U.S. Application Serial No. 79320183
Mark: NEOPRO
| Correspondence Address:
Spruson & Ferguson GPO Box 3898 Sydney NSW 2001 AUSTRALIA |
Applicant: NEOPRO CYCLING HOLDINGS PTY LTD
Reference/Docket No. N/A
Correspondence Email Address:
International Registration No. 1612884
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 (see http://www.gov.uspto.report/trademarks-application-process/abandoned-applications for information on abandonment). To confirm the mailing date, go to the USPTO’s Trademark Status and Document Retrieval (TSDR) database at http://tsdr.gov.uspto.report/, 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-PENDING APPLICATION
The filing date of pending U.S. Application Serial No. 88141371 precedes applicant’s filing date. See attached referenced application. If the mark in the referenced application registers, applicant’s mark may be refused registration under Trademark Act Section 2(d) because of a likelihood of confusion between the two marks. 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 application.
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 mark in the referenced application. 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
THIS PARTIAL REFUSAL APPLIES ONLY TO THE SERVICES SPECIFIED THEREIN
Registration of the applied-for mark is refused because of a likelihood of confusion with the mark in U.S. Registration No. 2398565. Trademark Act Section 2(d), 15 U.S.C. §1052(d); see TMEP §§1207.01 et seq. See the attached registration for the mark NEOPRO.
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). Any evidence of record related to those factors need be considered; however, “not all of the DuPont factors are relevant or of similar weight in every case.” In re Guild Mortg. Co., 912 F.3d 1376, 1379, 129 USPQ2d 1160, 1162 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (quoting In re Dixie Rests., Inc., 105 F.3d 1405, 1406, 41 USPQ2d 1531, 1533 (Fed. Cir. 1997)).
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.
Facts
Applicant’s mark is NEOPRO and design for, in relevant part, “Online retail services; presentation of goods on communication media, for retail purposes; retail services; retailing of goods (by any means)” in International Class 35.
Registrant’s mark is NEOPRO in standard characters for “Protective gloves for industrial use” and "Disposable gloves for medical and dental use" in International Classes 9 and 10.
Similarity of the Marks
In a likelihood of confusion determination, the marks in their entireties are compared for similarities in appearance, sound, connotation, and commercial impression. In re i.am.symbolic, llc, 866 F.3d 1315, 1323, 123 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2017); 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)); 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 NEOPRO and registrant’s mark is NEOPRO. The word portion of these marks are identical in appearance, 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 they 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 and/or services. Id.
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/or 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)).
Accordingly, the marks are similar for likelihood of confusion purposes.
Relatedness of Goods/Services
When considering the relatedness of the goods and/or services of the parties for likelihood of confusion purposes, the goods and/or 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).
The compared goods and/or services 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); TMEP §1207.01(a)(i). They need only be “related in some manner and/or if the circumstances surrounding their marketing are 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).
Further, t
he use of similar marks on or in connection with both products and retail-store services has been held likely to cause confusion where the evidence showed that the retail-store services featured the same type of products. See In re Detroit Athletic Co., 903 F.3d 1297, 1307, 128 USPQ2d 1047, 1051 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (holding the use of similar marks for various clothing items, including athletic uniforms, and for retail shops featuring sports team related clothing and apparel likely to cause confusion); In re Country Oven, Inc., 2019 USPQ2d 443903, at *12 (TTAB 2019) (holding the use of identical marks for bread buns and retail bakery stores and shops likely to cause confusion); In re House Beer, LLC, 114 USPQ2d 1073, 1078 (TTAB 2015) (holding the use of identical marks for beer and for retail store services featuring beer likely to cause confusion); TMEP §1207.01(a)(ii).
Here, applicant’s
“Online retail services; presentation of goods on communication media, for retail purposes; retail services; retailing of goods (by any means)”
are related to the registrant’s
“Protective gloves for industrial use” and "Disposable gloves for medical and dental use"
because applicant's retail services as identified are broad enough to include retail services featuring the registrant's goods, namely, protective and disposable gloves. See attached evidence.
Further, w
here the marks of the respective parties are identical or virtually identical, as in this case, the degree of similarity or relatedness between the goods and/or services needed to support a finding of likelihood of confusion declines. See In re Country Oven, Inc., 2019 USPQ2d 443903, at *5 (TTAB 2019) (citing In re i.am.symbolic, llc, 116 USPQ2d 1406, 1411 (TTAB 2015), aff’d, 866 F.3d 1315, 123 USPQ2d 1744 (Fed. Cir. 2017)); TMEP §1207.01(a); see also In re Shell Oil Co., 992 F.2d 1204, 1207, 26 USPQ2d 1687, 1689 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Here, the word portion of the marks is identical.
Accordingly, the relevant services are related for likelihood of confusion purposes.
Conclusion
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).
In conclusion, the two marks are similar and the evidence shows that the relevant services are related. Therefore, a likelihood of confusion as to the source of the services exists, and registration must be refused under Section 2(d) of the Lanham Act.
Although applicant’s mark has been refused registration, applicant may respond to the refusal 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 AND SERVICES
THIS PARTIAL REQUIREMENT APPLIES ONLY TO THE GOODS AND SERVICES SPECIFIED THEREIN
Particular wording in the identification of goods and/or services is indefinite and too broad. This wording must be
clarified because it is not clear what the goods and/or services are and could identify goods and/or services 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). Applicant must amend the identification to specify the common commercial or generic name of the goods/services.
See TMEP §1402.01. If the goods have no common commercial or generic name, applicant must describe the product or service, its main purpose, and its intended uses.
See id.
Specifically, t
he wording “clothing” and "apparel" in the identification of goods in International Class 25 is indefinite and too broad and must be clarified because the word does not make clear the nature of the goods 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).
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 and/or apparel 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 “apparel” and then listing the specific types of clothing items.
Moreover, t
he identification for “retail services” in International Class 35 is indefinite and must be clarified because retail services could include a wide array of retail support services – from accounting to advertising and marketing services. See 37 C.F.R. §2.32(a)(6); TMEP §§1402.01, 1402.11.
If applicant’s retail services involve retail stores or outlets (online or brick-and-mortar), or distributorships, applicant should amend the identification to indicate (1) the nature of the retail activity provided (e.g., retail stores, retail distributorships, online retail outlets), and (2) the field or type of goods offered through those retail services, e.g., “retail online ordering services featuring {indicate field or type of goods, e.g., auto parts, clothing, jewelry},” “retail distributorships in the field of {indicate field or type of goods, e.g., auto parts, clothing, jewelry},” and “retail outlets featuring {indicate field or type of goods, e.g., auto parts, clothing, jewelry}.” See TMEP §§1301.01(a)(ii), 1402.11.
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 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 and/or services may be classified in several international classes, any modification to this wording must identify goods and/or services in the class(es) specified in the application for these goods and/or services. See TMEP §1904.02(c), (c)(ii).
Further, the identification of goods and/or services contains parentheses. Generally, an applicant should not use parentheses and brackets, including curly brackets, in identifications in order to avoid confusion with the USPTO’s practice of using parentheses and brackets in registrations to indicate (1) goods and/or services that have been deleted from registrations, (2) goods and/or services not claimed in an affidavit of incontestability, or (3) guidance to users of the USPTO’s U.S. Acceptable Identification of Goods and Services Manual to draft an acceptable identification. See TMEP §§1402.04, 1402.12. The only exception for including parenthetical information in identifications is 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 or scope of the identification, e.g., “fried tofu pieces (abura-age).” See TMEP §1402.12.
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.
Applicant may amend the identification to the following, if accurate (please note that suggested amendments are in bold italics and suggested deletions are in strikethrough):
International Class 25
“Active wear, namely, __{indicate type of clothing, e.g., shirts, pants, hats,
etc.}; apparel, namely, __{indicate type of clothing, e.g., shirts, pants, hats, etc.} (clothing, footwear,
headgear); athletic clothing, namely, __{indicate type of clothing, e.g., shirts, pants, hats, etc.}; athletics footwear; athletics
wear, namely, __{indicate type of clothing, e.g., shirts, pants, hats, etc.}; bibs made of textile materials; bibs, not of paper; bibs, sleeved, not of
paper; bike pants; body suits; clothes, namely, __{indicate type of clothing, e.g., shirts, pants, hats, etc.}; clothing, namely,
__{indicate type of clothing, e.g., shirts, pants, hats, etc.}; clothing for sports, namely, __{indicate type of clothing, e.g.,
shirts, pants, hats, etc.}; cycling nicks being shorts; cyclists' clothing, namely, __{indicate type of
clothing, e.g., shirts, pants, hats, etc.}; exercise wear, namely, __{indicate type of clothing, e.g., shirts, pants, hats, etc.};
jerseys being clothing (clothing); one-piece suits; shirts; socks; sports clothing, namely,
__{indicate type of clothing, e.g., shirts, pants, hats, etc.} (other than golf gloves); sports garments, namely,
__{indicate type of clothing, e.g., shirts, pants, hats, etc.} (other than golf gloves); sports hosiery; sports jerseys; sports shirts; sports
singlets; sports socks; sportswear, namely, __{indicate type of clothing, e.g., shirts, pants, hats, etc.}; sportswear other than
golf gloves or helmets, namely, __{indicate type of clothing, e.g., shirts, pants, hats, etc.}; suits; sweat-absorbent underclothing; underclothes; underclothing;
undershirts; uniforms; uniforms for athletes.”
International Class 35
“Online retail store services featuring
__{indicate goods, e.g., clothing, consumer electronics, etc.}; presentation of goods on communication media, for retail purposes in the field of
__{indicate field}; promotion of goods and services through sponsorship of sports events; retail store services
featuring __{indicate goods, e.g., clothing, consumer electronics, etc.}; retail clothing shop services; retailing of goods, namely,
__{indicate nature of activity, e.g., retail store services, wholesale store services, etc.} featuring __{indicate
goods} (by any means).”
Applicant’s goods and/or services may be clarified or limited, but may not be expanded beyond those originally itemized in the application or as acceptably narrowed. See 37 C.F.R. §2.71(a); TMEP §§1402.06, 1904.02(c)(iv). Applicant may clarify or limit the identification by inserting qualifying language or deleting items to result in a more specific identification; however, applicant may not substitute different goods and/or services or add goods and/or services not found or encompassed by those in the original application or as acceptably narrowed. See TMEP §1402.06(a)-(b). The scope of the goods and/or services sets the outer limit for any changes to the identification and is generally determined by the ordinary meaning of the wording in the identification. TMEP §§1402.06(b), 1402.07(a)-(b). Any acceptable changes to the goods and/or services will further limit scope, and once goods and/or services are deleted, they are not permitted to be reinserted. 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.
DESCRIPTION OF MARK REQUIRED
Applicant must submit a description of the mark, because one was not included in the application. 37 C.F.R. §2.37; see TMEP §§808.01, 808.02. Applications for marks not in standard characters must include an accurate and concise description of the entire mark that identifies all the literal and design elements. See 37 C.F.R. §2.37; TMEP §§808.01, 808.02, 808.03(b). In this case, the drawing of the mark is not in standard characters.
The following description is suggested, if accurate: The mark consists of the stylized wording "NEOPRO" below three intersecting triangles.
APPLICANT'S EMAIL ADDRESS
Email address required. Applicant must provide applicant’s email address, which is a requirement for a complete application. See 37 C.F.R. §2.32(a)(2); Mandatory Electronic Filing & Specimen Requirements, Examination Guide 1-20, at III.A. (Rev. Feb. 2020). Applicant’s email address cannot be identical to the listed primary correspondence email address of any attorney retained to represent applicant in this application. See Examination Guide 1-20, at III.A.
U.S. ATTORNEY REQUIRED
Applicant must be represented by a U.S.-licensed attorney 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 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 at http://www.gov.uspto.report/trademarks-getting-started/why-hire-private-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 at http://teas.gov.uspto.report/wna/ccr/car. The newly-appointed attorney must submit a TEAS Response to Examining Attorney Office Action form at http://teas.gov.uspto.report/office/roa/ 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
How to respond. Click to file a response to this nonfinal Office action.
ASSISTANCE
Please call or email the assigned trademark examining attorney with questions about this Office action. Although an examining attorney cannot provide legal advice, the examining attorney can provide additional explanation about the refusal(s) and/or requirement(s) in this Office action. See TMEP §§705.02, 709.06.
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.