To: | Jewelry For A Cause, LLC (lleibo@optonline.net) |
Subject: | U.S. TRADEMARK APPLICATION NO. 86039697 - CALIBER - N/A |
Sent: | 12/2/2013 6:08:20 PM |
Sent As: | ECOM103@USPTO.GOV |
Attachments: | Attachment - 1 Attachment - 2 Attachment - 3 |
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE (USPTO)
OFFICE ACTION (OFFICIAL LETTER) ABOUT APPLICANT’S TRADEMARK APPLICATION
U.S. APPLICATION SERIAL NO. 86039697
MARK: CALIBER
|
|
CORRESPONDENT ADDRESS: |
CLICK HERE TO RESPOND TO THIS LETTER: http://www.gov.uspto.report/trademarks/teas/response_forms.jsp
|
APPLICANT: Jewelry For A Cause, LLC
|
|
CORRESPONDENT’S REFERENCE/DOCKET NO: CORRESPONDENT E-MAIL ADDRESS: |
|
OFFICE ACTION
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: 12/2/2013
Introduction
Section 2(d) Refusal Based on Likelihood of Confusion
The likelihood of confusion refusal applies only to Class 025.
Registration of the applied-for mark is refused because of a likelihood of confusion with the mark(s) in U.S. Registration No(s). 3664475. Trademark Act Section 2(d), 15 U.S.C. §1052(d); see TMEP §§1207.01 et seq. See the enclosed registration(s).
General Principles in Determining Likelihood of Confusion
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 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).
Comparison of the Mark(s)
Applicant’s mark CALIBER in standard characters and the registered mark(s) CALIBER CLOTHING COMPANY standard characters are highly similar, because they share the same term CALIBER. The additional wording/term CLOTHING COMPANY in registrant’s mark does not obviate the likelihood of confusion, because the term is descriptive and has been disclaimed. 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 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 1056, 1060, 224 USPQ 749, 752 (Fed. Cir. 1985); TMEP §1207.01(b)(viii), (c)(ii).
Marks may be confusingly similar in appearance where there are similar terms or phrases or similar parts of terms or phrases 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). In this case, both marks contain the same dominant term CALIBER.
Comparison of Goods/Services
The goods and/or services 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 and/or services would be encountered by the same consumers under circumstances such that offering the goods and/or services 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).
Response Guidelines
Identification of Goods/Services
Identifications for Classes 014 and 020 are accepted.
If applicant’s clothing is classified in International Class 25, applicant should insert the word “namely,” after “clothing” and indicate the specific types of clothing items (e.g., shirts, pants, coats, dresses).
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.
Dates of Use
Therefore, applicant must specify the date of first use of the mark anywhere. If the date of first use anywhere differs from the date of first use in commerce, applicant must verify the date of first use anywhere with an affidavit or signed declaration under 37 C.F.R. §2.20. See 37 C.F.R. §§2.71(c), 2.193(e)(1); TMEP §903.04. However, if the date of first use anywhere is the same as the date of first use in commerce, applicant need not verify the date of first use anywhere. TMEP §903.04.
Examples of specimens for goods may include tags, labels, instruction manuals, containers, and photographs that show the mark on the actual goods or packaging, or displays associated with the actual goods at their point of sale. See TMEP §§904.03 et seq. Webpages may also be specimens for goods when they include a picture or textual description of the goods associated with the mark and the means to order the goods. TMEP §904.03(i). Examples of specimens for services may include advertising and marketing materials, brochures, photographs of business signage and billboards, and website printouts that show the mark used in the actual sale, rendering, or advertising of the services. See TMEP §§1301.04 et seq.
Applicant may respond to this refusal by satisfying one of the following:
(1) Submit a verified specimen that was in actual use in commerce at least as early as the filing date of the application.
(2) Amend the filing basis to intent to use under Section 1(b), for which no specimen is required. This option will later necessitate additional fee(s) and filing requirements such as providing a specimen at a subsequent date.
For an overview of both response options referenced above and instructions on how to satisfy either option online using the Trademark Electronic Application System (TEAS) form, please go to http://www.gov.uspto.report/trademarks/law/S4.jsp.
Declaration
To submit a verified substitute specimen online via the Trademark Electronic Application System (TEAS), applicant should do the following: (1) answer “yes” to the TEAS response form wizard questions to “submit a new or substitute specimen” and for a “signed declaration,” respectively; (2) attach a jpg or pdf file of the substitute specimen; (3) select the statement that “The substitute specimen(s) was in use in commerce at least as early as the filing date of the application.”; and (4) properly sign the declaration appearing towards the end of the TEAS response form.
To sign the declaration at the end of the TEAS response form, applicant can do one of the following: (1) enter in the signature block any combination of letters, numbers, spaces and/or punctuation marks that the filer has adopted as a signature, placed between two forward slash (/) symbols (e.g., /john doe/); (2) e-mail the completed form from within TEAS to a second party for his/her electronic signature, which will then be automatically returned to the original preparer for submission with the response form; or (3) attach a jpg or pdf image of a declaration under 37 C.F.R. §2.20 together with a pen-and-ink signature. See 37 C.F.R. §§2.33(d), 2.59(a), 2.193(c)(1)(iii); TMEP §804.05. When signing the declaration, applicant must either personally sign or manually enter his/her electronic signature and provide the date of “signing.” TMEP §804.05; see TMEP §804.01(b). Applicant should also set forth the signatory’s name and position beneath the signature. See TMEP §§712 et seq., 804.05.
If applicant experiences difficulty in submitting the required substitute specimen, supporting statement and/or declaration, please e-mail TEAS@uspto.gov for technical assistance regarding the TEAS response form.
/W. Wendy Jun/
Trademark Examining Attorney
Law Office 103
United States Patent and Trademark Office
571-272-8810
wendy.jun@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 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.gov.uspto.report/. 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.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.