C. §1052(d); see TMEP §§1207.01 et seq. See the enclosed registration.
This refusal is continued and made Final.
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’s mark, FUZION, is confusingly similar to registrant’s mark, FUSION BY STEPPER.
Marks are compared in their entireties for similarities in appearance, sound, connotation, and commercial impression. Stone Lion Capital Partners, LP v. Lion Capital LLP, 746 F.3d 1317, 1321, 110 USPQ2d 1157, 1160 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (quoting Palm Bay Imps., Inc. v. Veuve Clicquot Ponsardin Maison Fondee En 1772, 396 F. 3d 1369, 1371, 73 USPQ2d 1689, 1691 (Fed. Cir. 2005)); TMEP §1207.01(b)-(b)(v). “Similarity in any one of these elements may be sufficient to find the marks confusingly similar.” In re Davia, 110 USPQ2d 1810, 1812 (TTAB 2014) (citing In re 1st USA Realty Prof’ls, Inc., 84 USPQ2d 1581, 1586 (TTAB 2007)); In re White Swan Ltd., 8 USPQ2d 1534, 1535 (TTAB 1988)); TMEP §1207.01(b).
The first word in registrant’s mark is FUSION. Applicant’s mark is FUZION. Consumers are generally more inclined to focus on the first word, prefix, or syllable in any trademark or service mark. See Palm Bay Imps., Inc. v. Veuve Clicquot Ponsardin Maison Fondee En 1772, 396 F. 3d 1369, 1372, 73 USPQ2d 1689, 1692 (Fed. Cir. 2005); Presto Prods., Inc. v. Nice-Pak Prods., Inc., 9 USPQ2d 1895, 1897 (TTAB 1988) (“it is often the first part of a mark which is most likely to be impressed upon the mind of a purchaser and remembered” when making purchasing decisions).
FUSION and FUZION sound the same and look very similar since there is only one letter difference and those letters are buried in the middle of the marks and sound the same. FUZION is the only word in Applicant’s mark and it is the first word in Registrant’s mark. The only other words in Registrant’s mark are “BY STEPPER”. To many consumers, applicant's mark for the very similar word "FUZION" will simply be viewed as the identification of the previously anonymous source of the goods sold under the very similar mark followed by the phrase "BY STEPPER". In a similar case, the board held that: "those familiar with only applicant's mark [SPARKS BY SASSAFRAS and design] would, upon encountering the registered mark [SPARKS] on related goods, assume that all "SPARKS" products come from a single source, and that that source was in some instances further identified with the words 'by sassafras.'" In re Apparel Ventures, Inc., 229 USPQ 225, 226 (TTAB 1986). See also In re Riddle, 225 USPQ 630 (TTAB 1985) (RICHARD PETTY'S ACCUTUNE (and design) for automotive service centers confusingly similar to ACCUTUNE for automotive testing equipment); In re Champion International Corporation, 196 USPQ 48 (TTAB 1977) (HAMMERMILL MICR CHECK-MATE for paper for [*10] writing, printing, duplicating and office use confusingly similar to CHECK MATE for envelopes); and In re C.F. Hathaway Co., 190 USPQ 343 (TTAB 1976) (HATHAWAY GOLF CLASSIC for knitted sports shirts confusingly similar to GOLF CLASSIC for men's hats).
The other differences between the marks do not overcome the fact that the marks are both dominated by the words "FUZION” or “FUSION." The stylization in registrant's mark is relatively minor. These minor design features do not necessarily obviate likelihood of confusion arising from consideration of the marks in their entireties. Moreover, in a composite mark comprising a design and words, the verbal portion of the mark is the one most likely to indicate the origin of the goods to which it is affixed." CBS Inc. v. Morrow, 708 F.2d 1579, 218 USPQ 198, 200 (Fed. Cir. 1983).
The letters “Z” in applicant’s mark and “S” in registrant’s mark will be pronounced the same.
http://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=how+is+%22s%22+pronounced – “The pronunciation of S at the end of plural nouns, verbs in third person and as a part of the possessive case sometimes causes problems for non-native speakers because it can be pronounced in three different ways: / ɪz /, / s / or / z /. “
The word “FUSION” in registrant’s mark is a strong mark as applied to the goods. It does not describe a feature of the goods.
Attached is the following definition from the MERRIAM-WEBSTER ONLINE DICTIONARY downloaded from GOOGLE on January 23, 2016:
FUSION: a combination or mixture of things
The salient features of the marks are essentially phonetic equivalents and thus sound similar. Similarity in sound alone may be sufficient to support a finding that the marks are 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)(iv).
While applicant has misspelled the word "FUSION" in its mark as "FUZION," it is likely that the "FUZION" portion of applicant's mark will be perceived as the phonetic equivalent of the actual word "FUSION."
And Applicant indicates that its mark is fanciful and has no meaning. Therefore, there is no meaning to distinguish it from the registered mark.
Applicant’s goods, Contact lenses; containers and cases for contact lenses; spectacles; spectacle frames; spectacle glasses; spectacle lenses; spectacle cases; containers for spectacles; spectacle chains; sports glasses; sunglasses are closely related to registrant’s goods, Spectacles, optical frames, sunglasses, contact lenses, sunglass lenses, eyeglass lenses, eyewear accessories, namely, eyeglass chains, bags, cases, cords; and parts therefor.
The following goods are identical: contact lenses, spectacles and sunglasses.
Applicant has provided third party registrations for eyewear which include the term “FUSION”. However, each mark contains additional wording which distinguishes each mark from the others or the goods are dissimilar. Third-party registrations are entitled to little weight on the question of likelihood of confusion because they are “not evidence that the registered marks are actually in use or that the public is familiar with them.” In re Midwest Gaming & Entm’t LLC, 106 USPQ2d 1163, 1167 n.5 (TTAB 2013) (citing In re Mighty Leaf Tea, 601 F.3d 1342, 1346, 94 USPQ2d 1257, 1259 (Fed. Cir. 2010)); see TMEP §1207.01(d)(iii). Moreover, the existence on the register of other seemingly similar marks does not provide a basis for registrability for the applied-for mark. AMF Inc. v. Am. Leisure Prods., Inc., 474 F.2d 1403, 1406, 177 USPQ 268, 269 (C.C.P.A. 1973); In re Total Quality Group, Inc., 51 USPQ2d 1474, 1477 (TTAB 1999).
Clark, Robert
/Robert Clark/
Examining Attorney
Law Office 101
571-272-9144
robert.clark@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. 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 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.