UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE (USPTO)

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

 

 

 

SUSPENSION NOTICE:  NO RESPONSE NEEDED

 

ISSUE/MAILING DATE: 4/11/2012

 

 

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.

 

The effective filing date of the pending application(s) identified below precedes the filing date of applicant’s application.  If the mark in the referenced application(s) registers, applicant’s mark may be refused registration under Section 2(d) because of a likelihood of confusion with that registered mark(s).  See 15 U.S.C. §1052(d); 37 C.F.R. §2.83; TMEP §§1208 et seq.  Therefore, action on this application is suspended until the earlier-filed referenced application(s) is either registered or abandoned.  37 C.F.R. §2.83(c).  A copy of information relevant to this referenced application(s) was sent previously.

 

            - Application Serial No(s). 77712012

 

REFUSAL(S)/REQUIREMENT(S) CONTINUED AND MAINTAINED:  The following refusal(s)/requirement(s) is/are continued and maintained:

 

Likelihood of Confusion – Section 2(d) Refusal

 

Registration of the applied-for mark is refused because of a likelihood of confusion with the mark in U.S. Registration No. 3330644.  Trademark Act Section 2(d), 15 U.S.C. §1052(d); see TMEP §§1207.01 et seq.  See the previously enclosed registration.

 

Taking into account the relevant du Pont factors, a likelihood of confusion determination in this case involves a two-part analysis.  See In re E. I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., 476 F.2d 1357, 1361-62, 177 USPQ 563, 567 (C.C.P.A. 1973); In re 1st USA Realty Prof’ls Inc., 84 USPQ2d 1581, 1584 (TTAB 2007); see also In re Dixie Rests. Inc., 105 F.3d 1405, 1406-07, 41 USPQ2d 1531, 1533 (Fed. Cir. 1997).  The marks are compared for similarities in their appearance, sound, connotation and commercial impression.  TMEP §§1207.01, 1207.01(b).  The goods 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).

 

Similarity of 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)-(b)(v).  Similarity in any one of these elements may be sufficient to find the marks 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).

 

Applicant’s mark is the wording “FIVE STAR” in standard characters. 

 

 

 

Registrant’s mark is the wording “FIVE STAR” in the center of a circle design with the wording “THE CULINARY INSTITUTE” appearing at the top and bottom edges of the circle in a smaller font; in addition, there are five stars that appear above the wording “FIVE STAR” in the circular design. 

 

 

 

The marks are similar because they both contain or are entirely comprised of the wording “FIVE STAR”.

 

 

Despite the prominence of the wording “FIVE STAR” in registrant’s mark, applicant argues that the examining attorney has improperly dissected the registrant’s mark and ignored the additional wording/design therein in order to find that the marks are confusingly similar to one another.  The examining attorney respectfully disagrees with this analysis. 

 

The marks are compared in their entireties under a Trademark Act Section 2(d) analysis.  See TMEP §1207.01(b).  Nevertheless, one feature of a mark may be recognized as more significant in creating a commercial impression.  Greater weight is given to that dominant feature in determining whether there is a likelihood of confusion.  In re Nat’l Data Corp., 753 F.2d 1056, 224 USPQ 749 (Fed. Cir. 1985); Tektronix, Inc. v. Daktronics, Inc., 534 F.2d 915, 189 USPQ 693 (C.C.P.A. 1976); In re J.M. Originals Inc., 6 USPQ2d 1393 (TTAB 1987); see TMEP §1207.01(b)(viii), (c)(ii). 

In this case, the term “FIVE STAR” is the only wording/element in applicant’s mark and, as such is the dominant wording/element therein.  In registrant’s mark, although there are other elements/wording, the wording “FIVE STAR” is the most significant element in creating a commercial impression and will be the primary wording/element impressed upon a purchaser's memory when calling for the goods.   This dominance is due to the larger font of this wording versus all other wording/elements in the mark and because the star design element merely serves to reinforce the dominant nature of the wording (i.e. because there are five stars in the design). 

 

Additionally, please note that marks may be confusingly similar in appearance where there are similar terms or phrases or similar parts of terms or phrases, such as “FIVE STAR”, appearing in both applicant’s and registrant’s mark.  See Crocker Nat’l Bank v. Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce, 228 USPQ 689 (TTAB 1986), aff’d sub nom. Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce v. Wells Fargo Bank, Nat’l Ass’n, 811 F.2d 1490, 1 USPQ2d 1813 (Fed. Cir. 1987) (COMMCASH and COMMUNICASH); In re Phillips-Van Heusen Corp., 228 USPQ 949 (TTAB 1986) (21 CLUB and “21” CLUB (stylized)); In re Corning Glass Works, 229 USPQ 65 (TTAB 1985) (CONFIRM and CONFIRMCELLS); In re Collegian Sportswear Inc., 224 USPQ 174 (TTAB 1984) (COLLEGIAN OF CALIFORNIA and COLLEGIENNE); In re Pellerin Milnor Corp., 221 USPQ 558 (TTAB 1983) (MILTRON and MILLTRONICS); In re BASF A.G., 189 USPQ 424 (TTAB 1975) (LUTEXAL and LUTEX); TMEP §1207.01(b)(ii)-(iii). 

 

Furthermore, please note that 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.  TMEP §1207.01(c)(iii); see 37 C.F.R. §2.52(a).  Thus, a mark presented in stylized characters or otherwise in special form generally will not avoid likelihood of confusion with a mark in typed or standard characters because the marks could be presented in the same manner of display.  See, e.g., 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”); In re Melville Corp., 18 USPQ2d 1386, 1387-88 (TTAB 1991); In re Pollio Dairy Prods. Corp., 8 USPQ2d 2012, 2015 (TTAB 1988).

 

 

Finally, please note that, if the goods of the respective parties are “similar in kind and/or closely related,” the degree of similarity between the marks required to support a finding of likelihood of confusion is not as great as would be required with diverse goods.  In re J.M. Originals Inc., 6 USPQ2d 1393, 1394 (TTAB 1987); see Shen Mfg. Co. v. Ritz Hotel Ltd., 393 F.3d 1238, 1242, 73 USPQ2d 1350, 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2004); TMEP §1207.01(b).  Please see Similarity of Goods section below evidencing the identical/overlapping nature of applicant’s and registrant’s goods in this case.

 

Accordingly, the relevant marks are sufficiently similar to support a finding of likelihood of confusion.

 

Similarity of 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 to show that because of the conditions surrounding their marketing, or because they are otherwise related in some manner, the goods would be encountered by the same consumers under circumstances such that offering the goods under confusingly similar marks would lead to the mistaken belief that they come from, or are in some way associated with, the same source.  In re Iolo Techs., LLC, 95 USPQ2d 1498, 1499 (TTAB 2010); see In re Martin’s Famous Pastry Shoppe, Inc., 748 F.2d 1565, 1566-68, 223 USPQ 1289, 1290 (Fed. Cir. 1984); TMEP §1207.01(a)(i).

 

Applicant’s goods are “Beer; ale; and brewed malt-based alcoholic beverage in the nature of a beer.” 

 

Registrant’s relevant goods are “beers”.

 

The goods are, therefore, identical in the case of beer and overlapping in the case of applicant’s ale versus registrant’s beer.  See attached dictionary definition of ale, which is “a general name for beer made with a top fermenting yeast”. 

 

Accordingly, based on the similarity of the marks and the relationship of the goods, registration of the applicant’s mark is refused under Section 2(d) of the Trademark Act.

 

 

 

/Meghan Reinhart/

Trademark Examining Attorney

Law Office 108

Phone - (571) 272-2943

meghan.reinhart@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/trademarks/teas/correspondence.jsp.

 

IMPORTANT NOTICE REGARDING YOUR

U.S. TRADEMARK APPLICATION

 

USPTO LETTER (AN OFFICE ACTION) HAS ISSUED ON 4/11/2012 FOR

SERIAL NO. 85349080

 

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.