United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO)
Office Action (Official Letter) About Applicant’s Trademark Application
|
U.S. Application Serial No. 79269576
Mark: RAFT
|
|
|
Correspondence Address: BERGENSTRÅHLE & PARTNERS STOCKHOLM AB
|
|
|
Applicant: Redbeet Interactive AB
|
|
|
Reference/Docket No. N/A
Correspondence Email Address: |
|
NONFINAL OFFICE ACTION
International Registration No. 1492395
Notice of Provisional Full Refusal
Deadline for responding. The USPTO must receive applicant’s response within six months of the “date on which the notification was sent to WIPO (mailing date)” located on the WIPO cover letter, or the U.S. application will be abandoned. To confirm the mailing date, go to the USPTO’s Trademark Status and Document Retrieval (TSDR) database, select “US Serial, Registration, or Reference No.,” enter the U.S. application serial number in the blank text box, and click on “Documents.” The mailing date used to calculate the response deadline is the “Create/Mail Date” of the “IB-1rst Refusal Note.”
Respond to this Office action using the USPTO’s Trademark Electronic Application System (TEAS). A link to the appropriate TEAS response form appears at the end of this Office action.
Discussion of provisional full refusal. This is a provisional full refusal of the request for extension of protection to the United States of the international registration, known in the United States as a U.S. application based on Trademark Act Section 66(a). See 15 U.S.C. §§1141f(a), 1141h(c).
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. 5447897. Trademark Act Section 2(d), 15 U.S.C. §1052(d); see TMEP §§1207.01 et seq. See the attached registration.
Applicant’s proposed mark is “RAFT” (wording and design) for “Computer game software; computer game discs; downloadable computer game programs; recorded computer game programs; video and computer game programs; computer game software for use on mobile and cellular phones; video game discs; video game software; electronic game programs; downloadable electronic game programs; electronic game software for wireless devices; electronic game software for handheld electronic devices” in International Class 9, and “Providing on-line computer games; providing information on-line relating to computer games and computer enhancements for games; electronic games services provided by means of the internet” in International Class 41.
The mark in U.S. Registration No. 5447897 is “RAFT” (standard character form) for “Computer game software for use on mobile and cellular phones, namely, survival mobile games” in International Class 9.
Trademark Act Section 2(d) bars registration of an applied-for mark that is so similar to a registered mark that it is likely consumers would be confused, mistaken, or deceived as to the commercial source of the goods and services of the parties. See 15 U.S.C. §1052(d). Likelihood of confusion is determined on a case-by-case basis by applying 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) (called the “du Pont factors”). In re i.am.symbolic, llc, 866 F.3d 1315, 1322, 123 USPQ2d 1744, 1747 (Fed. Cir. 2017). Only those factors that are “relevant and of record” need be considered. M2 Software, Inc. v. M2 Commc’ns, Inc., 450 F.3d 1378, 1382, 78 USPQ2d 1944, 1947 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (citing Shen Mfg. Co. v. Ritz Hotel Ltd., 393 F.3d 1238, 1241, 73 USPQ2d 1350, 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2004)); see In re Inn at St. John’s, LLC, 126 USPQ2d 1742, 1744 (TTAB 2018).
Although not all du Pont factors may be relevant, there are generally two key considerations in any likelihood of confusion analysis: (1) the similarities between the compared marks and (2) the relatedness of the compared goods and services. See In re i.am.symbolic, llc, 866 F.3d at 1322, 123 USPQ2d at 1747 (quoting Herbko Int’l, Inc. v. Kappa Books, Inc., 308 F.3d 1156, 1164-65, 64 USPQ2d 1375, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2002)); Federated Foods, Inc. v. Fort Howard Paper Co.,544 F.2d 1098, 1103, 192 USPQ 24, 29 (C.C.P.A. 1976) (“The fundamental inquiry mandated by [Section] 2(d) goes to the cumulative effect of differences in the essential characteristics of the goods [or services] and differences in the marks.”); TMEP §1207.01.
Comparison of the 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 Inn at St. John’s, LLC, 126 USPQ2d 1742, 1746 (TTAB 2018) (citing In re Davia, 110 USPQ2d 1810, 1812 (TTAB 2014)); TMEP §1207.01(b).
When comparing marks, “[t]he proper test is not a side-by-side comparison of the marks, but instead whether the marks are sufficiently similar in terms of their commercial impression such that [consumers] who encounter the marks would be likely to assume a connection between the parties.” Cai v. Diamond Hong, Inc., __ F.3d __, 127 USPQ2d 1797, 1801 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (quoting Coach Servs., Inc. v. Triumph Learning LLC, 668 F.3d 1356, 1368, 101 USPQ2d 1713, 1721 (Fed. Cir. 2012)); TMEP §1207.01(b). The proper focus is on the recollection of the average purchaser, who retains a general rather than specific impression of trademarks. In re Inn at St. John’s, LLC, 126 USPQ2d 1742, 1746 (TTAB 2018) (citing In re St. Helena Hosp., 774 F.3d 747, 750-51, 113 USPQ2d 1082, 1085 (Fed. Cir. 2014); Geigy Chem. Corp. v. Atlas Chem. Indus., Inc., 438 F.2d 1005, 1007, 169 USPQ 39, 40 (CCPA 1971)); TMEP §1207.01(b).
Applicant’s mark contains both wording and design elements. When evaluating a composite mark consisting of words and a design, the word portion is normally accorded greater weight because it is likely to make a greater impression upon purchasers, be remembered by them, and be used by them to refer to or request the goods and services. In re Aquitaine Wine USA, LLC, 126 USPQ2d 1181, 1184 (TTAB 2018) (citing In re Viterra Inc., 671 F.3d 1358, 1362, 101 USPQ2d 1905, 1908 (Fed. Cir. 2012)); TMEP §1207.01(c)(ii). Thus, although marks must be compared in their entireties, the word portion is often considered the dominant feature and is accorded greater weight in determining whether marks are confusingly similar, even where the word portion has been disclaimed. In re Viterra Inc., 671 F.3d at 1366-67, 101 USPQ2d at 1911 (citing Giant Food, Inc. v. Nation’s Foodservice, Inc., 710 F.2d 1565, 1570-71, 218 USPQ2d 390, 395 (Fed. Cir. 1983)). Therefore, the wording in applicant’s mark, “RAFT”, is more significant than the design elements for likelihood of confusion purposes.
Further, the registered mark is in standard character form. A mark in typed or standard characters may be displayed in any lettering style; the rights reside in the wording or other literal element and not in any particular display or rendition. See In re Viterra Inc., 671 F.3d 1358, 1363, 101 USPQ2d 1905, 1909 (Fed. Cir. 2012); In re Mighty Leaf Tea, 601 F.3d 1342, 1348, 94 USPQ2d 1257, 1260 (Fed. Cir. 2010); 37 C.F.R. §2.52(a); TMEP §1207.01(c)(iii). Thus, a mark presented in stylized characters and/or with a design element generally will not avoid likelihood of confusion with a mark in typed or standard characters because the word portion could be presented in the same manner of display. See, e.g., In re Viterra Inc., 671 F.3d at 1363, 101 USPQ2d at 1909; Squirtco v. Tomy Corp., 697 F.2d 1038, 1041, 216 USPQ 937, 939 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (stating that “the argument concerning a difference in type style is not viable where one party asserts rights in no particular display”). Therefore, registrant is permitted to display its mark in any manner it desires, including in a manner highly similar to applicant’s proposed mark.
Therefore, the marks are confusingly similar.
Relatedness of the Goods and Services
Next, the goods and services are compared to determine whether they are similar, commercially related, or travel in the same trade channels. See Coach Servs., Inc. v. Triumph Learning LLC, 668 F.3d 1356, 1369-71, 101 USPQ2d 1713, 1722-23 (Fed. Cir. 2012); Herbko Int’l, Inc. v. Kappa Books, Inc., 308 F.3d 1156, 1165, 64 USPQ2d 1375, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2002); TMEP §§1207.01, 1207.01(a)(vi).
Generally, the greater degree of similarity between the applied-for mark and the registered mark, the lesser the degree of similarity between the goods and services of the parties is required to support a finding of likelihood of confusion. In re C.H. Hanson Co., 116 USPQ2d 1351, 1353 (TTAB 2015) (citing In re Opus One Inc., 60 USPQ2d 1812, 1815 (TTAB 2001)); In re Thor Tech, Inc., 90 USPQ2d 1634, 1636 (TTAB 2009).
Here, applicant’s goods and services are “Computer game software; computer game discs; downloadable computer game programs; recorded computer game programs; video and computer game programs; computer game software for use on mobile and cellular phones; video game discs; video game software; electronic game programs; downloadable electronic game programs; electronic game software for wireless devices; electronic game software for handheld electronic devices” in International Class 9, and “Providing on-line computer games; providing information on-line relating to computer games and computer enhancements for games; electronic games services provided by means of the internet” in International Class 41.
Registrant’s goods are “Computer game software for use on mobile and cellular phones, namely, survival mobile games” in International Class 9.
In this case, the application uses broad wording to describe “Computer game software”, “downloadable computer game programs”, “recorded computer game programs”, “video and computer game programs”, “computer game software for use on mobile and cellular phones”, “video game software”, “electronic game programs”, “downloadable electronic games programs”, “electronic game software for wireless devices”, “electronic game software for handheld electronic devices”, “providing on-line computer games”, and “electronic games services provided by means of the internet”, which presumably encompasses all goods and services of the type described, including registrant’s more narrow “Computer game software for use on mobile and cellular phones, namely, survival mobile games”. See, e.g., In re Solid State Design Inc., 125 USPQ2d 1409, 1412-15 (TTAB 2018); Sw. Mgmt., Inc. v. Ocinomled, Ltd., 115 USPQ2d 1007, 1025 (TTAB 2015). Thus, applicant’s and registrant’s goods and services are legally identical. See, e.g., In re i.am.symbolic, llc, 127 USPQ2d 1627, 1629 (TTAB 2018) (citing Tuxedo Monopoly, Inc. v.Gen. Mills Fun Grp., Inc., 648 F.2d 1335, 1336, 209 USPQ 986, 988 (C.C.P.A. 1981); Inter IKEA Sys. B.V. v. Akea, LLC, 110 USPQ2d 1734, 1745 (TTAB 2014); Baseball Am. Inc. v. Powerplay Sports Ltd., 71 USPQ2d 1844, 1847 n.9 (TTAB 2004)).
Additionally, the goods and services of the parties have no restrictions as to nature, type, channels of trade, or classes of purchasers and are “presumed to travel in the same channels of trade to the same class of purchasers.” In re Viterra Inc., 671 F.3d 1358, 1362, 101 USPQ2d 1905, 1908 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (quoting Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Packard Press, Inc., 281 F.3d 1261, 1268, 62 USPQ2d 1001, 1005 (Fed. Cir. 2002)). Thus, applicant’s and registrant’s goods and services are related.
Conclusion
Because the marks are highly similar and the goods and services are closely related, a likelihood of confusion exists and registration is refused under Section 2(d) of the Trademark Act.
Although applicant’s mark has been refused registration, applicant may respond to the refusal by submitting evidence and arguments in support of registration. However, if applicant responds to the refusal, applicant must also respond to the requirement set forth below.
IDENTIFICATION OF GOODS AND SERVICES REQUIREMENT
The following requirement is limited to the specified goods and services therein.
The identification requires clarification as indicated below. See 37 C.F.R. §2.32(a)(6); TMEP §§1402.01, 1402.03.
International Class 9
The following wording in the identification of goods in International Class 9 is indefinite and overly broad. This wording must be clarified because it is not clear what the goods are and could identify goods in more than one international class:
See 37 C.F.R. §2.32(a)(6); TMEP §§1402.01, 1402.03, 1904.02(c), (c)(ii).
In an application filed under Trademark Act Section 66(a), an applicant may not change the classification of goods from that assigned by the International Bureau of the World Intellectual Property Organization in the corresponding international registration. 37 C.F.R. §2.85(d); TMEP §§1401.03(d), 1904.02(b). Therefore, although the goods above may be classified in several international classes, any modification to this wording must identify goods in International Class 9 only, the class specified in the application for these goods. See TMEP §1904.02(c), (c)(ii). Further, although applicant has identified additional classes, in a multiple-class Section 66(a) application, goods may not be transferred from one existing class to another. 37 C.F.R. §2.85(d); TMEP §1401.03(d).
Suggested Amendment to Identification of Goods and Services
Applicant may substitute the following wording, if accurate:
Class 9: Downloadable computer game software; computer game discs; downloadable computer game programs; recorded computer game programs; downloadable video and computer game programs; downloadable computer game software for use on mobile and cellular phones; video game discs; downloadable video game software; downloadable electronic game programs; downloadable electronic game programs; downloadable electronic game software for wireless devices; downloadable electronic game software for handheld electronic devices
Class 41: Providing on-line computer games; providing information on-line relating to computer games and computer enhancements for games; electronic games services provided by means of the internet
Wording in bold text indicates additions. Wording in bold text, in italics, and {in brackets} indicates that applicant must provide additional information. Deleted text is in bold, in italics, and struck
through.
Applicant may amend the identification to clarify or limit the goods and services, but not to broaden or expand the goods and services beyond those in the original application or as acceptably amended. See 37 C.F.R. §2.71(a); TMEP §1402.06. Generally, any deleted goods and services may not later be reinserted. See TMEP §1402.07(e). Additionally, for applications 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); and the classification of goods and services may not be changed from that assigned by the International Bureau. 37 C.F.R. §2.85(d); TMEP §§1401.03(d), 1904.02(b). Further, in a multiple-class Section 66(a) application, classes may not be added or goods and services transferred from one existing class to another. 37 C.F.R. §2.85(d); TMEP §1401.03(d).
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. See TMEP §1402.04.
DESCRIPTION OF MARK REQUIRED
To clarify whether color is claimed as a feature of the mark, applicant must satisfy one of the following:
(1) If color is not a feature of the mark, applicant must submit (a) a new black-and-white drawing of the mark to replace the color drawing in the record, (b) a statement that no claim of color is made in the international registration, and (c) a description of the literal and design elements in the mark omitting any reference to color. 37 C.F.R. §2.37; TMEP §§807.07(b), 807.12(c); see TMEP §§808 et seq.
The following description is suggested, if accurate:
“The mark consists of a design of a person sitting on the left side of a raft floating in the water, with a tent and flag on the right side of the raft. Below the image of the raft is the wording “RAFT” in stylized wording. The shading in the mark represents background and is not claimed as a feature of the mark.”
(2) If color is a feature of the mark, applicant must submit a statement (a) listing all the colors claimed as a feature of the mark and (b) describing where the colors appear in the literal and design elements in the mark. 37 C.F.R. §§2.37, 2.52(b)(1); TMEP §§807.07(b), 807.12(c). Generic color names must be used to describe the colors in the mark, e.g., red, yellow, blue. TMEP §807.07(a)(i)-(ii). If black, white, and/or gray represent background, outlining, shading, and/or transparent areas and are not part of the mark, applicant must include a statement indicating that in the description. See TMEP §807.07(d), (d)(iii).
The following color claim and description are suggested, if accurate:
Color claim: “The colors gray and white are claimed as a feature of the mark.”
Description: “The mark consists of a white design on a gray background featuring a person sitting on the left side of a raft floating in the water, with a tent and flag on the right side of the raft. Below the image of the raft is the wording “RAFT” in white stylized wording.”
LEGAL ENTITY AND CITIZENSHIP REQUIRED
Acceptable entity types include an individual, a partnership, a corporation, a joint venture, or the foreign equivalent. See 37 C.F.R. §2.32(a)(3)(i)-(ii); TMEP §§803.03 et seq.
If applicant’s entity type is an individual, applicant must indicate his or her national citizenship for the record. See 37 C.F.R. §2.32(a)(3)(i); TMEP §803.04. If applicant’s entity type is a corporation, association, partnership, joint venture, or the foreign equivalent, applicant must set forth the foreign country under whose laws applicant is organized or incorporated. 37 C.F.R. §2.32(a)(3)(ii); TMEP §§803.03(b)-(c), 803.04. For an association, applicant must also specify whether the association is incorporated or unincorporated, unless the foreign country and the designation or description “association/associazione” appear in Appendix D of the Trademark Manual of Examining Procedure (TMEP). TMEP §803.03(c).
If applicant is organized under the laws of a foreign province or geographical region, applicant should specify both the foreign province or geographical region and the foreign country in which the province or region is located. See TMEP §803.04. To provide this information online via the Trademark Electronic Application System (TEAS) response form, applicant must (1) locate the “Entity Type” heading and select “Other;” (2) locate the “Specify Entity Type” heading and select “Other” under the Foreign Entity option, and enter in the free-text field below both applicant’s entity type and the foreign province or geographical region of its organization (e.g., partnership of Victoria); and (3) locate the “State or Country Where Legally Organized” heading and select the appropriate foreign country (e.g., Australia) under the Non-U.S. Entity option. See id.
U.S.-LICENSED COUNSEL REQUIRED
Applicant must be represented by a U.S.-licensed attorney at the USPTO to respond to or appeal the provisional refusal. An applicant whose domicile is located outside of the United States or its territories is foreign-domiciled and must be represented at the USPTO by an attorney who is an active member in good standing of the bar of the highest court of a U.S. state or territory. 37 C.F.R. §§2.11(a), 11.14; Requirement of U.S.-Licensed Attorney for Foreign-Domiciled Trademark Applicants & Registrants, Examination Guide 4-19, at I.A. (Rev. Sept. 2019). An individual applicant’s domicile is the place a person resides and intends to be the person’s principal home. 37 C.F.R. §2.2(o); Examination Guide 4-19, at I.A. A juristic entity’s domicile is the principal place of business; i.e., headquarters, where a juristic entity applicant’s senior executives or officers ordinarily direct and control the entity’s activities. 37 C.F.R. §2.2(o); Examination Guide 4-19, at I.A. Because applicant is foreign-domiciled, applicant must appoint such a U.S.-licensed attorney qualified to practice under 37 C.F.R. §11.14 as its representative before the application may proceed to registration. 37 C.F.R. §2.11(a). See Hiring a U.S.-licensed trademark attorney for more information.
To appoint or designate a U.S.-licensed attorney. To appoint an attorney, applicant should submit a completed Trademark Electronic Application System (TEAS) Revocation, Appointment, and/or Change of Address of Attorney/Domestic Representative form. The newly-appointed attorney must submit a TEAS Response to Examining Attorney Office Action form indicating that an appointment of attorney has been made and address all other refusals or requirements in this action, if any. Alternatively, if applicant retains an attorney before filing the response, the attorney can respond to this Office action by using the appropriate TEAS response form and provide his or her attorney information in the form and sign it as applicant’s attorney. See 37 C.F.R. §2.17(b)(1)(ii).
How to respond. Click to file a response to this nonfinal Office action.
/Ray Harmon/
Trademark Examining Attorney
Law Office 103
United States Patent & Trademark Office
(571) 272-0386
raymond.harmon@uspto.gov
RESPONSE GUIDANCE