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.  A RESPONSE TRANSMITTED THROUGH THE TRADEMARK ELECTRONIC APPLICATION SYSTEM (TEAS) MUST BE RECEIVED BEFORE MIDNIGHT EASTERN TIME OF THE LAST DAY OF THE RESPONSE PERIOD.

 

 

ISSUE/MAILING DATE: 6/22/2017

 

THIS IS A FINAL ACTION.

 

This Office action is supplemental to and supersedes the previous Office action issued on June 22, 2017 in connection with this application.  The assigned trademark examining attorney inadvertently issued the Office Action with a typographical error in the refusal relevant to the mark in the subject application.  See TMEP §§706, 711.02. 

 

The trademark examining attorney apologizes for any inconvenience.

 

Applicant must address all issues raised in this Office action, in addition to the issues raised in the Office action dated June 22, 2017. 

 

Applicant must respond to all issues raised in this Office action and the previous June 22, 2017 Office action, within six (6) months of the date of issuance of this Office action.  37 C.F.R. §2.62(a); see TMEP §711.02.  If applicant does not respond within this time limit, the application will be abandoned.  37 C.F.R. §2.65(a).

 

INTRODUCTION

 

This Office action is in response to applicant’s communication filed on May 9, 2017.

 

In a previous Office action dated March 3, 2017, the trademark examining attorney refused registration of the applied-for mark based on the following:  Trademark Act Section 2(d) for a likelihood of confusion with a registered mark.  In addition, applicant was required to satisfy the following requirements:  clarify the entity by providing the citizenship of the partners, amend the identification of goods, and clarify the color claim and mark description.

 

Based on applicant’s response, the trademark examining attorney notes that the following requirement has been satisfied: color claim clarified.  See TMEP §§713.02, 714.04. 

 

Further, the trademark examining attorney maintains and now makes FINAL the refusal and requirements in the summary of issues below.  See 37 C.F.R. §2.63(b); TMEP §714.04.

 

SUMMARY OF ISSUES MADE FINAL that applicant must address:

• SECTION 2(d) REFUSAL – LIKELIHOOD OF CONFUSION
• CITIZENSHIP OF PARTNERS REQUIRED
• IDENTIFICATION OF GOODS REQUIRES AMENDMENT
• MARK DESCRIPTION REQUIRES AMENDMENT

 

 

 

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. 4936770 and the refusal is now made final.  Trademark Act Section 2(d), 15 U.S.C. §1052(d); see TMEP §§1207.01 et seq.  See the previously attached registration.

 

Applicant’s mark is “TD” in stylized form for “clothing for athletic use, namely, padded shirts; hoodies; shirts for adults and children; bottoms; jackets; t-shirts for adults and children; tops; women's clothing, namely, shirts, dresses, skirts, blouses; wrist bands” in International Class 025.

 

Reg. No. 4936770 is for “TD” in stylized form for “blouses; dresses; skirts” in International Class 025.

 

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, 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 any likelihood of confusion determination, two key considerations are similarity of the marks and similarity or relatedness of the goods.  In re Fat Boys Water Sports LLC, 118 USPQ2d 1511, 1516 (TTAB 2016) (citing Federated Foods, Inc. v. Fort Howard Paper Co., 544 F.2d 1098, 1103, 192 USPQ 24, 29 (C.C.P.A. 1976)); see TMEP §1207.01.  That is, the marks are compared in their entireties for similarities in appearance, sound, connotation, and commercial impression.  In re Viterra Inc., 671 F.3d 1358, 1362, 101 USPQ2d 1905, 1908 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (quoting 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)-(b)(v).  Additionally, the goods are compared to determine whether they are similar or commercially related or travel in the same trade channels.  See Coach Servs., Inc. v. Triumph Learning LLC, 668 F.3d 1356, 1369-71, 101 USPQ2d 1713, 1722-23 (Fed. Cir. 2012); Herbko Int’l, Inc. v. Kappa Books, Inc., 308 F.3d 1156, 1165, 64 USPQ2d 1375, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2002); TMEP §1207.01, (a)(vi).

 

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 a likelihood of confusion determination, the marks in their entireties are compared for similarities in appearance, sound, 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)-(b)(v). 

 

In the present case, applicant’s mark is “TD” in stylized form and registrant’s mark is “TD” in stylized form. Thus, the word portions of these marks are identical in appearance, sound, and meaning, “and have the potential to be used . . . in exactly the same manner.”  In re i.am.symbolic, llc, 116 USPQ2d 1406, 1411 (TTAB 2015).  Additionally, because they are identical, these marks are likely to engender the same connotation and overall commercial impression when considered in connection with applicant’s and registrant’s respective goods.  Id.

 

For a composite mark containing both words and a design, the word portion may be more likely to indicate the origin of the goods because it is that portion of the mark that consumers use when referring to or requesting the goods.  Bond v. Taylor, 119 USPQ2d 1049, 1055 (TTAB 2016) (citing In re Viterra Inc., 671 F.3d 1358, 1362, 101 USPQ2d 1905, 1908, 1911 (Fed. Cir. 2012)); TMEP §1207.01(c)(ii).  Thus, although such marks must be compared in their entireties, the word portion is often considered the dominant feature and is accorded greater weight in determining whether marks are confusingly similar, even where the word portion has been disclaimed.  In re Viterra Inc., 671 F.3d at 1366-67, 101 USPQ2d at 1911 (citing Giant Food, Inc. v. Nation’s Foodservice, Inc., 710 F.2d 1565, 1570-71, 218 USPQ2d 390, 395 (Fed. Cir. 1983)). Therefore, the stylization of both marks does not distinguish the marks for purposes of a likelihood of confusion analysis.

 

Furthermore, the stylization of the applied-for mark and the stylization of the registered mark are similar. Marks must be compared in their entireties and should not be dissected; however, a trademark examining attorney may weigh the individual components of a mark to determine its overall commercial impression.  Stone Lion Capital Partners, LP v. Lion Capital LLP, 746 F.3d 1317, 1322, 110 USPQ2d 1157, 1161 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (“[Regarding the issue of confusion,] there is nothing improper in stating that . . . more or less weight has been given to a particular feature of a mark, provided the ultimate conclusion rests on consideration of the marks in their entireties.”) (quoting In re Nat’l Data Corp., 753 F.2d 1056, 1058, 224 USPQ 749, 751 (Fed. Cir. 1985))). Both the applied-for mark and the registered mark consists of the letter “T” placed within the letter “D”. Therefore, although the wording “TD” is the dominant portion of the applied-for mark and the registered mark, the stylization of the marks is similar as well.

 

Where the goods of an applicant and registrant are “similar in kind and/or closely related,” the degree of similarity between the marks required to support a finding of likelihood of confusion is not as great as in the case of diverse goods.  In re J.M. Originals Inc., 6 USPQ2d 1393, 1394 (TTAB 1987); see Shen Mfg. Co. v. Ritz Hotel Ltd., 393 F.3d 1238, 1242, 73 USPQ2d 1350, 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2004); TMEP §1207.01(b).

 

Applicant argues that the applied-for mark differs from the registered mark because the applied-for mark is in three different colors and a particular font style. Applicant also argues that the mark means “Team Dominance.” However, the examining attorney is not persuaded by these conclusions as the evidence of record supports the position that the dominant portion of the marks is the wording, which is identical.

 

Therefore, the marks are confusingly similar. 

 

Comparison of the Goods

 

The goods of the parties need not be identical or even competitive to find a likelihood of confusion.  See On-line Careline Inc. v. Am. Online Inc., 229 F.3d 1080, 1086, 56 USPQ2d 1471, 1475 (Fed. Cir. 2000); Recot, Inc. v. Becton, 214 F.3d 1322, 1329, 54 USPQ2d 1894, 1898 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (“[E]ven if the goods in question are different from, and thus not related to, one another in kind, the same goods can be related in the mind of the consuming public as to the origin of the goods.”); TMEP §1207.01(a)(i). 

 

The respective goods need only be “related in some manner and/or if the circumstances surrounding their marketing are such that they could give rise to the mistaken belief that [the goods] 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).

 

Applicant’s mark is for “clothing for athletic use, namely, padded shirts; hoodies; shirts for adults and children; bottoms; jackets; t-shirts for adults and children; tops; women's clothing, namely, shirts, dresses, skirts, blouses; wrist bands” in International Class 025.

 

Reg. No. 4936770 is for “blouses; dresses; skirts” in International Class 025.

 

Notably, both applicant and registrant offer shirts, dresses, and skirts.

 

Neither the application nor the registration contains any limitations regarding trade channels for the goods and therefore it is assumed that registrant’s and applicant’s goods are sold everywhere that is normal for such items, i.e., clothing and department stores.  Thus, it can also be assumed that the same classes of purchasers shop for these items and that consumers are accustomed to seeing them sold under the same or similar marks.  See Kangol Ltd. v. KangaROOS U.S.A., Inc., 974 F.2d 161, 23 USPQ2d 1945 (Fed. Cir. 1992); In re Smith & Mehaffey, 31 USPQ2d 1531 (TTAB 1994); TMEP §1207.01(a)(iii).

 

The previously attached Internet evidence and the additional evidence attached to this Office Action consist of third-party retailers.  This evidence establishes that the same entity commonly manufactures/produces/provides the relevant goods and markets the goods under the same mark, the relevant goods are sold or provided through the same trade channels and used by the same classes of consumers in the same fields of use, and the goods are similar or complementary in terms of purpose or function.  Therefore, applicant’s and registrant’s goods are considered related for likelihood of confusion purposes.  See, e.g., In re Davey Prods. Pty Ltd., 92 USPQ2d 1198, 1202-04 (TTAB 2009); In re Toshiba Med. Sys. Corp., 91 USPQ2d 1266, 1268-69, 1271-72 (TTAB 2009).

 

• Nike
• • Padded shirt - http://store.nike.com/us/en_us/pd/pro-hyperstrong-3-compression-4-pad-mens-football-shirt/pid-10061026/pgid-12134008
  • Wrist bands - http://www.amazon.com/Nike-SWQOEI-Swoosh-Wristbands/dp/B008C27UPQ
  • Skirt - http://store.nike.com/us/en_us/pd/nikecourt-womens-tennis-skirt/pid-11328546/pgid-11463706
  • Dress - http://store.nike.com/us/en_us/pd/hurley-rio-womens-345-dress/pid-12062150/pgid-11798156
  • Hoodie - http://store.nike.com/us/en_us/pd/jordan-westbrook-why-not-mens-pullover-hoodie/pid-11929654/pgid-11936055
• Adidas
• • Padded shirt - http://www.adidas.com/us/techfit-ironskin-five-pad-shirt/AT8854.html?cm_mmc=AdieSEM_Feeds-_-GoogleProductAds-_-NA-_-AT8854&cm_mmca1=US&cm_mmca2=NA&kpid=AT8854&gclid=CjwKEAjw1a3KBRCY9cfsmdmWgQ0SJAATUZ8b6bSSYU5-0vKCpSLmW42WgvSpYTokGZomXikFJikpIxoCH77w_wcB&gclsrc=aw.ds&dclid=CMqm4_zO0dQCFdFJDAodlMkNzQ
  • Skirt - http://www.adidas.com/us/3-stripes-skirt/BK0015.html
  • Dress - http://www.adidas.com/us/roland-garros-on-court-dress/S99173.html
  • Jacket - http://www.adidas.com/us/tango-future-hybrid-jacket/BQ9210.html
  • T-shirt - http://www.adidas.com/us/trefoil-tee/AJ8828.html

 

Applicant has not submitted argument against the similarity of the goods. Accordingly, with the contemporaneous use of sufficiently similar marks, consumers are likely to conclude that the goods are related and originate from a single source. As such, registration must be refused under Trademark Act Section 2(d) and the refusal is now made final.

 

Although applicant’s mark has been refused registration, applicant may respond to the refusal by submitting evidence and arguments in support of registration.  However, if applicant responds to the refusal(s), applicant must also respond to the requirement set forth below.

 

 

 

CITIZENSHIP OF PARTNERS REQUIRED

 

For U.S. partnerships, applicant must list the names, legal entities, and national citizenship (for individuals), or the U.S. state or foreign country of organization or incorporation (for businesses) of all general partners.  37 C.F.R. §2.32(a)(3)(iii); TMEP §803.03(b). 

 

If applicant is a U.S. partnership, the following format should be used to identify the partnership: 

 

“_____________________, a partnership organized under the laws of _______________, composed of ______________ (specify name, legal entity, and citizenship of each individual general partner; and/or name, legal entity, and state or foreign country of incorporation or organization of each juristic general partner).”

 

TMEP §803.03(b).

 

If, in response to the above request, applicant provides information indicating that it is not the owner of the mark, registration will be refused because the application was void as filed.  See 37 C.F.R. §2.71(d); TMEP §§803.06, 1201.02(b).  An application must be filed by the party who owns or is entitled to use the mark as of the application filing date.  TMEP §§1201, 1201.02(b).

 

 

IDENTIFICATION OF GOODS REQUIRES AMENDMENT

 

The wording “t-shirts for adults and chidlren” in the identification of goods is misspelled and must be corrected.  See 37 C.F.R. §2.32(a)(6); TMEP §1402.01. 

 

Applicant may substitute the following wording, if accurate: 

 

International Class 025: Clothing for athletic use, namely, padded shirts; hoodies; shirts for adults and children; bottoms; jackets; t-shirts for adults and children; tops; women's clothing, namely, shirts, dresses, skirts, blouses; wrist bands

 

Applicant’s goods may be clarified or limited, but may not be expanded beyond those originally itemized in the application or as acceptably amended.  See 37 C.F.R. §2.71(a); TMEP §1402.06.  Applicant may clarify or limit the identification by inserting qualifying language or deleting items to result in a more specific identification; however, applicant may not substitute different goods or add goods not found or encompassed by those in the original application or as acceptably amended.  See TMEP §1402.06(a)-(b).  The scope of the goods sets the outer limit for any changes to the identification and is generally determined by the ordinary meaning of the wording in the identification.  TMEP §§1402.06(b), 1402.07(a)-(b).  Any acceptable changes to the goods will further limit scope, and once goods are deleted, they are not permitted to be reinserted.  TMEP §1402.07(e).

 

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.  See TMEP §1402.04.

 

 

 

COLOR CLAIM AND MARK DESCRIPTION REQUIRE AMENDMENT

 

The drawing shows the applied-for mark in various colors, including black and white.  Although the application includes a claim of color and a mark description referencing color, the colors black, and white are not included in either the color claim or description.  The color claim and mark description must be complete and reference all the colors in the mark.  See 37 C.F.R. §§2.37, 2.52(b)(1); TMEP §§807.07(a) et seq.  Therefore, applicant must clarify whether black and/or white are being claimed as color and/or are intended to indicate background, outlining, shading and/or transparent areas.  TMEP §807.07(d).

 

To clarify whether black and white are being claimed as color, applicant must satisfy one of the following:

 

(1)       If black and/or white are being claimed as colors in the mark, applicant must amend the color claim to include these colors, and amend the mark description to identify the literal and design elements that include these colors and specify where the black and/or white appears in these elements; or

 

(2)       If black and/or white are not being claimed as colors in the mark, applicant must provide a statement that the colors black and/or white represent background, outlining, shading and/or transparent areas and are not part of the mark.

 

Id.

 

In addition, the description of the mark uses broad, vague language that does not accurately describe the applied-for mark.  Applications for marks not in standard characters must include an accurate and concise description that identifies all literal elements as well as any design elements in the mark.  See 37 C.F.R. §2.37; TMEP §808.02. 

 

Therefore, applicant must provide a more detailed description of the applied-for mark.  The following is suggested if black and white are claimed as a feature of the mark:

 

            Color claim: The colors red, black, and white are claimed as a feature of the mark.

 

Mark Description: The mark consists of the letters “TD” in red with jagged edges, outlined in black and further outlined in white. The letter “T” vertically intersects the letter “D”. The color black is only claimed as a feature of the mark as to the outlining of the letters and otherwise represents background.

 

 

 

RESPONSE GUIDELINES

 

Applicant must respond within six months of the date of issuance of this final Office action or the application will be abandoned.  15 U.S.C. §1062(b); 37 C.F.R. §2.65(a).  Applicant may respond by providing one or both of the following:

 

(1)       a response filed using the Trademark Electronic Application System (TEAS) that fully satisfies all outstanding requirements and/or resolves all outstanding refusals; and/or

 

(2)       an appeal to the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board filed using the Electronic System for Trademark Trials and Appeals (ESTTA) with the required filing fee of $200 per class.

 

37 C.F.R. §2.63(b)(1)-(2); TMEP §714.04; see 37 C.F.R. §2.6(a)(18); TBMP ch. 1200.

 

In certain rare circumstances, an applicant may respond by filing a petition to the Director pursuant to 37 C.F.R. §2.63(b)(2) to review procedural issues.  TMEP §714.04; see 37 C.F.R. §2.146(b); TBMP §1201.05; TMEP §1704 (explaining petitionable matters).  There is a fee required for filing a petition.  37 C.F.R. §2.6(a)(15).

 

 

 

 

 

/Tricia L. Brown/

Examining Attorney

Law Office 121

(571) 270-7892

tricia.brown@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 6/22/2017 FOR U.S. APPLICATION SERIAL NO. 87248070

 

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 6/22/2017, using the Trademark Electronic Application System (TEAS) response form located at http://www.gov.uspto.report/trademarks/teas/response_forms.jsp.  A response transmitted through TEAS must be received before midnight Eastern Time of the last day of the response period.

 

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. 

 

/Tricia L. Brown/

Examining Attorney

Law Office 121

(571) 270-7892

tricia.brown@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.