United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO)
Office Action (Official Letter) About Applicant’s Trademark Application
|
U.S. Application Serial No. 79283860
Mark: ALLOW
|
|
|
Correspondence Address: |
|
|
Applicant: Aktsionernoye obshchestvo "Obyedinennaya ETC.
|
|
|
Reference/Docket No. N/A
Correspondence Email Address: |
|
NONFINAL OFFICE ACTION
The USPTO must receive applicant’s response to this letter within six months of the issue date below or the application will be abandoned. Respond using the Trademark Electronic Application System (TEAS). A link to the appropriate TEAS response form appears at the end of this Office action.
International Registration No. 1526578
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).
The referenced application has been reviewed by the assigned trademark examining attorney. Applicant must respond timely and completely to the issues below. 15 U.S.C. §1062(b); 37 C.F.R. §§2.62(a), 2.65(a); TMEP §§711, 718.03.
SUMMARY OF ISSUES:
PRIOR-FILED APPLICATIONS ADVISORY
The filing dates of pending U.S. Application Serial Nos. 87374759, 88600865, and 88677046 precede applicant’s filing date. See attached referenced applications. If one or more of the marks in the referenced applications register, applicant’s mark may be refused registration under Trademark Act Section 2(d) because of a likelihood of confusion with the registered mark(s). See 15 U.S.C. §1052(d); 37 C.F.R. §2.83; TMEP §§1208 et seq. Therefore, upon receipt of applicant’s response to this Office action, action on this application may be suspended pending final disposition of the earlier-filed referenced applications.
In response to this Office action, applicant may present arguments in support of registration by addressing the issue of the potential conflict between applicant’s mark and the marks in the referenced applications. Applicant’s election not to submit arguments at this time in no way limits applicant’s right to address this issue later if a refusal under Section 2(d) issues.
SECTION 2(d) REFUSAL – LIKELIHOOD OF CONFUSION
Registration of the applied-for mark is refused because of a likelihood of confusion with the marks in U.S. Registration Nos. 5696956 and 5026767. Trademark Act Section 2(d), 15 U.S.C. §1052(d); see TMEP §§1207.01 et seq. See the attached registrations.
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.
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.
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).
Comparison of Marks
The applicant’s mark is “ALLOW”. The registrants’ marks are “ALLO” (Reg. No. 5696956) and “NOTICE ALLOW” (Reg. No. 5026767).
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)), aff’d per curiam, 777 F. App’x 516, 2019 BL 343921 (Fed. Cir. 2019); 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., 901 F.3d 1367, 1373, 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 (C.C.P.A. 1971)), aff’d per curiam, 777 F. App’x 516, 2019 BL 343921 (Fed. Cir. 2019); TMEP §1207.01(b).
ALLO (U.S. REG. NO. 5696956)
Here, applicant’s mark is ALLOW in stylized form, and registrant’s mark is ALLO in standard character form. In this case, the applied-for mark, ALLOW, and the registered mark, ALLO, 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).
The only difference between the respective marks is the addition of the letter “W” at the end of applicant’s mark. This difference does not change the identical nature in sound and highly similar nature in appearance and commercial impression between the applied-for mark, ALLOW, and the registered mark, ALLO.
Considering the above, the marks are sufficiently similar to cause a likelihood of confusion under Trademark Act Section 2(d).
NOTICE ALLOW (U.S. REG. NO. 5026767)
Here, applicant’s mark is ALLOW in stylized form, and registrant’s mark is NOTICE ALLOW with a design element. In this case, the registered mark, NOTICE ALLOW, encompasses the applied-for mark. The wording ALLOW in the respective marks is identical in sound and highly similar in appearance and commercial impression. Although applicant’s mark does not contain the entirety of the registered mark, applicant’s mark is likely to appear to prospective purchasers as a shortened form of registrant’s mark. See In re Mighty Leaf Tea, 601 F.3d 1342, 1348, 94 USPQ2d 1257, 1260 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (quoting United States Shoe Corp., 229 USPQ 707, 709 (TTAB 1985)). Thus, merely omitting some of the wording from a registered mark may not overcome a likelihood of confusion. See In re Mighty Leaf Tea, 601 F.3d 1342, 94 USPQ2d 1257; In re Optica Int’l, 196 USPQ 775, 778 (TTAB 1977); TMEP §1207.01(b)(ii)-(iii). In this case, applicant’s mark does not create a distinct commercial impression from the registered mark because it contains some of the wording in the registered mark and does not add any wording that would distinguish it from that mark.
Further, the registered mark contains a design element. 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)). Here, the design element in the registered mark does not change the meaning or commercial impression of the shared wording, ALLOW.
The only differences between the respective marks are the additional wording NOTICE and the design element in the registered mark. These differences do not change the identical nature in sound and highly similar nature in appearance and commercial impression between the applied-for mark, ALLOW, and the wording ALLOW in the registered mark.
In this case, applicant’s mark “ALLOW” and registrants’ marks “ALLO” and “NOTICE ALLOW” are highly similar in sound, appearance, and overall commercial connotation.
Comparison of Goods and/or Services
The applicant’s goods and/or services, in relevant part, are “Aluminum cans, empty; aluminum water bottles, empty” in Class 21 and organization of exhibitions for cultural or educational purposes in Class 41. The registrant’s goods and/or services include aluminum water bottles sold empty and bottles, sold empty (Reg. No. 5696956); and providing workshops, classes, presentations and retreats in the field of mindfulness (Reg. No. 5026767).
ALLO (U.S. REG. NO. 5696956)
In this case, the registration uses broad wording to describe “aluminum water bottles sold empty and bottles, sold empty,” which presumably encompasses all goods and/or services of the type described, including applicant’s more narrow “aluminum water bottles, empty.” 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)).
Additionally, the goods and/or 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/or services are related.
NOTICE ALLOW (U.S. REG. NO. 5026767)
In summary, the applicant’s and registrant’s marks create the same commercial impression and the respective goods and/or services are highly related. Therefore, consumers are likely to be confused and mistakenly believe that these goods and/or services originate from a common source. Accordingly, registration must be refused under Section 2(d) of the Trademark Act.
AMENDMENT OF IDENTIFICATION OF GOODS AND/OR SERVICES REQUIRED
Therefore, applicant must remove the brackets from the identification and incorporate any parenthetical or bracketed information into the description of the goods and services.
The wording “albums; pamphlets; flyers; printed matter; stationery and office requisites, except furniture” in the identification of goods is indefinite and must be clarified because the goods or their subject matter have not been identified with adequate specificity. Id.
The wording “Aluminium cans,empty; aluminium water bottles, empty” in the identification of goods is indefinite and must be clarified because the goods have not been identified with adequate specificity. Id.
The international classification of goods in applications filed under Trademark Act Section 66(a) cannot be changed from the classification the International Bureau of the World Intellectual Property Organization assigned to the goods in the corresponding international registration. 37 C.F.R. §2.85(d); TMEP §1401.03(d). Therefore, although clothing can be classified in international classes other than International Class 25 (e.g., International Classes 9, 10, and 18), any modification to the identification must identify goods in International Class 25 only, the class specified in the application for such goods. See TMEP §1904.02(c)(ii).
Examples of acceptable identifications for clothing in International Class 25 include the following: “shirts,” “shorts,” “pants,” “coats,” “dresses,” “skirts,” and “socks.” Applicant may also amend the identification by inserting the word “namely,” after “clothing” and then listing the specific types of clothing items.
The wording “Badges for wear, not of precious metal” in the identification of goods for International Class 26 must be clarified because it is too broad and could include goods in other international classes. See 37 C.F.R. §2.32(a)(6); TMEP §§1402.01, 1402.03. In particular, this wording could encompass “paper badges” in Class 16 or “ornamental novelty badges” in Class 26.
Finally, the following suggested identification contains further guidance in bold and/or brackets. Applicant may adopt any or all of the suggestions in bold and/or brackets so long as they are accurate. Applicant should note that the brackets indicate where applicant must insert specific types of goods or services. The brackets should NOT appear in the amended identification; only the specific goods or services inserted by applicant. Applicant need not amend identifications other than where specified.
Applicant may adopt the following identification, if accurate (examining attorney’s suggestions in bold font):
Class 1: Aluminum acetate not for pharmaceutical purposes; aluminum hydrate; aluminum iodide; ammonia alum; aluminum alum; aluminum silicate; aluminum chloride
Class 6: Aluminum; aluminum foil; aluminum wire; [further clarify Class 6 type of packaging, e.g., industrial] packaging containers of metal; buildings, transportable, of metal; [further clarify Class 6 type of steel building, e.g., portable] steel buildings; windows of metal; buildings, transportable, of metal
Class 9: Clothing for protection against accidents
Class 12: Aeroplanes; automobiles
Class 16: Fountain pens; filler paper; diaries; day planners; calendars; [further clarify common commercial name of Class 16 type of album, e.g., photo] albums; posters; [further specify type of pamphlets, e.g., advertising] pamphlets; [further clarify type of flyers, e.g., information] flyers featuring [indicate subject matter, e.g., music]; business cards; pads in the nature of stationery; paper sheets in the nature of stationery; writing instruments; pencils; envelopes in the nature of stationery; boxes of cardboard or paper; paper tapes; plastic sheets, films and bags for wrapping and packaging; packing in the nature of cushioning and stuffing materials of paper or cardboard; printed matter, namely, [further clarify type of printed matter and the subject matter, e.g., books in the field of securities]; stationery and office requisites in the nature of [further clarify common commercial name of office requisites, e.g., staplers], except furniture; penholders
Class 18: Rucksacks
Class 24: Aluminum cans in the nature of [further clarify Class 21 goods, e.g., drinking vessels], sold empty; aluminum water bottles, sold empty
Class 25: Bandanas in the nature of neckerchiefs; scarfs; clothing, namely, [further clarify common commercial name of clothing goods, e.g., t-shirts]; uniforms; headwear, namely, caps, hats
Class 26: Badges for wear in the nature of [further clarify Class 26 badges, e.g., ornamental novelty badges], not of precious
Class 28: [further clarify common commercial name of Class 28 toys, e.g., water] toys
Class 35: Organization of exhibitions for commercial or advertising purposes; organization of trade fairs for commercial or advertising purposes
Class 41: Organization of exhibitions for cultural or educational purposes
See TMEP §§ 1402.01, 1402.03.
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.
U.S.-LICENSED ATTORNEY 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.
Only a U.S.-licensed attorney can take action on an application on behalf of a foreign-domiciled applicant. 37 C.F.R. §2.11(a). Accordingly, the USPTO will not communicate further with applicant about the application beyond this Office action or permit applicant to make future submissions in this application. And applicant is not authorized to make amendments to the application.
To appoint or designate a U.S.-licensed attorney. To appoint an attorney, applicant should submit a completed Trademark Electronic Application System (TEAS) Change Address or Representation 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).
The USPTO does not accept emails as responses to Office actions; however, emails can be used for informal communications and are included in the application record. See 37 C.F.R. §§2.62(c), 2.191; TMEP §§304.01-.02, 709.04-.05.
How to respond. Click to file a response to this nonfinal Office action.
/Ryan Witkowski/
Examining Attorney
Law Office 122
(571) 272-7584
ryan.witkowski@uspto.gov
RESPONSE GUIDANCE