UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE (USPTO)

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

 

 

 

OFFICE ACTION

 

STRICT DEADLINE TO RESPOND TO THIS LETTER

TO AVOID ABANDONMENT OF APPLICANT’S TRADEMARK APPLICATION, THE USPTO MUST RECEIVE APPLICANT’S COMPLETE RESPONSE TO THIS LETTER WITHIN 6 MONTHS OF THE ISSUE/MAILING DATE BELOW.

 

ISSUE/MAILING DATE: 9/12/2012

 

 

 

The referenced application has been reviewed by the assigned trademark examining attorney.  Applicant must respond timely and completely to the issue(s) below.  15 U.S.C. §1062(b); 37 C.F.R. §§2.62, 2.65(a); TMEP §§711, 718.03.

 

Summary of the Issues

1.      Registration Refused – Likelihood of Confusion;

2.      Identification of the Goods.

 

Registration Refused – Likelihood of Confusion

Registration of the applied-for mark is refused because of a likelihood of confusion with the mark in U.S. Registration No. 4077983.  Trademark Act Section 2(d), 15 U.S.C. §1052(d); see TMEP §§1207.01 et seq.  See the enclosed registration.

 

Trademark Act Section 2(d) bars registration of an applied-for mark that so resembles a registered mark that it is likely that a potential consumer would be confused or mistaken or deceived as to the source of the goods and/or services of the applicant and registrant.  See 15 U.S.C. §1052(d).  The court in In re E. I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., 476 F.2d 1357, 177 USPQ 563 (C.C.P.A. 1973) listed the principal factors to be considered when determining whether there is a likelihood of confusion under Section 2(d).  See TMEP §1207.01.  However, not all of the factors are necessarily relevant or of equal weight, and any one factor may be dominant in a given case, depending upon the evidence of record.  In re Majestic Distilling Co., 315 F.3d 1311, 1315, 65 USPQ2d 1201, 1204 (Fed. Cir. 2003); see In re E. I. du Pont, 476 F.2d at 1361-62, 177 USPQ at 567.

 

In this case, the following factors are the most relevant:  similarity of the marks, similarity of the goods and/or services, and similarity of trade channels of the goods and/or services.  See In re Opus One, Inc., 60 USPQ2d 1812 (TTAB 2001); In re Dakin’s Miniatures Inc., 59 USPQ2d 1593 (TTAB 1999); In re Azteca Rest. Enters., Inc., 50 USPQ2d 1209 (TTAB 1999); TMEP §§1207.01 et seq.

 

 

The applicant has applied to register the mark EVERY SECOND COUNTS for “clothing, footwear, headgear.”  The registered mark is SECONDS COUNT for “Belts; boots; coats; gloves; hats; jackets; jeans; pants; shirts; shoes; shorts; socks; sweat shirts; T-shirts.”

 

 

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).

 

 

In the present case, the applicant’s mark EVERY SECOND COUNTS, is highly similar in sound and appearance and identical in commercial impression to the registrant’s mark SECONDS COUNT.  Both marks contain the nearly identical words SECONDS COUNT.   Despite the slight differences in the marks (the applicant has the plural on the word COUNTS, while the registrant has the plural on the word SECONDS), the marks create the same commercial impression.  That is both marks state that, in essence, time matters, even seconds. 

 

It is noted that the applicant’s mark contains the additional word EVERY.  However, the addition of this word only adds to the commercial impression created by the first mark.  That is, the applicant’s additional word only stresses that time matters. 

 

At any rate, the applicant has merely added a word to an existing registration.  Please note that it is well settled that the mere addition of a term to a registered mark does not obviate the similarity between the marks nor does it overcome a likelihood of confusion under Trademark Act Section 2(d).  See In re Chatam Int’l Inc., 380 F.3d 1340, 71 USPQ2d 1944 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (GASPAR’S ALE and JOSE GASPAR GOLD); Coca-Cola Bottling Co. v. Jos. E. Seagram & Sons, Inc., 526 F.2d 556, 188 USPQ 105 (C.C.P.A. 1975) (BENGAL and BENGAL LANCER); Lilly Pulitzer, Inc. v. Lilli Ann Corp., 376 F.2d 324, 153 USPQ 406 (C.C.P.A. 1967) (THE LILLY and LILLI ANN); In re Toshiba Med. Sys. Corp., 91 USPQ2d 1266 (TTAB 2009) (TITAN and VANTAGE TITAN); In re El Torito Rests., Inc., 9 USPQ2d 2002 (TTAB 1988) (MACHO and MACHO COMBOS); In re Corning Glass Works, 229 USPQ 65 (TTAB 1985) (CONFIRM and CONFIRMCELLS); In re U.S. Shoe Corp., 229 USPQ 707 (TTAB 1985) (CAREER IMAGE and CREST CAREER IMAGES); In re Riddle, 225 USPQ 630 (TTAB 1985) (ACCUTUNE and RICHARD PETTY’S ACCU TUNE); TMEP §1207.01(b)(iii).

 

For the above stated reasons, the commercial impression created by the applicant’s mark is the same as that created by the mark of the registrant thereby satisfying the first prong of the likelihood of confusion test.

 

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, they need only be related in some manner, 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 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 has applied to register the mark EVERY SECOND COUNTS for “clothing, footwear, headgear.”  The registered mark is SECONDS COUNT for “Belts; boots; coats; gloves; hats; jackets; jeans; pants; shirts; shoes; shorts; socks; sweat shirts; T-shirts.”  The parties goods are highly related.

 

 

Neither the application nor the registration 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).

 

Decisions regarding likelihood of confusion in the clothing field have found many different types of apparel to be related goods.  Cambridge Rubber Co. v. Cluett, Peabody & Co., 286 F.2d 623, 624, 128 USPQ 549, 550 (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, 1236 (TTAB 1992) (underwear related to neckties); In re Melville Corp., 18 USPQ2d 1386, 1388 (TTAB 1991) (women’s pants, blouses, shorts and jackets related to women’s shoes); In re Pix of Am., Inc., 225 USPQ 691, 691-92 (TTAB 1985) (women’s shoes related to outer shirts); In re Mercedes Slacks, Ltd., 213 USPQ 397, 398-99 (TTAB 1982) (hosiery related to trousers); In re Cook United, Inc., 185 USPQ 444, 445 (TTAB 1975) (men’s suits, coats, and trousers related to ladies’ pantyhose and hosiery); Esquire Sportswear Mfg. Co. v. Genesco Inc., 141 USPQ 400, 404 (TTAB 1964) (brassieres and girdles related to slacks for men and young men).

 

The average consumer who encounters these marks on such highly related goods would mistakenly believe that a common source provided the goods. Thus, there is a likelihood of confusion, and registration must be refused pursuant to Section 2(d) of the Trademark Act.

 

For the above stated reasons, the applicant’s mark is found to likely cause confusion with the cited registered mark, and therefore, must be refused registration.

 

Although the examining attorney has refused registration, the applicant may respond to the refusal to register by submitting evidence and arguments in support of registration.

 

Identification of the Goods

The applicant has applied for the mark EVERY SECOND COUNTS for clothing, footwear and headgear in International Class 25.

 

The wording “footwear” is acceptable as submitted in International Class 25.

 

However, the wording “clothing” and “headgear” in the identification of goods is indefinite and must be clarified.  See TMEP §1402.01.  Specifically, the applicant must provide the common commercial name for each of its clothing and headgear items.

 

For example, if accurate, the applicant may amend to “Clothing, namely, shirts, jackets, pants; headgear, namely, hats, caps” in International Class 25.

 

In the identification of goods, applicant must use the common commercial or generic names for the goods, be as complete and specific as possible, and avoid the use of indefinite words and phrases.  If applicant uses indefinite words such as “accessories,” “components,” “devices,” “equipment,” “materials,” “parts,” “systems” or “products,” such words must be followed by “namely,” followed by a list of the specific goods identified by their common commercial or generic names.  See TMEP §§1402.01, 1402.03(a).

 

Applicant may substitute the following wording, if accurate: 

 

“Clothing, namely, shirts, jackets, pants; footwear; headgear, namely, hats, caps” in International Class 25.

 

 

TMEP §§1402.01 and 1402.03.

 

 

The identification of goods or services should be clear, accurate and as concise as possible.  See Procter & Gamble Co. v. Economics Laboratory, Inc., 175 USPQ 505 (TTAB 1972); In re Cardinal Laboratories, Inc., 149 USPQ 709 (TTAB 1966); California Spray-Chemical Corp. v. Osmose Wood Preserving Co. of America, Inc., 102 USPQ 321 (Comm'r Pats. 1954); Ex parte A.C. Gilbert Co., 99 USPQ 344 (Comm'r Pats. 1953).  Furthermore, the identification of goods and services must be specific and definite.  In re Societe Generale des Eaux Minerales de Vittel S.A., 1 USPQ2d 1296 (TTAB 1986), rev'd on other grounds, 824 F.2d 957, 3 USPQ2d 1450 (Fed. Cir. 1987).

The examining attorney may make any requirements necessary to ensure that the identification is clear and accurate and conforms to the requirements of the statute and rules.  When an applicant has submitted an indefinite identification of goods or services, it is Office practice to suggest an acceptable identification.  However, it is the applicant's duty and prerogative to identify the goods and services.   TMEP Section 1402.01(d).

 

Although identifications of goods may be amended to clarify or limit the goods, adding to or broadening the scope of the goods is not permitted.  37 C.F.R. §2.71(a); see TMEP §§1402.06 et seq., 1402.07.  Therefore, applicant may not amend the identification to include goods that are not within the scope of the goods set forth in the present identification.

 

For assistance with identifying and classifying goods and/or services in trademark applications, please see the online searchable Manual of Acceptable Identifications of Goods and Services at http://tess2.gov.uspto.report/netahtml/tidm.html.  See TMEP §1402.04.

 

If the applicant has any questions, please contact the undersigned.

 

/Ty Murray/

Attorney Advisor

Law Office 113

571-272-9438

ty.murray@uspto.gov

 

TO RESPOND TO THIS LETTER:  Go to http://www.gov.uspto.report/trademarks/teas/response_forms.jsp.  Please wait 48-72 hours from the issue/mailing date before using TEAS, to allow for necessary system updates of the application.  For technical assistance with online forms, e-mail TEAS@uspto.gov.  For questions about the Office action itself, please contact the assigned trademark examining attorney.  E-mail communications will not be accepted as responses to Office actions; therefore, do not respond to this Office action by e-mail.

 

All informal e-mail communications relevant to this application will be placed in the official application record.

 

WHO MUST SIGN THE RESPONSE:  It must be personally signed by an individual applicant or someone with legal authority to bind an applicant (i.e., a corporate officer, a general partner, all joint applicants).  If an applicant is represented by an attorney, the attorney must sign the response. 

 

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 OFFICE ACTION HAS ISSUED ON 9/12/2012 FOR

SERIAL NO. 85624044

 

Please follow the instructions below to continue the prosecution of your application:

 

 

TO READ OFFICE ACTION: 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 action.

 

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

 

RESPONSE IS REQUIRED: You should carefully review the Office action to determine (1) how to respond; and (2) the applicable response time period. Your response deadline will be calculated from 9/12/2012 (or sooner if specified in the office action).

 

Do NOT hit “Reply” to this e-mail notification, or otherwise attempt to e-mail your response, as the USPTO does NOT accept e-mailed responses.  Instead, the USPTO recommends that you respond online using the Trademark Electronic Application System Response Form.

 

HELP: For technical assistance in accessing the Office action, please e-mail

TDR@uspto.gov.  Please contact the assigned examining attorney with questions about the Office action. 

 

        WARNING

 

Failure to file the required response by the applicable deadline will result in the ABANDONMENT of your application.