To: | Jayden Star LLC (JSalen@SheppardMullin.com) |
Subject: | U.S. TRADEMARK APPLICATION NO. 86963759 - CHROMA - 41DY-240412 - Request for Reconsideration Denied - Return to TTAB |
Sent: | 8/24/2017 7:54:55 PM |
Sent As: | ECOM114@USPTO.GOV |
Attachments: | Attachment - 1 Attachment - 2 Attachment - 3 Attachment - 4 |
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE (USPTO)
OFFICE ACTION (OFFICIAL LETTER) ABOUT APPLICANT’S TRADEMARK APPLICATION
U.S. APPLICATION SERIAL NO. 86963759
MARK: CHROMA
|
|
CORRESPONDENT ADDRESS: SHEPPARD MULLIN RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP |
GENERAL TRADEMARK INFORMATION: http://www.gov.uspto.report/trademarks/index.jsp
|
APPLICANT: Jayden Star LLC
|
|
CORRESPONDENT’S REFERENCE/DOCKET NO: CORRESPONDENT E-MAIL ADDRESS: |
|
REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION DENIED
ISSUE/MAILING DATE: 8/24/2017
The trademark examining attorney has carefully reviewed applicant’s request for reconsideration and is denying the request for the reasons stated below. See 37 C.F.R. §2.63(b)(3); TMEP §§715.03(a)(ii)(B), 715.04(a). The Section 2(d) refusal made final in the Office action dated February 6, 2017, is maintained and continues to be final. See TMEP §§715.03(a)(ii)(B), 715.04(a).
In the present case, applicant’s request has not resolved all the outstanding issue(s), nor does it raise a new issue or provide any new or compelling evidence with regard to the outstanding issue(s) in the final Office action.
The argument that the marks differ in appearance and connotation is unpersuasive because similarity in sound alone is sufficient for a finding of likelihood of confusion. Further, the connotation of the two marks is the same for many Americans considering that Hindi is one of the top languages in the United States, according to the attached evidence (Retrieved from http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:MUYMcrpiKHQJ:www.worldatlas.com/articles/the-most-spoken-languages-in-america.html+&cd=15&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us; on August 24, 2017, at 7:21pm EST). The Doctrine of Foreign Equivalents renders the marks similar in connotation because a large population of Americans will translate the Hindi word.
Applicant also argues that the trade channels differ. However, neither identification reflects these limitations.
Applicant’s analysis and arguments have been addressed and are unpersuasive, nor do they shed new light on the issues. Accordingly, the request is denied.
If applicant has already filed a timely notice of appeal with the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board, the Board will be notified to resume the appeal. See TMEP §715.04(a).
If no appeal has been filed and time remains in the six-month response period to the final Office action, applicant has the remainder of the response period to (1) comply with and/or overcome any outstanding final requirement(s) and/or refusal(s), and/or (2) file a notice of appeal to the Board. TMEP §715.03(a)(ii)(B); see 37 C.F.R. §2.63(b)(1)-(3). The filing of a request for reconsideration does not stay or extend the time for filing an appeal. 37 C.F.R. §2.63(b)(3); see TMEP §§715.03, 715.03(a)(ii)(B), (c).
/Shaila E. Lewis/
Trademark Examining Attorney
Law Office 114
(571) 270-1527 (tel.)
(571) 270-2527 (fax)
shaila.lewis@uspto.gov