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: 2/12/2016

 

TEAS PLUS OR TEAS REDUCED FEE (TEAS RF) APPLICANTS – TO MAINTAIN LOWER FEE, ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS MUST BE MET, INCLUDING SUBMITTING DOCUMENTS ONLINE:  Applicants who filed their application online using the lower-fee TEAS Plus or TEAS RF application form must (1) file certain documents online using TEAS, including responses to Office actions (see TMEP §§819.02(b), 820.02(b) for a complete list of these documents); (2) maintain a valid e-mail correspondence address; and (3) agree to receive correspondence from the USPTO by e-mail throughout the prosecution of the application.  See 37 C.F.R. §§2.22(b), 2.23(b); TMEP §§819, 820.  TEAS Plus or TEAS RF applicants who do not meet these requirements must submit an additional processing fee of $50 per international class of goods and/or services.  37 C.F.R. §§2.6(a)(1)(v), 2.22(c), 2.23(c); TMEP §§819.04, 820.04.  However, in certain situations, TEAS Plus or TEAS RF applicants may respond to an Office action by authorizing an examiner’s amendment by telephone without incurring this additional fee. 

 

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(a), 2.65(a); TMEP §§711, 718.03.

 

Prior Pending Applications

 

The filing dates of pending U.S. Application Serial Nos. 86358061 and 86785387 precede applicant’s filing date.  See attached referenced applications.  If one or more of the marks in the referenced applications register, applicant’s mark may be refused registration under Trademark Act Section 2(d) because of a likelihood of confusion with the registered mark(s).  See 15 U.S.C. §1052(d); 37 C.F.R. §2.83; TMEP §§1208 et seq.  Therefore, upon receipt of applicant’s response to this Office action, action on this application may be suspended pending final disposition of the earlier-filed referenced applications.

 

In response to this Office action, applicant may present arguments in support of registration by addressing the issue of the potential conflict between applicant’s mark and the marks in the referenced applications.  Applicant’s election not to submit arguments at this time in no way limits applicant’s right to address this issue later if a refusal under Section 2(d) issues.

 

Registration Refused-Likelihood of Confusion

 

The examining attorney refuses registration under Trademark Act Section 2(d), 15 U.S.C. Section 1052(d), because the applicant's mark, when used on or in connection with the identified goods, so resembles the mark in U.S. Registration No. 1765940 as to be likely to cause confusion, to cause mistake, or to deceive.  TMEP section 1207.  See the enclosed registration.

 

Taking into account the relevant du Pont factors, a likelihood of confusion determination in this case involves a two-part analysis.  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).

 

The applicant applied to register CRAFT for “Clothing, footwear and headgear, namely, socks, underwear, trousers, jackets, anoraks, sweatsuits, sweatpants, sweatshirts, sweaters, mittens, gloves, caps, sun visors (headwear), mufflers, shorts, vests, t-shirts, tennis shirts, coveralls, shoes, sandals, hooded sweatshirts, shoe covers for use when wearing shoes, leg and sleeve warmers, training shoes for indoor and outdoor use” in Class 25.

 

The registered mark is CRAFT for “Socks, underwear, trousers, jackets, anoraks, sweatsuits, sweatpants, sweatshirts, sweaters, mittens, caps, mufflers, shorts, vests, t-shirts, tennis shirts, and warmup suits” in Class 25.

 

The marks are highly similar in sound, appearance, and meaning because both marks are comprised of the same dominant portion: CRAFT. 

 

Both marks are used to identify identical goods.  The same consumers will be exposed to the goods identified with both marks because both are identical clothing items, and likely to travel through the same channels of trade to the same classes of purchasers.   For example, both would likely be sold at clothing stores. 

 

In a likelihood of confusion analysis, the comparison of the parties’ goods and/or services is based on the goods and/or services as they are identified in the application and registration, without limitations or restrictions that are not reflected therein.  In re Dakin’s Miniatures, Inc., 59 USPQ2d 1593, 1595 (TTAB 1999); see Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Packard Press Inc., 281 F.3d 1261, 1267-68, 62 USPQ2d 1001, 1004-05 (Fed. Cir. 2002); In re Thor Tech, Inc., 90 USPQ2d 1634, 1638-39 (TTAB 2009); TMEP §1207.01(a)(iii). 

 

In the present case, applicant’s goods/services and registrant’s goods/services are identical, and so it is presumed that they move in all normal channels of trade and are available to all potential customers.  See Citigroup Inc. v. Capital City Bank Grp., Inc., 637 F.3d 1344, 1356, 98 USPQ2d 1253, 1261 (Fed. Cir. 2011); In re La Peregrina Ltd., 86 USPQ2d 1645, 1646 (TTAB 2008); TMEP §1207.01(a)(iii).

 

Accordingly, the goods/services are considered related for purposes of the likelihood of confusion analysis.  

 

The similarities among the marks and the goods/services of the parties are so great as to create a likelihood of confusion.  The examining attorney must resolve any doubt as to the issue or likelihood of confusion in favor of the registrant and against the applicant who has a legal duty to select a mark which is totally dissimilar to trademarks already being used.  Burroughs Wellcome Co. v. Warner-Lamber Co., 203 USPQ 191 (TTAB 1979).

 

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.

 

If the applicant chooses to respond to the refusal to register, the applicant must also respond to the following issues.

 

Ownership of Cited Registration

 

The cited registration appears to be related to applicant, though technically a different legal entity.

 

If the mark in the cited registration has been assigned to applicant, applicant may provide evidence of ownership of the mark by satisfying one of the following:

 

(1)  Record the assignment with the USPTO’s Assignment Recordation Branch (ownership transfer documents such as assignments can be filed online at http://etas.uspto.gov) and promptly notify the trademark examining attorney that the assignment has been duly recorded.

 

(2)  Submit copies of documents evidencing the chain of title.

 

(3)  Submit the following statement, verified with an affidavit or signed declaration under 37 C.F.R. §2.20:  “Applicant is the owner of U.S. Registration No. 1765940.” 

 

TMEP §812.01; see 15 U.S.C. §1060; 37 C.F.R. §§2.193(e)(1), 3.25, 3.73(a)-(b); TMEP §502.02(a).

 

Recording a document with the Assignment Recordation Branch does not constitute a response to an Office action.  TMEP §503.01(d).

 

Identification of Goods

 

The wording in the identification of goods must be clarified because it is too broad and could include goods in other international classes.  See TMEP §§1402.01, 1402.03. 

 

For example, the term “Padlocks” is indefinite because the material composition of the locks has not been indicated.  Goods of this type, if made of metal, are Class 6 goods.  Electronic locks are Class 9 goods, and non-metal locks are classified in Class 20.

 

In the identification, the applicant must use the common commercial names for the goods, be as complete and specific as possible and avoid the use of indefinite words and phrases. If the applicant chooses to use indefinite terms, such as “accessories,” “components,” “devices,” “equipment,” “materials,” “parts,” “systems,” and “products,” then those words must be followed by the word “namely” and the goods listed by their common commercial names. TMEP section 1402.

 

The applicant may amend this wording to the following, if accurate:

 

Class 3:           “Shampoos; hair conditioners; non-medicated moisturizing skin cream for cosmetic purposes; lip balm; skin lotion”.

 

Class 6:           “Metal padlocks”.

 

Class 9:           “Optics, namely, spectacles; protective eyewear; goggles for sports; spectacle frames; sunglasses; bicycle helmets”.

 

Class 18:         “Bags for sports; umbrellas; walking sticks; travelling bags; handbags; back packs; pocket wallets”. [acceptable as submitted]

 

Class 21:         “Plastic water bottles sold empty”. [acceptable as submitted]

 

Class 25:         “Clothing, footwear and headgear, namely, socks, underwear, trousers, jackets, anoraks, sweatsuits, sweatpants, sweatshirts, sweaters, mittens, gloves, caps, sun visors, mufflers, shorts, vests, t-shirts, tennis shirts, coveralls, shoes, sandals, hooded sweatshirts, shoe covers for use when wearing shoes, leg and arm warmers, training shoes for indoor and outdoor use”.

 

Class 27:         “Gymnasium exercise mats”.

 

Class 28:         “Sports equipment, namely, dumb-bells, exercise balls for use in pilates, exercise treadmills, exercise machines, and personal exercise mats”.

 

Class 30:         “Energy food products, namely, cereal based energy bars, ready-to-eat sports energy gels and sports energy bars made primarily from maltodextrin, fructose, electrolytes and flavorings”.

 

Class 32:         “Sports drinks; sports drinks containing electrolytes; sports drinks, namely, recovery drinks; aromatized beverages based on fruit, protein, cordial, sugar and other fluid nutrients, namely, carbohydrates drinks for use as food fillers; non-alcoholic drinks, namely, energy shots”.

 

See TMEP section 1402.01.

 

For the applicant’s convenience, the Trademark Acceptable Identification of Goods and Services Manual on the office’s website at http://tess2.gov.uspto.report/netahtml/tidm.html offers a searchable list of acceptable identifications and classifications. The Manual is a useful resource and guide, but it is not an exhaustive list of every acceptable identification.

 

Please note that, while an application may be amended to clarify or limit the identification, additions to the identification are not permitted.  37 C.F.R. Section 2.71(a); TMEP section 804.09.  Therefore, the applicant may not amend to include any goods that are not within the scope of goods set forth in the present identification.

 

Dual Bases—Section 44(d) and 1(b)

 

If applicant wishes to proceed relying on the applicant’s intent to use the mark in commerce under Trademark Act Section 1(b) as the sole basis for registration, with the claim of priority under Section 44(d), then applicant should so advise the trademark examining attorney.  TMEP §§806.02(f) and 806.04(b).  If applicant chooses to do so, this Office will approve the mark for publication without waiting for applicant to submit a copy of the foreign registration, once all other outstanding issues are resolved.  Moreover, while the application may be approved for publication, the mark will not register until after an acceptable allegation of use has been filed.

 

If applicant does not indicate otherwise, this Office will presume that applicant wishes to rely on the foreign registration as an additional basis for registration and will require applicant to submit the copy of the foreign registration and, if appropriate, an English translation signed by the translator.  TMEP §§1004.01 and 1004.01(b).

 

Telephone or Email Response

 

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(s) and/or requirement(s) 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.

 

 

 

/James Ringle/ 

Trademark Attorney

Law Office 111

571-272-9393

jim.ringle@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.