United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO)
Office Action (Official Letter) About Applicant’s Trademark Application
|
U.S. Application Serial No. 79271007
Mark: RED
|
|
|
Correspondence Address: |
|
|
Applicant: Focusrite Audio Engineering Limited
|
|
|
Reference/Docket No. N/A
Correspondence Email Address: |
|
NONFINAL OFFICE ACTION
International Registration No. 1343102
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
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/or 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/or 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.
Applicant seeks to register RED, for, “Musical instruments; electronic musical keyboards and keyboards for musical instruments; music stands; musical instrument cases; musical boxes; music synthesizers; electronic background music machines; musical instruments controlled by computer; electronically operated computer controlled musical instruments; parts, fittings and accessories for all the aforesaid goods.”
The cited registrations are:
U.S. Registration No. 1144945, RED LABEL, for, “Musical Strings for Musical Instruments-Namely, for Violins, Violas, Cellos and Bass Instruments”;
U.S. Registration No. 3798225, RED BRAND, for, “acoustic guitar strings”;
U.S. Registration No. RED (stylized), for, “Audio cables; Electrical cables for musical instruments; Guitar cables; Speaker cables, Stereo cables.”
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).
Although marks are compared in their entireties, one feature of a mark may be more significant or dominant in creating a commercial impression. See In re Viterra Inc., 671 F.3d 1358, 1362, 101 USPQ2d 1905, 1908 (Fed. Cir. 2012); In re Nat’l Data Corp., 753 F.2d 1056, 1058, 224 USPQ 749, 751 (Fed. Cir. 1985); TMEP §1207.01(b)(viii), (c)(ii). Disclaimed matter that is descriptive of or generic for a party’s goods and/or services is typically less significant or less dominant when comparing marks. In re Detroit Athletic Co., 903 F.3d 1297, 1305, 128 USPQ2d 1047, 1050 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (citing In re Dixie Rests., Inc., 105 F.3d 1405, 1407, 41 USPQ2d 1531, 1533-34 (Fed. Cir. 1997)); TMEP §1207.01(b)(viii), (c)(ii). The examining attorney notes that the wording “BRAND” is disclaimed in Reg. No. 3798225; as such, the wording “RED” is the dominant element in the mark in this registration.
In regards to Reg. No. 4891526, the literal element is “RED”; as noted above, seeks to register “RED” in standard characters. As such, the literal elements of the marks are identical. Further, 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”). As such, applicant seeks registration for a standard character mark that could be presented in any manner of display, including one that is highly similar or identical to the registrant’s mark.
Thus, these marks are identical in sound and meaning, “and have the potential to be used . . . in exactly the same manner.” In re i.am.symbolic, llc, 116 USPQ2d 1406, 1411 (TTAB 2015), aff’d, 866 F.3d 1315, 123 USPQ2d 1744 (Fed. Cir. 2017). Additionally, because the literal elements are identical, these marks are likely to engender the same connotation and overall commercial impression when considered in connection with applicant’s and registrant’s respective goods. Id.
Therefore, applicant’s mark and the marks in the cited registration are confusingly similar. Thus, this factor favors a refusal.
Comparison of the Goods
Determining likelihood of confusion is based on the description of the goods and/or services stated in the application and registration at issue, not on extrinsic evidence of actual use. See In re Detroit Athletic Co., 903 F.3d 1297, 1307, 128 USPQ2d 1047, 1052 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (citing In re i.am.symbolic, llc, 866 F.3d 1315, 1325, 123 USPQ2d 1744, 1749 (Fed. Cir. 2017)).
In the present case, applicant identifies “musical instruments” as well as “parts, fittings and accessories for all the aforesaid goods.” As such, applicant’s identification includes parts, fittings and accessories for musical instruments, which presumably includes the strings for various musical instruments identified in Reg. Nos. 1144945 and 3798225. 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 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)).
In regards to the “Audio cables; Electrical cables for musical instruments; Guitar cables; Speaker cables, Stereo cables” specified in Reg. No. 4891526, as well as the guitar strings specified in Reg. Nos. 1144945 and 3798225 the attached Internet evidence, consisting of excerpts from third party webpages, establishes that the same entity commonly manufactures the relevant goods and markets the goods under the same mark and markets the goods through the same trade channels to the same classes of consumers. See attached evidence from www.fender.com, www.roland.com, and www.yamaha.com. Thus, applicant’s and registrants’ goods 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).
Therefore, this factor favors a refusal.
Because the marks are highly similar and identical in part, and because the goods are encompassing and otherwise highly related, registration is refused pursuant to Trademark Act Section 2(d).
Applicant should note the below grounds for refusal.
SECTION 2(e)(1) REFUSAL - MERELY DESCRIPTIVE
The attached evidence from http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/red establishes that “RED” is defined as “a color whose hue resembles that of blood or of the ruby or is that of the long-wave extreme of the visible spectrum,” or “of the color red.” The attached evidence http://www.guitarcenter.com establishes that the various goods specified in the application are often sold in the color red. Websites generally a competent source for determining how the public perceives the mark in connection with applicant’s goods and/or services. See In re N.C. Lottery, 866 F.3d 1363, 1367-68, 123 USPQ2d 1707, 1709-10 (Fed. Cir. 2017); In re Nett Designs, Inc., 236 F.3d 1339, 1341, 57 USPQ2d 1564, 1566 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (citing In re Bed & Breakfast Registry, 791 F.2d 157, 160, 229 USPQ 818, 819 (Fed. Cir. 1986)); TMEP §1209.01(b).
Thus, because consumers would recognize the applied-for mark as referring to a characteristic of the applied-for goods, namely, the color of the goods, registration on the Principal Register is refused pursuant to Trademark Act Section 2(e)(1).
Applicant should note the below advisory.
SECTION 2(f) ACQUIRED DISTINCTIVENESS—ADVISORY
To establish acquired distinctiveness by extrinsic evidence or long-term use, an applicant may rely only on use in commerce that may be regulated by the U.S. Congress. See 15 U.S.C. §§1052(f), 1127. Use solely in a foreign country or between two foreign countries is not evidence of acquired distinctiveness in the United States. TMEP §§1010, 1212.08; see In re Rogers, 53 USPQ2d 1741, 1746-47 (TTAB 1999).
EXTRINSIC EVIDENCE OF ACQUIRED DISTINCTIVENESS:
To support a claim based on extrinsic evidence, applicant may submit evidence of “advertising expenditures, sales success, length and exclusivity of use, unsolicited media coverage, and consumer studies (linking the name to a source).” In re Change Wind Corp., 123 USPQ2d 1453, 1467 (TTAB 2017) (quoting In re Steelbuilding.com, 415 F.3d 1293, 1300, 75 USPQ2d 1420, 1424 (Fed. Cir. 2005)). A showing of acquired distinctiveness need not consider all of these types of evidence; no single factor is determinative. In re Steelbuilding.com, 415 F.3d at 1300, 75 USPQ2d at 1424; see TMEP §§1212.06 et seq. Rather, the determination involves assessing all of the circumstances involving the use of the mark. See In re Steelbuilding.com, 415 F.3d at 1300, 75 USPQ2d at 1424 (citing Thompson Med. Co., Inc. v. Pfizer Inc., 753 F.2d 208, 217, 225 USPQ2d 124, 131-32 (Fed. Cir. 1985)).
VERIFIED STATEMENT OF FIVE YEARS’ USE:
To amend the application to assert Section 2(f) based on five years’ use, applicant should provide (1) information regarding the length of use of the mark in commerce and/or dates of use, and (2) the following written statement claiming acquired distinctiveness, if accurate:
The mark has become distinctive of the goods and/or services through the applicant’s substantially exclusive and continuous use of the mark in commerce that the U.S. Congress may lawfully regulate for at least the five years immediately before the date of this statement.
See 15 U.S.C. §1052(f); 37 C.F.R. §2.41(a)(2); TMEP §§1212.05(d), 1212.08. This statement must be verified with an affidavit or signed declaration under 37 C.F.R. §2.20. 37 C.F.R. §2.41(a)(2); TMEP §1212.05(d); see 37 C.F.R. §2.193(e)(1).
Applicant should note, however, than a claim of acquired distinctiveness would not obviate the Section 2(d) refusal.
Applicant should note the below requirement.
IDENTIFICATION OF GOODS AND SERVICES—AMENDMENT REQUIRED
The identification of goods and services is indefinite and must be clarified for the reasons set forth below. See 37 C. F.R. §2.32(a)(6); TMEP §§1402.01, 1904.02(c), (c)(ii).
The wording “music stands” is unacceptable as indefinite because it could include sheet music stands or musical instrument stands; applicant must amend the wording to clarify the nature of the goods. See id. See suggested amendment below.
The wording “electronic background music machines” is unacceptable as indefinite because it is unclear whether the goods comprise goods in the nature of computer hardware and software, or electronic musical instruments. Applicant must amend the wording to clarify the nature of the goods. See id. See suggested amendment below.
The wording “parts, fittings and accessories for all the aforesaid goods” is unacceptable as indefinite because it could include, for example, various wires in in Class 009. If applicant provides component parts of some of the goods listed above, this must be clarified and applicant must name the goods they are referring to. Additionally, “accessories” for all of the aforementioned goods is vague. This wording has been deleted from the suggested identification due to the vague nature of the wording. Applicant may specify particular accessories by identifying them by their common commercial name(s), otherwise, this wording should be deleted from the identification. See id. See suggested amendment below.
SUGGESTED AMENDMENTS:
Applicant may adopt the following identification, if accurate:
Musical instruments; electronic musical keyboards and keyboards for musical instruments; musical instrument stands; musical instrument cases; musical boxes; music synthesizers; electronic background music machines being electronic musical instruments; musical instruments controlled by computer; electronically operated computer controlled musical instruments; component parts of________________________ {specify the particular aforementioned goods}
Applicant may amend the identification to clarify or limit the goods, but not to broaden or expand the goods 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/or 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/or 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/or 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.
Applicant should note the below requirement.
U.S. 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).
Response guidelines. For this application to proceed, applicant must explicitly address each refusal and/or requirement in this Office action. For a refusal, applicant may provide written arguments and evidence against the refusal, and may have other response options if specified above. For a requirement, applicant should set forth the changes or statements. Please see “Responding to Office Actions” and the informational video “Response to Office Action” for more information and tips on responding.
How to respond. Click to file a response to this nonfinal Office action.
/Michael FitzSimons/
Michael FitzSimons
Trademark Examining Attorney
Law Office 103
(571) 272-0619
michael.fitzsimons@uspto.gov
RESPONSE GUIDANCE