To: | Oppo Medical Inc. (chiusptomail@bakermckenzie.com) |
Subject: | U.S. TRADEMARK APPLICATION NO. 86295091 - OPPO - 140482 |
Sent: | 9/15/2014 2:39:39 PM |
Sent As: | ECOM116@USPTO.GOV |
Attachments: | Attachment - 1 Attachment - 2 Attachment - 3 Attachment - 4 Attachment - 5 Attachment - 6 Attachment - 7 Attachment - 8 Attachment - 9 Attachment - 10 Attachment - 11 |
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE (USPTO)
OFFICE ACTION (OFFICIAL LETTER) ABOUT APPLICANT’S TRADEMARK APPLICATION
U.S. APPLICATION SERIAL NO. 86295091
MARK: OPPO
|
|
CORRESPONDENT ADDRESS: |
CLICK HERE TO RESPOND TO THIS LETTER: http://www.gov.uspto.report/trademarks/teas/response_forms.jsp
|
APPLICANT: Oppo Medical Inc.
|
|
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: 9/15/2014
The referenced application has been reviewed by the assigned trademark examining attorney. Applicant must respond timely and completely to the issues below. 15 U.S.C. §1062(b); 37 C.F.R. §§2.62(a), 2.65(a); TMEP §§711, 718.03.
SECTION 2(d) REFUSAL – 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. 4508756. 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 a potential consumer would be confused, mistaken, or deceived as to the source of the goods 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, 177 USPQ 563 (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 this case, the following factors are the most relevant: similarity of the marks, similarity and nature of the goods, and similarity of the trade channels of the goods. See In re Viterra Inc., 671 F.3d 1358, 1361-62, 101 USPQ2d 1905, 1908 (Fed. Cir. 2012); In re Dakin’s Miniatures Inc., 59 USPQ2d 1593, 1595-96 (TTAB 1999); TMEP §§1207.01 et seq.
Comparison of the Marks
In the present case, applicant’s mark is “OPPO” with design for “Clothes (Clothing); shoes and boots (footwear); hats and caps (headwear); sports clothes; tight fitted clothing, socks, and stockings; shoe inserts; gloves as clothing accessories; cold-proof gloves; sleeping eye masks; puttees, underclothing, undergarments, shorts, tights, athletic support tops, tops, girdles, compression shirts, compression shorts, compression pants, sleeves, leggings, wrist bands” in Class 025.
The registrant’s mark is “OPPO SUITS” with design for “Clothing, namely suits, blazers, trousers, pants, waistcoats, shirts, T-shirts, ties, bow ties, socks and underwear; footwear, namely shoes and sneakers; headgear, namely hats and caps” in Class 025.
Additionally, with regard to the literary components of the marks, incorporating the entirety of one mark within another does not obviate the similarity between the compared marks, as in the present case, nor does it overcome a likelihood of confusion under Section 2(d). See Wella Corp. v. Cal. Concept Corp., 558 F.2d 1019, 1022, 194 USPQ 419, 422 (C.C.P.A. 1977) (finding CALIFORNIA CONCEPT and surfer design and CONCEPT confusingly similar); Coca-Cola Bottling Co. v. Jos. E. Seagram & Sons, Inc., 526 F.2d 556, 557, 188 USPQ 105, 106 (C.C.P.A. 1975) (finding BENGAL and BENGAL LANCER and design confusingly similar); Hunter Indus., Inc. v. Toro Co., ___ USPQ2d ___, ___, Opp’n No. 91203612, 2014 TTAB LEXIS 105, at *33 (Mar. 31, 2014) (finding PRECISION and PRECISION DISTRIBUTION CONTROL confusingly similar); TMEP §1207.01(b)(iii). In the present case, the literary components of the marks are identical in part.
As such, the marks are so similar in their appearance, sound, connotation and commercial impression, that there is a likelihood of confusion. Therefore, the similarity prong of the test to determine likelihood of confusion is satisfied.
Comparison of the Goods
The respective goods need only be “related in some manner and/or if the circumstances surrounding their marketing [be] 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)); Gen. Mills Inc. v. Fage Dairy Processing Indus. SA, 100 USPQ2d 1584, 1597 (TTAB 2011); TMEP §1207.01(a)(i).
Based on the aforementioned standard, the applicant’s goods are closely related to the registrant’s goods because they could be marketed and sold together and/or in the same channels of trade. Specifically, both parties provide clothing that is identical in part, and otherwise closely related.
Accordingly, because confusion as to source is likely, registration is refused under Trademark Act Section 2(d) based on a likelihood of confusion.
Although applicant’s mark has been refused registration, applicant may respond to the refusal by submitting evidence and arguments in support of registration.
However, applicant must respond to the following requirements.
Identification of Goods
Applicant submitted the following identification of goods:
Class 025: Clothes (Clothing); shoes and boots (footwear); hats and caps (headwear); sports clothes; tight fitted clothing, socks, and stockings; shoe inserts; gloves as clothing accessories; cold-proof gloves; sleeping eye masks; puttees, underclothing, undergarments, shorts, tights, athletic support tops, tops, girdles, compression shirts, compression shorts, compression pants, sleeves, leggings, wrist bands
The identification of goods and/or services contains parentheses. Generally, parentheses and brackets should not be used in identifications. Parenthetical information is permitted in identifications only if it serves to explain or translate the matter immediately preceding the parenthetical phrase in such a way that it does not affect the clarity of the identification, e.g., “obi (Japanese sash).” TMEP §1402.12.
Therefore, applicant must remove the parentheses from the identification of goods and/or services and incorporate the parenthetical information into the description.
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).
Lastly, applicant must further specify the nature of the wording “shoe inserts”, “puttees”, “sleeves” as explained below. See TMEP §§1402.01, 1402.03.
Applicant may substitute the following wording, if accurate:
Class 025: Clothing, namely, {specify items, i.e., shirts, shorts, pants, dresses, etc.}; shoes and boots; hats and caps; sports clothes, namely, {specify items, i.e., shirts, shorts, pants, etc.}; tight fitted clothing, namely, {specify items, i.e., shirts, shorts, pants, dresses, etc.}; socks, and stockings; shoe inserts - {further specify, i.e., polymer custom cushioned shoe inserts for primarily non-orthopedic purposes; shoe inserts for primarily non-orthopedic purposes; shoe inserts for primarily non-orthopedic purposes that also deodorize shoes}; gloves as clothing accessories; cold-proof gloves; sleeping eye masks; puttees – {specify common commercial name}, underclothing, undergarments, shorts, tights, athletic support tops, tops, girdles, compression shirts, compression shorts, compression pants, sleeves - {further specify nature of “sleeves”, i.e., athletic sleeves, long sleeve pullovers, sleeves worn separate and apart from blouses, shirts and other tops, sports shirts with short sleeves}, leggings, wrist bands
Scope Advisory
An applicant may only amend an identification to clarify or limit the goods, but not to add to or broaden the scope of the goods. 37 C.F.R. §2.71(a); see TMEP §§1402.06 et seq., 1402.07.
For assistance with identifying and classifying goods and services in trademark applications, please see the USPTO’s online searchable U.S. Acceptable Identification of Goods and Services Manual at http://tess2.gov.uspto.report/netahtml/tidm.html. See TMEP §1402.04.
Multiple-Class Application Advisory
(1) List the goods and/or services by their international class number in consecutive numerical order, starting with the lowest numbered class.
(2) Submit a filing fee for each international class not covered by the fee(s) already paid (view the USPTO’s current fee schedule at http://www.gov.uspto.report/trademarks/tm_fee_info.jsp). The application identifies goods and/or services that are classified in at least four classes; however, applicant submitted a fee(s) sufficient for only one class(es). Applicant must either submit the filing fees for the classes not covered by the submitted fees or restrict the application to the number of classes covered by the fees already paid.
See 15 U.S.C. §§1051(b), 1112, 1126(e); 37 C.F.R. §§2.32(a)(6)-(7), 2.34(a)(2)-(3), 2.86(a); TMEP §§1403.01, 1403.02(c).
For an overview of the requirements for a Section 1(b) multiple-class application and how to satisfy the requirements online using the Trademark Electronic Application System (TEAS) form, please go to http://www.gov.uspto.report/trademarks/law/multiclass.jsp.
Fee Advisory
The filing fees for adding classes to an application are as follows:
(1) A $325 fee per class, when the fees are submitted with an electronic response filed online at http://www.gov.uspto.report/trademarks/teas/response_forms.jsp, via the Trademark Electronic Application System (TEAS).
(2) A $375 fee per class, when the fees are submitted with a paper response.
37 C.F.R. §2.6(a)(1)(i)-(ii); TMEP §§810, 1403.02(c).
Entity / State or Country of Incorporation Omitted
If applicant’s entity type is an individual, applicant must indicate his or her national citizenship for the record. 37 C.F.R. §2.32(a)(3)(i); TMEP §803.04.
If applicant’s entity type is a corporation, association, partnership, joint venture, or the foreign equivalent, applicant must set forth the U.S. state or foreign country under whose laws applicant is organized or incorporated. 37 C.F.R. §2.32(a)(3)(ii); TMEP §§803.03(b)-(c), 803.04. In addition, if applicant is a U.S. partnership or joint venture, applicant must list the names, legal entities and national citizenship or the U.S. state or foreign country of organization or incorporation of all the general partners or joint venturers. 37 C.F.R. §2.32(a)(3)(ii)-(iv); TMEP §§803.03(b), 803.04. For an association, applicant must also specify whether the association is incorporated or unincorporated. TMEP §803.03(c).
Description of the Mark
Therefore, applicant must provide a more complete description of the applied-for mark. The following is suggested:
The mark consists of human shape with circular head shape on top divided down the center, all above the wording “OPPO”.
Significance of the Wording
Failure to respond to a request for information is an additional ground for refusing registration. See In re Cheezwhse.com, Inc., 85 USPQ2d 1917, 1919 (TTAB 2008); In re DTI P’ship LLP, 67 USPQ2d 1699, 1701 (TTAB 2003); TMEP §814.
Ownership of Prior Registrations
Applicant may use the following format to claim ownership of these registrations:
Applicant is the owner of U.S. Registration Nos. 2636576 and 3002520.
If applicant has questions regarding this Office action, please telephone or e-mail the assigned trademark examining attorney. All relevant e-mail communications will be placed in the official application record; however, an e-mail communication will not be accepted as a response to this Office action and will not extend the deadline for filing a proper response. See 37 C.F.R. §2.191; TMEP §§304.01-.02, 709.04-.05. Further, although the trademark examining attorney may provide additional explanation pertaining to the refusal and requirements in this Office action, the trademark examining attorney may not provide legal advice or statements about applicant’s rights. See TMEP §§705.02, 709.06.
Tamara Frazier
Trademark Attorney
Law Office 116
(571) 272-8256
tamara.frazier@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.