Offc Action Outgoing

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE (USPTO)

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

 

 

 

OFFICE ACTION

 

 

 

INTERNATIONAL REGISTRATION NO. 1279485

 

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.

 

The referenced application has been reviewed by the assigned trademark examining attorney.  Applicant must respond timely and completely to the issue(s) below.  15 U.S.C. §1062(b); 37 C.F.R. §§2.62(a), 2.65(a); TMEP §§711, 718.03.

 

Applicant should note the following refusal.

 

Registration Refused – Likelihood of Confusion

Registration of the applied-for mark is refused because of a likelihood of confusion with the mark GRACE in U.S. Registration No. 1995539.  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, 1361, 177 USPQ 563, 567 (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.

 

Comparison of Marks

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).

 

In a likelihood of confusion determination, the marks in their entireties are compared for similarities in appearance, sound, 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)-(b)(v). 

 

In the present case, applicant’s mark is GRACE and registrant’s mark is GRACE.  Thus, the marks are identical in terms of appearance and sound.  In addition, the connotation and commercial impression of the marks do not differ when considered in connection with applicant’s and registrant’s respective goods and/or services.

 

Therefore, the marks are confusingly similar. 

 

 

Comparison of Goods/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)); TMEP §1207.01(a)(i).

 

Registrant’s goods are “tote bags, all-purpose sports bags, golf umbrellas, umbrellas, leather briefcase-type portfolios, suitcases, garment bags for travel, travel bags, credit and business card cases”. Applicant’s goods include “Bags, cases, shell casings, packs, covers and protective sleeves, all specially adapted for computers (including laptop computers, notebooks, notepads, tablets and organisers) and other portable or handheld personal electronic devices (including cameras, digital recorders and mobile telephones); bags, cases, packs and covers all specially adapted for accessories used in relation to the foregoing; bags, cases, packs and covers designed to provide protection against rain and other inclement weather for computers and other portable or handheld personal electronic devices; stands specially adapted for holding portable or handheld personal electronic devices; stylus pens” in Class 9 and “Bags; shoulder bags; carry bags; packs; backpacks; bags suitable for carrying computers; computer carry packs; overnight bags; travel bags; rucksacks; luggage; attache cases; beach bags; garment bags; school bags; hand bags; suitcases; parts and components, namely, tags, patches, labels, shoulder straps, shoulder strap protectors, buckles, belt straps and other such items included in this class as are attached or incorporated (as parts) into the aforementioned goods in this class” in Class 18. Applicant’s different types of bags, backpacks, packs in Class 18 are highly related to the registrant’s Class 18 bags, suitcases, garment bags and travel bags.

 

Moreover, the Class 9 goods are highly related to the registrant’s Class 18 goods. The attached Internet evidence consists of third party manufacturers of goods similar to those of the registrant and applicant. The bags included in the screenshots indicate that the same party is often the source of both computer and consumer electronic bags, cases and sleeves in Class 9 and bags, packs and backpacks in Class 18. This evidence establishes that the same entity commonly manufactures/produces/provides the relevant goods and/or services and markets the goods and/or services under the same mark.  Moreover, the screenshots also establish that many of the bags like the ones listed the parties’ Class 18 recitation of goods feature pockets and sleeves that are suitable for carrying electronic equipment referenced in applicant’s Class 9 identification of goods. Therefore, applicant’s and registrant’s goods and/or services are considered related for likelihood of confusion purposes.  See, e.g., In re Davey Prods. Pty Ltd., 92 USPQ2d 1198, 1202-04 (TTAB 2009); In re Toshiba Med. Sys. Corp., 91 USPQ2d 1266, 1268-69, 1271-72 (TTAB 2009).

 

Evidence obtained from the Internet may be used to support a determination under Section 2(d) that goods and/or services are related.  See, e.g., In re G.B.I. Tile & Stone, Inc., 92 USPQ2d 1366, 1371 (TTAB 2009); In re Paper Doll Promotions, Inc., 84 USPQ2d 1660, 1668 (TTAB 2007).  The Internet has become integral to daily life in the United States, with Census Bureau data showing approximately three-quarters of American households used the Internet in 2013 to engage in personal communications, to obtain news, information, and entertainment, and to do banking and shopping.  See In re Nieves & Nieves LLC, 113 USPQ2d 1639, 1642 (TTAB 2015) (taking judicial notice of the following two official government publications:  (1) Thom File & Camille Ryan, U.S. Census Bureau, Am. Cmty. Survey Reports ACS-28, Computer & Internet Use in the United States:  2013 (2014), available at http://www.census.gov/content/dam/Census/library/publications/2014/acs/acs-28.pdf, and (2) The Nat’l Telecomms. & Info. Admin. & Econ. & Statistics Admin., Exploring the Digital Nation:  America’s Emerging Online Experience (2013), available at http://www.ntia.doc.gov/files/ntia/publications/exploring_the_digital_nation_-_americas_emerging_online_experience.pdf).  Thus, the widespread use of the Internet in the United States suggests that Internet evidence may be probative of public perception in trademark examination.

 

Where the marks of the respective parties are identical or virtually identical, the relationship between the relevant goods and/or services need not be as close to support a finding of likelihood of confusion.  See In re Shell Oil Co., 992 F.2d 1204, 1207, 26 USPQ2d 1687, 1689 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re House Beer, LLC, 114 USPQ2d 1073, 1077 (TTAB 2015); In re Davey Prods. Pty Ltd., 92 USPQ2d 1198, 1202 (TTAB 2009); TMEP §1207.01(a).

 

Applicant’s mark is identical to the cited mark and the application identifies goods that are highly related to the registrant’s goods, thereby making confusion as to the source of the goods likely. Accordingly, registration is refused under Trademark Act Section 2(d).

 

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

 

Identification of Goods Must be Amended

The identification of goods is indefinite and must be clarified.  See TMEP §1402.01.  Applicant must specify the common commercial or generic name for the goods.  If there is no common commercial or generic name, applicant must describe the product and intended consumer as well as its main purpose and intended uses.  Specifically, applicant must clearly specify the intended and specially designed use of all the bags, cases, covers, sleeves, and packs identified in Class 9. In addition, applicant has identified the “shell casings”, which is definite but misclassified. If applicant intended to specify a type of electronic apparatus carrying bag included in the nature of shell casings, applicant must amend this wording to specify goods acceptable in Class 9.

 

In addition, applicant must specify the types of bags, packs, carry bags, garment bags, buckles , belt straps and “other such items” acceptable in this class.

 

Lastly, the wording “bags suitable for carrying computers” and “computer carry packs” in the identification of goods in Class 18 indefinite and too broad and must be clarified.  See 37 C.F.R. §2.32(a)(6); TMEP §§1402.01, 1402.03. However, applicant should note that any amendment must identify goods that acceptable in Class 18. Any goods specially adapted or designed for carrying computers are not acceptable in Class 18. As such, applicant may delete this wording, as appropriate.

 

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 International Class 18, the classification specified in the application for these goods and/or services.

 

The identification of goods and/or services contains parentheses.  Generally, parentheses and brackets should not be used in identifications.  TMEP §1402.12.  The USPTO generally uses brackets to indicate goods and/or services that have been deleted from registrations.  See id.  Parenthetical information is permitted in identifications only if it serves to explain or translate the matter immediately preceding the parenthetical phrase in such a way that it does not affect the clarity of the identification, e.g., “obi (Japanese sash).”  Id.

 

Therefore, applicant must remove the parentheses from the identification and incorporate any parenthetical or bracketed information into the description of the goods and/or services.

 

For the applicant’s convenience, the trademark examining attorney suggests an amendment of applicant’s identification of goods that complies with the above-mentioned clarification requirements, with any material additions and deletions highlighted in bold and italicized type. Applicant may adopt the following identification, if accurate: 

 

International Class 9: “Computer bags, computer carrying cases, shell casings, battery packs, protective covers and sleeves, all specially adapted for computers in the nature of laptop computers, notebook computers, notepad computers, tablets, electronic personal organizers and  other portable or handheld personal electronic devices namely, cameras, digital video recorders, and mobile telephones; bags, cases, packs and covers all specially adapted for accessories used in relation to laptop computers, notebook computers, notepad computers, tablets, electronic personal organizers and  other portable or handheld personal electronic devices namely, cameras, digital video recorders, and mobile telephones; bags, cases, packs and covers designed to provide protection against rain and other inclement weather and specially adapted for computers and other portable or handheld personal electronic devices, namely, computers, cameras, digital video recorders, digital audio players, mobile phones; stands specially adapted for holding portable or handheld personal electronic devices, namely, computers, cameras, digital video recorders, digital audio players, mobile phones; computer stylus”

 

International Class 18: “Sports bags; shoulder bags; carry-all and carry-on bags; waist packs;  backpacks;  {clarify type of “bags suitable for carrying computers” acceptable in this class, e.g., “backpacks that may be used to hold computers” or delete wording}; {clarify type of “computer carry packs” acceptable in this class or delete wording}; overnight bags; travel bags; rucksacks; luggage; attaché cases; beach bags; garment bags for travel; school bags; handbags; suitcases; luggage tags, plastic luggage labels, shoulder straps, shoulder strap protectors; {clarify type of buckles acceptable in this class}, leather shoulder belts and {clarify type of “other such items”} for attachment to the aforesaid goods”

 

An applicant may only amend an identification to clarify or limit the goods and/or services, but not to add to or broaden the scope of the goods and/or services.  37 C.F.R. §2.71(a); see TMEP §1904.02(c)(iv).  In an application filed under Trademark Act Section 66(a), the scope of the identification for purposes of permissible amendments is limited by the international class assigned by the International Bureau of the World Intellectual Property Organization (International Bureau).  37 C.F.R. §2.85(f); TMEP §§1402.07(a), 1904.02(c).  If an applicant amends an identification to a class other than that assigned by the International Bureau, the amendment will not be accepted because it will exceed the scope and those goods and/or services will no longer have a basis for registration under U.S. law.  TMEP §§1402.01(c), 1904.02(c).

 

In addition, in a Section 66(a) application, 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), 1402.01(c).  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); TMEP §§1401.03(d), 1402.01(c). 

 

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.

 

Response Guidelines

For this application to proceed toward registration, applicant must explicitly address each refusal and/or requirement raised in this Office action.  If the action includes a refusal, applicant may provide arguments and/or evidence as to why the refusal should be withdrawn and the mark should register.  Applicant may also have other options for responding to a refusal and should consider such options carefully.  To respond to requirements and certain refusal response options, applicant should set forth in writing the required changes or statements.

 

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).

 

Trademark Counsel Suggested

Because of the legal technicalities and strict deadlines involved in the USPTO application process, applicant may wish to hire a qualified U.S. attorney specializing in trademark matters to represent applicant in this process and provide legal advice.  Although the undersigned trademark examining attorney is permitted to help an applicant understand the contents of an Office action as well as the application process in general, no USPTO attorney or staff is permitted to give an applicant legal advice or statements about an applicant’s legal rights.  TMEP §§705.02, 709.06.  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.  The USPTO may not assist an applicant in the selection of an attorney.  37 C.F.R. §2.11.

 

If applicant has questions regarding this Office action, please telephone or e-mail the assigned trademark examining attorney.  All relevant e-mail communications will be placed in the official application record; however, an 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.  Further, although the trademark examining attorney may provide additional explanation pertaining to the refusal(s) and/or requirement(s) in this Office action, the trademark examining attorney may not provide legal advice or statements about applicant’s rights.  See TMEP §§705.02, 709.06.

 

 

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 U.S. commonwealths or U.S. territories.  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

 

 

 

 

/Julie Thomas Veppumthara/

Trademark Examining Attorney

Law Office 107

Phone: 571-272-1582

Email: julie.veppumthara@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.