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: 11/11/2016

 

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, 2.65(a); TMEP §§711, 718.03.

 

Issues to be Addressed

1.    Trademark Act Section 2(d) Refusal – Likelihood of Confusion

2.    Trademark Act Section 2(e)(2) Refusal- Mark is Primarily Geographically Descriptive

 

Trademark Act Section 2(d) Refusal – Likelihood of Confusion

 

Registration of the applied-for mark is refused because of a likelihood of confusion with the marks in U.S. Registration Nos. 4382457 and 4500883.  Trademark Act Section 2(d), 15 U.S.C. §1052(d); see TMEP §§1207.01 et seq.  See the enclosed registrations.

 

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 services 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, 1361, 177 USPQ 563, 567 (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 services, and similarity of the trade channels of the services.  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.

 

Facts:

 

Applicant proposes the standard character mark “CHARLOTTE” in connection with the Class 38 services:  “Communications by means of mobile phones; Message sending via a website; Providing on-line chat rooms and electronic bulletin boards for transmission of messages among users in the field of general interest.”

 

Registrant No. 4382457 provides the Class 38 services: “Electronic delivery of images and photographs via a global computer network,” in connection with the mark “CHARLOTTE”.

 

Registrant No. 4500883 provides the relevant Class 38 services: “Electronic delivery of images and photographs via a global computer network,” in connection with the mark “CHARLOTTE”.

 

Both marks are owned by the same Registrant.

 

Similarity of the Marks:

 

In a likelihood of confusion determination, the marks are compared for similarities in their appearance, sound, meaning or connotation and commercial impression.  In re E. I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., 476 F.2d 1357, 1361, 177 USPQ 563, 567 (C.C.P.A. 1973); TMEP §1207.01(b).  Similarity in any one of these elements may be sufficient to find a likelihood of confusion.  In re White Swan Ltd., 8 USPQ2d 1534, 1535 (TTAB 1988); In re Lamson Oil Co., 6 USPQ2d 1041, 1043 (TTAB 1987); see TMEP §1207.01(b).

 

Regarding registration No. 4382458, Applicant’s and Registrant’s marks are identical

 

Regarding registration No. 4500883, Applicant’s subtraction of the term “WEDDING” from Registrant’s “CHARLOTTE WEDDING” to create “CHARLOTTE” does not sufficiently distinguish Applicant’s mark from Registrant’s to avoid a likelihood of confusion in the marketplace.  The mere deletion of wording 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.

 

The dominant literal element present in all of the parties’ marks is “CHARLOTTE.”  Consumers are generally more inclined to focus on the first word, prefix, or syllable in any trademark or service mark.  See Palm Bay Imps., Inc. v. Veuve Clicquot Ponsardin Maison Fondee En 1772, 396 F.3d 1369, 1372, 73 USPQ2d 1689, 1692 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (“VEUVE . . . remains a ‘prominent feature’ as the first word in the mark and the first word to appear on the label”); In re Integrated Embedded, ___ USPQ2d ___, ___, Ser. No. 86140341, 2016 TTAB LEXIS 470, at *30-31 (Sept. 27, 2016) (“[T]he dominance of BARR in [a]pplicant’s mark BARR GROUP is reinforced by its location as the first word in the mark.”); Presto Prods., Inc. v. Nice-Pak Prods., Inc., 9 USPQ2d 1895, 1897 (TTAB 1988) (“it is often the first part of a mark which is most likely to be impressed upon the mind of a purchaser and remembered” when making purchasing decisions).

 

Additionally, where the marks of the respective parties are identical or virtually identical, as in this case, the degree of similarity or relatedness between the services needed to support a finding of likelihood of confusion declines.  See In re i.am.symbolic, llc, 116 USPQ2d 1406, 1411 (TTAB 2015) (citing In re Shell Oil Co., 992 F.2d 1204, 1207, 26 USPQ2d 1687, 1689 (Fed. Cir. 1993)); TMEP §1207.01(a).

 

Comparison of the Services:

 

The respective services of the parties 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)); TMEP §1207.01(a)(i).

 

The services of Applicant and Registrant, where not identical, are commercially related for purposes of a Section 2(d) analysis in that they share similar trade channels and a similar class of purchasers.  Prospective purchasers encountering the marks are likely to believe the services emanate from a common source.  Confusion is likely.

 

The trademark examining attorney has attached evidence from the USPTO’s X-Search database consisting of a number of third-party marks registered for use in connection with the same or similar services as those of both Applicant and Registrant in this case.  This evidence shows that the services listed therein, (see “Facts” section above), are of a kind that may emanate from a single source under a single mark.  See In re Davey Prods. Pty Ltd., 92 USPQ2d 1198, 1203 (TTAB 2009); In re Albert Trostel & Sons Co., 29 USPQ2d 1783, 1785-86 (TTAB 1993); In re Mucky Duck Mustard Co., 6 USPQ2d 1467, 1470 n.6 (TTAB 1988); TMEP §1207.01(d)(iii).

 

Since the marks are similar and the services are related, there is a likelihood of confusion as to the source of Applicant’s services.  Therefore, pursuant to Trademark Act Section 2(d), Applicant’s mark is refused registration.

 

Applicant should note the following additional ground for refusal.

 

Trademark Act Section 2(e)(2) Refusal  -- Primarily Geographically Descriptive

 

Registration is refused because the applied-for mark is primarily geographically descriptive of the origin of Applicant’s services.  Trademark Act Section 2(e)(2), 15 U.S.C. §1052(e)(2); see TMEP §§1210, 1210.01(a).

 

The Applicant applied to register the standard character mark “CHARLOTTE” for “Communications by means of mobile phones; Message sending via a website; Providing on-line chat rooms and electronic bulletin boards for transmission of messages among users in the field of general interest.”

 

A mark is primarily geographically descriptive when the following is demonstrated:

 

(1) The primary significance of the mark is a generally known geographic place or location;

 

(2) The services for which Applicant seeks registration originate in the geographic place identified in the mark; and

 

(3) Purchasers would be likely to make a services-place association; that is, purchasers would be likely to believe that the services originate in the geographic place identified in the mark.

 

TMEP §1210.01(a); see In re Societe Generale des Eaux Minerales de Vittel S.A., 824 F.2d 957, 959, 3 USPQ2d 1450, 1452 (Fed. Cir. 1987); In re Hollywood Lawyers Online, 110 USPQ2d 1852, 1853 (TTAB 2014).

 

The primary significance of the mark is geographic, as it identifies the street address of the Applicant or it’s parent corporation or affiliate.  Given Applicant’s street address being Charlotte, North Carolina, a public association of the services with the place is presumed.  In re JT Tobacconists, 59 USPQ2d 1080 (TTAB 2001); In re U.S. Cargo, Inc., 49 USPQ2d 1702 (TTAB 1998); In re Carolina Apparel, 48 USPQ2d 1542 (TTAB 1998); In re Chalk’s International Airlines Inc., 21 USPQ2d 1637 (TTAB 1991); In re California Pizza Kitchen, 10 USPQ2d 1704 (TTAB 1989); In re Handler Fenton Westerns, Inc., 214 USPQ 848 (TTAB 1982).  TMEP §1210.04(b).  A service that is provided near the geographic place named in the applied-for mark is sufficient to support a finding that the services originate in that geographic location.  See, e.g., In re Spirits of New Merced, LLC, 85 USPQ2d 1614, 1621 (TTAB 2007) (holding YOSEMITE BEER primarily geographically descriptive of beer produced and sold in Merced, California, a city located 80 miles from Yosemite National Park, where the goods originated in an area “located near YOSEMITE”); In re Joint-Stock Co. "Baik," 80 USPQ2d 1305, 1310-11 (TTAB 2006) (holding BAIKALSKAYA, the Russian equivalent of “from Baikal” or “Baikal’s,” primarily geographically descriptive of vodka where Applicant was located near Lake Baikal, and Applicant did not dispute that it produced vodka from a location near and used water from Lake Baikal); see also Warwood v. Hubbard, 228 USPQ 702, 702-03 (Mont. 1985) (holding YELLOWSTONE OUTFITTERS primarily geographically descriptive of outfitting services offered "near Yellowstone Park").

 

The mark immediately names the exact place from which the services emanate, a fact Applicant has stated in their application.  Accordingly, the mark is refused registration on the Principal Register under Section 2(e)(2).   

 

 

The Trademark Trial and Appeal Board has stated that the purpose of Trademark Act Section 2(e)(2) is “to leave geographic names free for all businesses operating in the same area to inform customers where their goods or services originate.”  In re Spirits of New Merced, 85 USPQ2d at 1621 (citing In re MCO Props. Inc., 38 USPQ2d 1154, 1156 (TTAB 1995)).

 

The mark immediately names the geographic location of the services and the place from which they emanate.  Accordingly, the mark is refused registration on the Principal Register as geographically descriptive pursuant to Trademark Act Section 2(e)(2).   

 

Option to Amend to Seek Registration on the Supplemental Register

Although the examining attorney has refused registration on the Principal Register, the Applicant may amend the application to seek registration on the Supplemental Register.  Trademark Act Section 23, 15 U.S.C. Section 1091; 37 C.F.R. Sections 2.47 and 2.75(a); TMEP sections 202.02(b) and 1115.

 Although an amendment to the Supplemental Register would normally be an appropriate response to this refusal, such a response is not appropriate in the present case.  The instant application was filed under Trademark Act Section 1(b), 15 U.S.C. §1051(b), and is not eligible for registration on the Supplemental Register until an acceptable amendment to allege use under 37 C.F.R. §2.76 has been timely filed.  37 C.F.R. §2.47(d); TMEP §§815.02, 816.02 and 1102.03.

If Applicant files an amendment to allege use and also amends to the Supplemental Register, please note that the effective filing date of the application will then be the date of filing of the amendment to allege use.  37 C.F.R. §2.75(b); TMEP §§206.01 and 816.02.

The applied-for mark has been refused registration on the Principal Register.  Applicant may respond to the refusal by submitting evidence and arguments in support of registration and/or by amending the application to seek registration on the Supplemental Register.  See 15 U.S.C. §1091; 37 C.F.R. §§2.47, 2.75(a); TMEP §§801.02(b), 816.  Amending to the Supplemental Register does not preclude Applicant from submitting evidence and arguments against the refusal(s).  TMEP §816.04.

 

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.

 

 

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 or e-mail without incurring this additional fee.  

 

For this application to proceed further, Applicant must explicitly address each refusal and/or requirement raised in this Office action.  If the action includes a refusal, Applicant may provide arguments and/or evidence as to why the refusal should be withdrawn and the mark should register.  Applicant may also have other options for responding to a refusal and should consider such options carefully.  To respond to requirements and certain refusal response options, Applicant should set forth in writing the required changes or statements.  For more information and general tips on responding to USPTO Office actions, response options, and how to file a response online, see “Responding to Office Actions” on the USPTO’s website.

 

If Applicant does not respond to this Office action within six months of the issue/mailing date, or responds by expressly abandoning the application, the application process will end and the trademark will fail to register.  See 15 U.S.C. §1062(b); 37 C.F.R. §§2.65(a), 2.68(a); TMEP §§718.01, 718.02.  Additionally, the USPTO will not refund the application filing fee, which is a required processing fee.  See 37 C.F.R. §§2.6(a)(1)(i)-(iv), 2.209(a); TMEP §405.04.

 

Where the application has been abandoned for failure to respond to an Office action, Applicant’s only option would be to file a timely petition to revive the application, which, if granted, would allow the application to return to active status.  See 37 C.F.R. §2.66; TMEP §1714.  There is a $100 fee for such petitions.  See 37 C.F.R. §§2.6, 2.66(b)(1).

 

 

Because of the legal technicalities and strict deadlines involved in the USPTO application process, Applicant may wish to hire a private attorney specializing in trademark matters to represent Applicant in this process and provide legal advice.  Although the undersigned trademark examining attorney is permitted to help an Applicant understand the contents of an Office action as well as the application process in general, no USPTO attorney or staff is permitted to give an Applicant legal advice or statements about an Applicant’s legal rights.  TMEP §§705.02, 709.06. 

 

For attorney referral information, Applicant may consult the American Bar Association’s Consumers’ Guide to Legal Help, an attorney referral service of a state or local bar association, or a local telephone directory.  The USPTO may not assist an Applicant in the selection of a private attorney.  37 C.F.R. §2.11.

 

 

/Thomas M. Manor/

Trademark Examining Attorney

Law Office 110

Phone: (571) 270-1519

Fax. No. (571) 273-1519

Thomas.Manor@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.

 

 

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE (USPTO)

 

 

IMPORTANT NOTICE REGARDING YOUR

U.S. TRADEMARK APPLICATION

 

USPTO OFFICE ACTION (OFFICIAL LETTER) HAS ISSUED

ON 11/11/2016 FOR U.S. APPLICATION SERIAL NO. 87116475

 

Your trademark application has been reviewed.  The trademark examining attorney assigned by the USPTO to your application has written an official letter to which you must respond.  Please follow these steps:

 

(1)  Read the LETTER by clicking on this link or going to http://tsdr.gov.uspto.report/, entering your U.S. application serial number, and clicking on “Documents.”

 

The Office action may not be immediately viewable, to allow for necessary system updates of the application, but will be available within 24 hours of this e-mail notification. 

 

(2)  Respond within 6 months (or sooner if specified in the Office action), calculated from 11/11/2016, using the Trademark Electronic Application System (TEAS) response form located at http://www.gov.uspto.report/trademarks/teas/response_forms.jsp. 

 

Do NOT hit “Reply” to this e-mail notification, or otherwise e-mail your response because the USPTO does NOT accept e-mails as responses to Office actions. 

 

(3)  Questions about the contents of the Office action itself should be directed to the trademark examining attorney who reviewed your application, identified below. 

 

/Thomas M. Manor/

Trademark Examining Attorney

Law Office 110

Phone: (571) 270-1519

Fax. No. (571) 273-1519

Thomas.Manor@USPTO.GOV

 

WARNING

 

Failure to file the required response by the applicable response deadline will result in the ABANDONMENT of your application.  For more information regarding abandonment, see http://www.gov.uspto.report/trademarks/basics/abandon.jsp. 

 

PRIVATE COMPANY SOLICITATIONS REGARDING YOUR APPLICATION:  Private companies not associated with the USPTO are using information provided in trademark applications to mail or e-mail trademark-related solicitations.  These companies often use names that closely resemble the USPTO and their solicitations may look like an official government document.  Many solicitations require that you pay “fees.” 

 

Please carefully review all correspondence you receive regarding this application to make sure that you are responding to an official document from the USPTO rather than a private company solicitation.  All official USPTO correspondence will be mailed only from the “United States Patent and Trademark Office” in Alexandria, VA; or sent by e-mail from the domain “@uspto.gov.”  For more information on how to handle private company solicitations, see http://www.gov.uspto.report/trademarks/solicitation_warnings.jsp.