UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE (USPTO)

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

 

 

 

SUSPENSION NOTICE:  NO RESPONSE NEEDED

 

ISSUE/MAILING DATE: 3/21/2011

 

 

The trademark examining attorney is suspending action on the application for the reason(s) stated below.  See 37 C.F.R. §2.67; TMEP §§716 et seq. 

 

The USPTO will periodically conduct a status check of the application to determine whether suspension remains appropriate, and the trademark examining attorney will issue as needed an inquiry letter to applicant regarding the status of the matter on which suspension is based.  TMEP §§716.04, 716.05.  Applicant will be notified when suspension is no longer appropriate.  See TMEP §716.04.

 

No response to this notice is necessary; however, if applicant wants to respond, applicant should use the “Response to Suspension Inquiry or Letter of Suspension” form online at http://teasroa.gov.uspto.report/rsi/rsi.

 

Action on this application is suspended pending the disposition of:

 

            - Application Serial No(s). 78960851 and 77955814

 

Since applicant's effective filing date is subsequent to the effective filing date of the above-identified application(s), the latter, if and when it registers, may be cited against this application in a refusal to register under Section 2(d) of the Trademark Act, 15 U.S.C. §1052(d).  See 37 C.F.R. §2.83; TMEP §§1208 et seq.  A copy of information relevant to this pending application(s) was sent previously.

 

Applicant may submit a request to remove the application from suspension to present arguments related to the potential conflict between the relevant application(s) or other arguments related to the ground for suspension.  TMEP §716.03.  Applicant's election not to present arguments during suspension will not affect the applicant's right to present arguments later should a refusal in fact issue.  If a refusal does issue, applicant will be afforded 6 months from the mailing or e-mailing date of the Office action to submit a response.  15 U.S.C. §1062(b); 37 C.F.R. §2.62.

 

 

The following refusal(s)/requirement(s) is/are continued and maintained:

 

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. 3413238 and 3821361.  Trademark Act Section 2(d), 15 U.S.C. §1052(d); see TMEP §§1207.01 et seq.  See the previously enclosed registrations.

 

Taking into account the relevant du Pont factors, a likelihood of confusion determination in this case involves a two-part analysis.  The marks are compared for similarities in their appearance, sound, connotation and commercial impression.  TMEP §§1207.01, 1207.01(b).  The goods and/or services are compared to determine whether they are similar or commercially related or travel in the same trade channels.  See Herbko Int’l, Inc. v. Kappa Books, Inc., 308 F.3d 1156, 1164-65, 64 USPQ2d 1375, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2002); Han Beauty, Inc. v. Alberto-Culver Co., 236 F.3d 1333, 1336, 57 USPQ2d 1557, 1559 (Fed. Cir. 2001); TMEP §§1207.01, 1207.01(a)(vi).

 

The applicant’s mark is ABBY for athletic apparel, namely bras, shimmels, shorts, skorts, capris, pants and jackets.  The registrant’s marks are:

 

3413238          DYLAN & ABBY

3821361          ABBY 16

 

For various Class 025 clothing.

 

Comparison of the Marks

 

In a likelihood of confusion determination, the marks are compared for similarities in their appearance, sound, meaning or 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).  Similarity in any one of these elements may be sufficient to find a likelihood of confusion.  In re White Swan Ltd., 8 USPQ2d 1534, 1535 (TTAB 1988); In re Lamson Oil Co., 6 USPQ2d 1041, 1043 (TTAB 1987); see TMEP §1207.01(b).

 

The applicant’s mark ABBY, is similar to the registered marks DYLAN & ABBY and ABBY 16, because all marks contain the feature ABBY.  Although the registered marks have additional terms,

The mere deletion of wording from a registered mark may not be sufficient to overcome a likelihood of confusion.  See In re Mighty Leaf Tea, 601 F.3d 1342, 94 USPQ2d 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2010); In re Optica Int’l, 196 USPQ 775, 778 (TTAB 1977); TMEP §1207.01(b)(ii)-(iii).  Applicant’s mark does not create a distinct commercial impression because it contains the same common wording as registrant’s mark, and there is no other wording to distinguish it from registrant’s mark.

 

Comparison of the Goods

 

The goods of the parties need not be identical or directly competitive to find a likelihood of confusion.  See Safety-Kleen Corp. v. Dresser Indus., Inc., 518 F.2d 1399, 1404, 186 USPQ 476, 480 (C.C.P.A. 1975); TMEP §1207.01(a)(i).  Rather, it is sufficient that the goods and/or services are related in some manner and/or the conditions surrounding their marketing are such that they would be encountered by the same purchasers under circumstances that would give rise to the mistaken belief that the goods and/or services come from a common source.  In re Total Quality Group, Inc., 51 USPQ2d 1474, 1476 (TTAB 1999); TMEP §1207.01(a)(i); see, e.g., On-line Careline Inc. v. Am. Online Inc., 229 F.3d 1080, 1086-87, 56 USPQ2d 1471, 1475-76 (Fed. Cir. 2000); In re Martin’s Famous Pastry Shoppe, Inc., 748 F.2d 1565, 1566-68, 223 USPQ 1289, 1290 (Fed. Cir. 1984).

 

The applicant’s goods are closely related to the registrant’s goods because they all are clothing likely to travel through the same channels of trade to the same classes of purchasers.  Neither the application nor the registration(s) contains any limitations regarding trade channels for the goods and therefore it is assumed that registrant’s and applicant’s goods are sold everywhere that is normal for such items, i.e., clothing and department stores.  Thus, it can also be assumed that the same classes of purchasers shop for these items and that consumers are accustomed to seeing them sold under the same or similar marks.  See Kangol Ltd. v. KangaROOS U.S.A., Inc., 974 F.2d 161, 23 USPQ2d 1945 (Fed. Cir. 1992); In re Smith & Mehaffey, 31 USPQ2d 1531 (TTAB 1994); TMEP §1207.01(a)(iii).

 

The decisions in the clothing field have held many different types of apparel to be related under Trademark Act Section 2(d).  Cambridge Rubber Co. v. Cluett, Peabody & Co., 286 F.2d 623, 128 USPQ 549 (C.C.P.A. 1961) (women’s boots related to men’s and boys’ underwear); Jockey Int’l, Inc. v. Mallory & Church Corp., 25 USPQ2d 1233 (TTAB 1992) (underwear related to neckties); In re Melville Corp., 18 USPQ2d 1386 (TTAB 1991) (women’s pants, blouses, shorts and jackets related to women’s shoes); In re Pix of Am., Inc., 225 USPQ 691 (TTAB 1985) (women’s shoes related to outer shirts); In re Mercedes Slacks, Ltd., 213 USPQ 397 (TTAB 1982) (hosiery related to trousers); In re Cook United, Inc., 185 USPQ 444 (TTAB 1975) (men’s suits, coats, and trousers related to ladies’ pantyhose and hosiery); Esquire Sportswear Mfg. Co. v. Genesco Inc., 141 USPQ 400 (TTAB 1964) (brassieres and girdles related to slacks for men and young men).

 

Accordingly, because confusion as to source is likely, registration is refused under Trademark Action Section 2(d) based on a likelihood of confusion.

 

Please see attached Internet website evidence showing goods similar to the parties available through similar channels of trade.

 

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, 1025 (Fed. Cir. 1988).

 

 

/Kapil K. Bhanot/

Trademark Examining Attorney

Law Office 108

Phone - (571) 270-1516

kapil.bhanot@uspto.gov

 

 

 

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 Trademark Applications and Registrations Retrieval (TARR) at http://tarr.gov.uspto.report/.  Please keep a copy of the complete TARR screen.  If TARR shows no change for more than six months, 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/teas/eTEASpageE.htm.

 

IMPORTANT NOTICE REGARDING YOUR

U.S. TRADEMARK APPLICATION

 

USPTO LETTER (AN OFFICE ACTION) HAS ISSUED ON 3/21/2011 FOR

SERIAL NO. 85041347

 

Please follow the instructions below:

 

TO READ OFFICE LETTER: Click on this link or go to http://portal.gov.uspto.report/external/portal/tow and enter the application serial number to access the Office letter

 

PLEASE NOTE: The Office letter may not be immediately available but will be viewable within 24 hours of this e-mail notification.

 

HELP: For technical assistance in accessing the Office correspondence, please e-mail TDR@uspto.gov.  Please contact the assigned examining attorney with questions about the Office letter.