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.  A RESPONSE TRANSMITTED THROUGH THE TRADEMARK ELECTRONIC APPLICATION SYSTEM (TEAS) MUST BE RECEIVED BEFORE MIDNIGHT EASTERN TIME OF THE LAST DAY OF THE RESPONSE PERIOD.

 

 

ISSUE/MAILING DATE: 1/23/2018

 

 

THIS IS A FINAL ACTION.

 

FINAL REFUSAL

 

This letter responds to the applicant’s 12/20/2017 communication.

By previous Office Action, registration was refused under Trademark Act §2(d), 15 U.S.C. §1052(d), because the mark for which registration is sought so resembles the mark shown in U.S. Registration No. 5191430 as to be likely, when used on the identified goods, to cause confusion, or to cause mistake, or to deceive.

The examining attorney has carefully considered the applicant’s response but has found the same to be unpersuasive.  The refusal under Trademark Act Section 2(d) is now made FINAL for the reasons set forth below.  See 15 U.S.C. §1052(d); 37 C.F.R. §2.64(a).

 

Trademark Act Section 2(d) bars registration of an applied-for mark that so resembles a registered mark that it is likely a potential consumer would be confused, 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). A determination of likelihood of confusion under Section 2(d) is made on a case-by-case basis and 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) aid in this determination. Citigroup Inc. v. Capital City Bank Grp., Inc., 637 F.3d 1344, 1349, 98 USPQ2d 1253, 1256 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (citing On-Line Careline, Inc. v. Am. Online, Inc., 229 F.3d 1080, 1085, 56 USPQ2d 1471, 1474 (Fed. Cir. 2000)). Not all the du Pont factors, however, are necessarily relevant or of equal weight, and any one of the factors may control in a given case, depending upon the evidence of record. Citigroup Inc. v. Capital City Bank Grp., Inc., 637 F.3d at 1355, 98 USPQ2d at 1260; In re Majestic Distilling Co., 315 F.3d 1311, 1315, 65 USPQ2d 1201, 1204 (Fed. Cir. 2003); see In re E. I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., 476 F.2d at 1361-62, 177 USPQ at 567.

In any likelihood of confusion determination, two key considerations are similarity of the marks and similarity or relatedness of the goods and/or services. In re Fat Boys Water Sports LLC, 118 USPQ2d 1511, 1516 (TTAB 2016) (citing Federated Foods, Inc. v. Fort Howard Paper Co., 544 F.2d 1098, 1103, 192 USPQ 24, 29 (C.C.P.A. 1976)); see TMEP §1207.01. That is, the marks are compared in their entireties for similarities in appearance, sound, connotation, and commercial impression. In re Viterra Inc., 671 F.3d 1358, 1362, 101 USPQ2d 1905, 1908 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (quoting 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). Additionally, the goods and/or services are compared to determine whether they are similar or 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, (a)(vi).

 

a.      Comparison of goods/services.

The goods and/or services of the parties 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) (“even if the goods in question are different from, and thus not related to, one another in kind, the same goods can be related in the mind of the consuming public as to the origin of the goods”); TMEP §1207.01(a)(i).

The respective goods and/or services 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).

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).

In the instant case, the applicant’s goods/services—“Men's and women's clothing and athletic apparel, namely, shirts and T-shirts”—are similar in kind and/or closely related (see Part b. below) to the registrant’s goods/services—“T-shirts”—because both are articles of clothing, being “shirts” in particular, that are likely to travel through the same channels of trade to the same classes of purchasers.

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).

The applicant in its response, without any showing of proof, argues as follows:

Applicant’s products are sold on specific websites geared toward fitness and health enthusiasts that also sell its nutritional supplements [whereas] Registrant’s t-shirts are [apparently not] sold online, much less on the websites where Applicant’s t-shirts are being sold.

However, where goods or services are legally identical in part, “it is well established that, ‘absent restrictions in the application and registration, goods and services are presumed to travel in the same channels of trade to the same class of purchasers.’ ” In re Viterra Inc., 671 F.3d 1358, 101 USPQ2d 1905, 1908 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (quoting Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Packard Press, Inc., 281 F.3d 1261, 62 USPQ2d 1001, 1005 (Fed. Cir. 2002)); In re Yawata Iron & Steel Co., 403 F.2d 725, 159 USPQ 721, 723 (CCPA 1968).  In the instant case, because no restrictions on the channels of trade or classes of purchasers appear in the respective identifications, the applicant cannot overcome the legal presumption of overlap.  Additionally, the applicant is quite correct in acknowledging that “the purchasers of t-shirts are not typically considered sophisticated consumers.”

 

b.      Comparison of marks.

Where the goods and/or services of an applicant and registrant 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 in the case of diverse goods and/or services. 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).

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 Davia, 110 USPQ2d 1810, 1812 (TTAB 2014) (citing In re 1st USA Realty Prof’ls, Inc., 84 USPQ2d 1581, 1586 (TTAB 2007)); In re White Swan Ltd., 8 USPQ2d 1534, 1535 (TTAB 1988)); TMEP §1207.01(b).

Although marks are compared in their entireties, one feature of a mark may be more significant or dominant in creating a commercial impression. See In re Viterra Inc., 671 F.3d 1358, 1362, 101 USPQ2d 1905, 1908 (Fed. Cir. 2012); In re Nat’l Data Corp., 753 F.2d 1056, 1058, 224 USPQ 749, 751 (Fed. Cir. 1985); TMEP §1207.01(b)(viii), (c)(ii). Disclaimed matter that is descriptive of or generic for a party’s goods and/or services is typically less significant or less dominant when comparing marks. See In re Dixie Rests., Inc., 105 F.3d 1405, 1407, 41 USPQ2d 1531, 1533-34 (Fed. Cir. 1997); In re Nat’l Data Corp., 753 F.2d at 1060, 224 USPQ at 752; TMEP §1207.01(b)(viii), (c)(ii).

In the instant case, the applicant’s mark EVLUTION is self-evidently similar to the registered mark EVOLUTION TEE; thus the respective parties’ marks share a common appearance, sound, connotation, and overall commercial impression. The only differences in the marks do not alter the commercial impression of the marks because the applicant’s word is redolent of the registrant’s EVOLUTION (and no other word) despite the former’s lack of the first O, and the registrant’s extra word TEE is generic disclaimed wording that has no source-indicating value.

The applicant in its response argues as follows:

Many entities use the term “evolution” in connection with apparel, thus weakening Registrant’s mark.  A search of the registrations in International Class 25 incorporating “evolution” showed the following results…

As an initial matter: the applicant has submitted a list of registrations, but the mere submission of a list of registrations (or a copy of a private company search report) does not make such registrations part of the record.  In re Compania de Licores Internacionales S.A., 102 USPQ2d 1841, 1843 (TTAB 2012); TBMP §1208.02; TMEP §710.03. To make third-party registrations part of the record, an applicant must submit copies of the registrations, or the complete electronic equivalent from the USPTO’s automated systems, prior to appeal.  In re Star Belly Stitcher, Inc., 107 USPQ2d 2059, 2064 (TTAB 2013); TBMP §1208.02; TMEP §710.03.

Further, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit and the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board have recognized that marks deemed “weak” or merely descriptive are still entitled to protection under Section 2(d) against the registration by a subsequent user of a similar mark for closely related goods and/or services.  TMEP §1207.01(b)(ix); see King Candy Co. v. Eunice King’s Kitchen, Inc., 496 F.2d 1400, 1401, 182 USPQ 108, 109 (C.C.P.A. 1974); In re Max Capital Grp. Ltd., 93 USPQ2d 1243, 1246 (TTAB 2010).  Thus, this protection under Section 2(d) extends to marks registered on the Supplemental Register.  TMEP §1207.01(b)(ix); see, e.g., In re Morinaga Nyugyo Kabushiki Kaisha, 120 USPQ2d 1738, 1743 (TTAB 2016) (citing Towers v. Advent Software, Inc., 913 F.2d 942, 946, 16 USPQ2d 1039, 1042 (Fed. Cir. 1990); In re Research & Trademark Corp., 793 F.2d 1276, 1278, 230 USPQ 49, 49 (Fed. Cir. 1986); In re Clorox Co., 578 F.2d 305, 307-08, 198 USPQ 337, 340 (C.C.P.A. 1978)).

Finally, to address the substance of the applicant’s third-party registrations, only two of the 20 include the word EVOLUTION without non-generic matter, and in those:

• Reg. No. 5267303—all goods are strictly limited to the highly-specialized niche of “school graduation regalia and accessories”
• Reg. No. 2842075—all goods in Class 25 have been cancelled

See Appendix below.

The applicant in its response additionally argues as follows:

Applicant’s mark is…pronounced “eev-lu-tion.”  It is a fanciful, distinctive mark because of its unique spelling and pronunciation.

However, there is no correct pronunciation of a mark—because it is impossible to predict how the public will pronounce a particular mark.  See Embarcadero Techs., Inc. v. RStudio, Inc., 105 USPQ2d 1825, 1835 (TTAB 2013) (quoting In re Viterra Inc., 671 F.3d 1358, 1367, 101 USPQ2d 1905, 1912 (Fed. Cir. 2012); In re The Belgrade Shoe Co., 411 F.2d 1352, 1353, 162 USPQ 227, 227 (C.C.P.A. 1969)); TMEP §1207.01(b)(iv).  The marks in question clearly could be pronounced the same (even if mistakenly), and such 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 applicant in its response further argues that

in the [Office Action’s] analysis, the word “tee” is dissected from Registrant’s mark and only “EVLUTION” and “EVOLUTION” are compared. … When these two marks are compared in their entireties, they are significantly different in sight, sound, and overall commercial impression. This makes consumer confusion highly unlikely. Indeed, Applicant is not aware of any instances of confusion in the two years both marks have both [sic] been in use.

However: regarding the latter argument, “ ‘a showing of actual confusion is not necessary to establish a likelihood of confusion’ ” (In re i.am.symbolic, llc, 866 F.3d 1315, 1322, 123 USPQ2d 1744, 1747 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (quoting Herbko Int’l, Inc. v. Kappa Books, Inc., 308F.3d 1156, 1164-65, 64 USPQ2d 1375, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2002)); TMEP §1207.01(d)(ii)); and, regarding the former argument, marks comprising more than one element must be considered as a whole and should not be dissected—but a trademark examining attorney may consider the significance of each element separately in the course of evaluating the mark as a whole.  See DuoProSS Meditech Corp. v. Inviro Med. Devices, Ltd., 695 F.3d 1247, 1253, 103 USPQ2d 1753, 1756-57 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (reversing Board’s denial of cancellation for SNAP! with design for medical syringes as not merely descriptive when noting that the Board “to be sure, [could] ascertain the meaning and weight of each of the components that ma[de] up the mark”); In re Hotels.com, L.P., 573 F.3d 1300, 1301, 1304, 1306, 91 USPQ2d 1532, 1533, 1535, 1537 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (holding HOTELS.COM generic for information and reservation services featuring temporary lodging when noting that the Board did not commit error in considering “the word ‘hotels’ for genericness separate from the ‘.com’ suffix”). In the instant case, the term TEE is generic for the parties’ goods; see attached definition:

tee³

NOUN (Plural tees)

informal 

A T-shirt.

Accordingly, consumers would be inclined to ascribe little to no trademark significance to “TEES” and would instead focus on the nearly-identical EV(O)LUTION commercial impression—particularly because the applicant plays up the “evolution” connotation in the marketing of its primary goods (see attached evidence):

THE EVOLUTION OF ENERGIZED AMINO ACIDS

 

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).

 

Therefore, because of the confusing similarity of the marks and the relatedness of the goods, purchasers are likely to mistakenly believe that the goods come from the same source.  Accordingly, registration is refused under §2(d).

The refusal on this basis to register the applicant’s mark is continued and made final.  See 37 C.F.R. §2.64(a).

 

•           Responding to this Office Action.

The applicant must respond within six months of the date of issuance of this final Office action or the application will be abandoned.  15 U.S.C. §1062(b); 37 C.F.R. §2.65(a).  The applicant may respond by providing one or both of the following:

(1)        A response that fully satisfies all outstanding requirements and/or resolves all outstanding refusals.

(2)        An appeal to the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board, with the appeal fee of $100 per class.

37 C.F.R. §2.63(b)(1)-(2); TMEP §714.04; see 37 C.F.R. §2.6(a)(18); TBMP ch. 1200.

In certain rare circumstances, an applicant may respond by filing a petition to the Director pursuant to 37 C.F.R. §2.63(b)(2) to review procedural issues.  TMEP §714.04; see 37 C.F.R. §2.146(b); TBMP §1201.05; TMEP §1704 (explaining petitionable matters).  The petition fee is $100.  37 C.F.R. §2.6(a)(15).

To expedite prosecution of the application, the applicant is encouraged to file its response to this Office Action online via the Trademark Electronic Application System (TEAS), which is available at http://www.uspto.gov/trademarks/teas/index.jsp.  If the applicant has technical questions about TEAS’s Response to Office Action (ROA) form, the applicant can review the electronic filing tips available online at http://www.uspto.gov/trademarks/teas/e_filing_tips.jsp and email technical questions to TEAS@uspto.gov and/or call the Trademark Assistance Center at 1-800-786-9199.

Unless the applicant (1) filed its application with TEAS-Plus status and (2) wishes to avoid incurring a $50-per-class fee (in which case, see immediately preceding paragraph regarding TEAS), there is no required format or form for responding to an Office Action.  However, the Office recommends that applicants use TEAS to respond to Office Actions.

If the applicant responds on paper via regular mail, the response should include the title “Response to Office Action” and the following information:  (1) the name and law office number of the examining attorney, (2) the serial number and filing date of the application, (3) the date of issuance of this Office Action, (4) the applicant’s name, address, telephone number, and e-mail address (if applicable), and (5) the mark.  37 C.F.R. §2.194(b)(1); TMEP §302.03(a).

For this application to proceed toward registration, applicant must explicitly address each refusal and/or requirement raised in this Office action.  If the action includes a refusal, applicant may provide arguments and/or evidence as to why the refusal should be withdrawn and the mark should register.  Applicant may also have other options for responding to a refusal and should consider such options carefully.  To respond to requirements and certain refusal response options, applicant should set forth in writing the required changes or statements.

If applicant does not respond to this Office action within six months of the issue/mailing date, or responds by expressly abandoning the application, the application process will end, the trademark will fail to register, and the application fee will not be refunded.  See 15 U.S.C. §1062(b); 37 C.F.R. §§2.65(a), 2.68(a), 2.209(a); TMEP §§405.04, 718.01, 718.02.  Where the application has been abandoned for failure to respond to an Office action, applicant’s only option would be to file a timely petition to revive the application, which, if granted, would allow the application to return to active status.  See 37 C.F.R. §2.66; TMEP §1714.  There is a $100 fee for such petitions.  See 37 C.F.R. §§2.6, 2.66(b)(1).

The response must be signed by the individual applicant or by a person with legal authority to bind a juristic applicant (e.g., a corporate officer, the equivalent of an officer for unincorporated organizations or limited liability companies, a general partner).  See TMEP §§611.03(b), 611.06 et seq., 712.01.  In the case of joint applicants, all should sign.  TMEP §611.06(a).  The proper signatory must personally sign or manually enter his/her electronic signature.  TMEP §§611.01(b), 611.02.

 

/J. Brendan Regan/

Examining Attorney

Law Office 113

571/272-9212

brendan.regan@uspto.gov

 

 

TO RESPOND TO THIS LETTER:  Go to http://www.uspto.gov/trademarks/teas/response_forms.jsp.  Please wait 48-72 hours from the issue/mailing date before using the Trademark Electronic Application System (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 the Trademark Status and Document Retrieval (TSDR) system at http://tsdr.uspto.gov/.  Please keep a copy of the TSDR status screen.  If the status shows no change for more than six months, contact the Trademark Assistance Center by e-mail at TrademarkAssistanceCenter@uspto.gov or call 1-800-786-9199.  For more information on checking status, see http://www.uspto.gov/trademarks/process/status/.

 

TO UPDATE CORRESPONDENCE/E-MAIL ADDRESS:  Use the TEAS form at http://www.uspto.gov/trademarks/teas/correspondence.jsp.

 

 

 

 

 

Mark
        EVOLUTION
Goods and Services
        IC 025. US 022 039. G & S: School graduation regalia and accessories, namely, caps, gowns, stoles, hoods, tams, sashes. FIRST USE: 20160900. FIRST USE IN COMMERCE: 20160900
Standard Characters Claimed
        STANDARD CHARACTERS CLAIMED
Mark Drawing Code
        (4) STANDARD CHARACTER MARK
Serial Number
        87054958
Filing Date
        May 31, 2016
Current Filing Basis
        1A
Original Filing Basis
        1B
Publication for Opposition Date
        October 11, 2016
Registration Number
        5267303
Registration Date
        August 15, 2017
Owner Name and Address
        (REGISTRANT) Jostens, Inc. CORPORATION MINNESOTA 3601 Minnesota Drive Minneapolis MINNESOTA 55435
Type of Mark
        TRADEMARK
Register
        PRINCIPAL
Live Dead Indicator
        LIVE
Attorney of Record
        Lisa Winger

 

Mark
        EVOLUTION
Goods and Services
        IC 009. US 021 023 026 036 038. G & S: ELECTRONIC AND ELECTRO-ACOUSTIC APPARATUS AND INSTRUMENTS, NAMELY, ELECTRONIC RECEIVERS AND TRANSMITTERS; [ DATA MEDIA PROVIDED WITH PROGRAMS, NAMELY, PRERECORDED MAGNETIC DATA CARRIERS, AUDIO AND VIDEO TAPES AND DISKS CONTAINING INFORMATION REGARDING THE ELECTRO-ACOUSTIC SECTOR; MACHINE READABLE PRERECORDED MAGNETIC INFORMATION CARRIERS, ]COMPUTER SOFTWARE FOR [ CONTROLLING,] TUNING, MONITORING AND DEMONSTRATING SIGNAL TRANSMISSIONS FOR ELECTRO-ACOUSTIC PURPOSES; [ LAPTOPS, COMPUTERS AND ] COMPUTER PROGRAMS ALL FOR ELECTRO-ACOUSTIC PURPOSES [; CARRYING BAGS AND POUCHES FOR PORTABLE PHONES ]

        (CANCELLED) IC 018. US 001 002 003 022 041. G & S: [ UMBRELLAS, PARASOLS AND WALKING STICKS ]

        (CANCELLED) IC 025. US 022 039. G & S: [ ADULT AND CHILDREN'S CLOTHING, NAMELY, ANORAKS, RAIN COATS, LONG COATS, HALF COATS, DRESS COATS, JACKETS, SHORTS, TROUSERS, JEAN, SKIRTS, SUITS, GENTLEMEN'S SUITS, BLOUSES, SWEATERS, VESTS, CARDIGANS, SPORTS SHIRTS, POLO SHIRTS, T-SHIRTS, NECKTIES, SCARVES, STOCKINGS, SHAWLS, SOCKS, GLOVES FOR PROTECTION AGAINST THE COLD, BELTS ]
Mark Drawing Code
        (3) DESIGN PLUS WORDS, LETTERS, AND/OR NUMBERS
Design Code
        26.01.01 - Circles as carriers or as single line borders
        26.01.08 - Circles having letters or numerals as a border; Circles having punctuation as a border; Letters, numerals or punctuation forming or bordering the perimeter of a circle
        26.01.11 - Circles comprised of animals; Circles comprised of geometric figures; Circles comprised of humans; Circles comprised of letters or numerals; Circles comprised of plants; Circles comprised of punctuation; Letters, numerals, punctuation, geometric figures, objects, humans, plants or animals comprising a circle
        26.01.21 - Circles that are totally or partially shaded.
Serial Number
        76049261
Filing Date
        May 16, 2000
Current Filing Basis
        44E
Original Filing Basis
        1B;44E
Publication for Opposition Date
        February 24, 2004
Change in Registration
        CHANGE IN REGISTRATION HAS OCCURRED
Registration Number
        2842075
Registration Date
        May 18, 2004
Owner Name and Address
        (REGISTRANT) Sennheiser Electronic Gmh & Co. KG CORPORATION FED REP GERMANY Am Labor 1 Wedenmark FED REP GERMANY 30900
Description of Mark
        Color is not claimed as a feature of the mark.
Type of Mark
        TRADEMARK
Register
        PRINCIPAL
Affidavit Text
        SECT 15. PARTIAL SECT 8 (6-YR). SECTION 8(10-YR) 20130801.
Renewal
        1ST RENEWAL 20130801
Live Dead Indicator
        LIVE
Attorney of Record
        Anthony J. Malutta