To: | Integrated Beverage Group LLC (ccusick@cusickip.com) |
Subject: | U.S. TRADEMARK APPLICATION NO. 86878585 - GALLANT - 2165-188 |
Sent: | 5/5/2016 4:39:55 PM |
Sent As: | ECOM117@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. 86878585
MARK: GALLANT
|
|
CORRESPONDENT ADDRESS: |
CLICK HERE TO RESPOND TO THIS LETTER: http://www.gov.uspto.report/trademarks/teas/response_forms.jsp
|
APPLICANT: Integrated Beverage Group 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: 5/5/2016
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.
SUMMARY OF ISSUES that applicant must address:
SECTION 2(d) REFUSAL – LIKELIHOOD OF CONFUSION
Applicant’s mark is “GALLANT” for “wine” in International Class 33.
Registrant’s mark is “T’GALLANT” for “wines” in International Class 33.
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.
A) Similarities of the Marks
Here, applicant’s mark “GALLANT” is highly similar in sound, appearance, and overall commercial impression to registrant’s “T’GALLANT” mark. Both marks include the dominant term “GALLANT” and marks may be confusingly similar in appearance where similar terms appear in the compared marks and create a similar overall commercial impression. See Crocker Nat’l Bank v. Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce, 228 USPQ 689, 690-91 (TTAB 1986), aff’d sub nom. Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce v. Wells Fargo Bank, Nat’l Ass’n, 811 F.2d 1490, 1495, 1 USPQ2d 1813, 1817 (Fed. Cir. 1987) (finding COMMCASH and COMMUNICASH confusingly similar); In re Corning Glass Works, 229 USPQ 65, 66 (TTAB 1985) (finding CONFIRM and CONFIRMCELLS confusingly similar); In re Pellerin Milnor Corp., 221 USPQ 558, 560 (TTAB 1983) (finding MILTRON and MILLTRONICS confusingly similar); TMEP §1207.01(b)(ii)-(iii).
Registrant’s mark wholly incorporates the entirety of applicant’s mark. Likelihood of confusion has frequently been found where one mark incorporates the entirety of another mark. See, e.g., Coca-Cola Bottling Co. v. Joseph E. Seagram & Sons, Inc., 526 F.2d 556, 188 U.S.P.Q. 105, 106 (C.C.P.A. 1975) (BENGAL for gin and BENGAL LANCER for nonalcoholic club soda, quinine water and ginger ale); Johnson Publ’g Co. v. Int’l Dev. Ltd., 221 U.S.P.Q. 155, 156 (TTAB 1982) (EBONY for cosmetics and EBONY DRUM for hairdressing and conditioner); In re S. Bend Toy Mfg. Co., 218 U.S.P.Q. 479, 480 (TTAB 1983) (LIL’ LADY BUG for toy doll carriages and LITTLE LADY for doll clothing); Helga, Inc. v. Helga Howie, Inc., 182 U.S.P.Q. 629, 630 (TTAB 1974) (HELGA for women’s clothing and HELGA HOWIE for women’s clothing); In re Hepperle, 175 U.S.P.Q. 512, 512 (TTAB 1972) (applicant’s mark ACAPULCO GOLD for suntan lotion is likely to cause confusion with ACAPULCO for lipstick and powder).
In effect, applicant merely deleted the letter “T” from registrant’s mark. The mere deletion of wording or lettering from a registered mark may not be sufficient to overcome a likelihood of confusion. See In re Mighty Leaf Tea, 601 F.3d 1342, 94 USPQ2d 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2010); In re Optica Int’l, 196 USPQ 775, 778 (TTAB 1977); TMEP §1207.01(b)(ii)-(iii). Applicant’s mark does not create a distinct commercial impression because it contains the same common wording as the registered mark, and there is no other wording to distinguish it from the registered mark.
In this case, consumers will likely focus on “GALLANT” in applicant’s mark and may confuse the mark with registrant’s “T’GALLANT” mark, especially since the goods of the respective parties are identical.
Therefore, the marks are similar for Section 2(d) Likelihood of Confusion purposes.
B) Relatedness of the Goods
Absent restrictions in an application and/or registration, the identified goods are presumed to travel in the same channels of trade to the same class of purchasers. Citigroup Inc. v. Capital City Bank Grp., Inc., 637 F.3d 1344, 1356, 98 USPQ2d 1253, 1261 (Fed. Cir. 2011); Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Packard Press Inc., 281 F.3d at 1268, 62 USPQ2d at 1005. Additionally, unrestricted and broad identifications are presumed to encompass all goods of the type described. See In re Jump Designs, 80 USPQ2d 1370, 1374 (TTAB 2006); In re Linkvest S.A., 24 USPQ2d 1716, 1716 (TTAB 1992).
In this case, the identifications set forth in the application and registration are identical (i.e., “wine”) and have no restrictions as to nature, type, channels of trade, or classes of purchasers. Therefore, it is presumed that these goods travel in all normal channels of trade, and are available to the same class of purchasers. See Midwestern Pet Foods, Inc. v. Societe des Produits Nestle S.A., 685 F.3d 1046, 1053, 103 USPQ2d 1435, 1440 (Fed. Cir. 2012).
Accordingly, the goods of applicant and the registrant are considered related for purposes of the likelihood of confusion analysis.
Therefore, applicant’s mark is refused under Trademark Act Section 2(d) for likelihood of confusion.
ENTITY UNCERTAIN
If applicant is a limited liability company, applicant must amend the entity type and provide the U.S. state under whose laws it is organized. Id. If applicant is a corporation, applicant must provide the legal name of the corporation and U.S. state or foreign country of incorporation or organization. See 37 C.F.R. §2.32(a)(2), (a)(3)(ii); TMEP §§803.02(c), 803.03(c).
If, in response to the above request, applicant provides information indicating that it is not the owner of the mark, registration will be refused under Trademark Act Section 1 because the application was void as filed. An application must be filed by the owner of the mark. 15 U.S.C. §1051; 37 C.F.R. §2.71(d); TMEP §§803.01, 803.06, 1201.02(b).
RESPONSE GUIDELINES
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.
/Eric Sable/
Law Office 117
571-272-4653
Eric.Sable@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.