UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE (USPTO)
OFFICE ACTION (OFFICIAL LETTER) ABOUT APPLICANT’S TRADEMARK APPLICATION
|
U.S. APPLICATION SERIAL NO. 87785916
MARK: TRIUMPH
|
|
|
CORRESPONDENT ADDRESS: |
CLICK HERE TO RESPOND TO THIS LETTER: http://www.gov.uspto.report/trademarks/teas/response_forms.jsp
|
|
APPLICANT: Triumph Designs Limited
|
|
|
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. 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: 5/8/2018
The referenced application has been reviewed by the assigned trademark examining attorney. Applicant must respond timely and completely to the issue below. 15 U.S.C. §1062(b); 37 C.F.R. §§2.62(a), 2.65(a); TMEP §§711, 718.03.
Mark is Likely to Cause Confusion in Class 14
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. 2028061 and 1967559 as to be likely to cause confusion, or to cause mistake, or to deceive. TMEP section 1207. 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 that a potential consumer would be confused or mistaken or deceived as to the source of the goods and/or services of the applicant and registrant. See 15 U.S.C. §1052(d). The court in In re E. I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., 476 F.2d 1357, 177 USPQ 563 (C.C.P.A. 1973) listed the principal factors to be considered when determining whether there is a likelihood of confusion under Section 2(d). See TMEP §1207.01. However, not all of the factors are necessarily relevant or of equal weight, and any one factor may be dominant in a given case, depending upon the evidence of record. In re Majestic Distilling Co., 315 F.3d 1311, 1315, 65 USPQ2d 1201, 1204 (Fed. Cir. 2003); see In re E. I. du Pont, 476 F.2d at 1361-62, 177 USPQ at 567.
The examining attorney must analyze each case in two steps to determine whether there is a likelihood of confusion. First, the examining attorney must look at the marks themselves for similarities in appearance, sound, connotation and commercial impression. In re E. I. DuPont de Nemours & Co., 476 F.2d 1357, 177 USPQ 563 (CCPA 1973). Second, the examining attorney must compare the goods or services to determine if they are related or if the activities surrounding their marketing are such that confusion as to origin is likely. In re August Storck KG, 218 USPQ 823 (TTAB 1983); In re International Telephone and Telegraph Corp., 197 USPQ 910 (TTAB 1978); Guardian Products Co., v. Scott Paper Co., 200 USPQ 738 (TTAB 1978).
Analysis of Applicant’s Mark and Registered Marks
First, a comparison of the respective marks show that they are comprised either in whole or significant part of the term “TRIUMPH.” Accordingly, the applicant’s mark, “TRIUMPH,” is similar in sound, appearance, connotation and commercial impression to Registration No. 1967559’s mark “TRIUMPH” and ring design and Registration No. 2028061’s mark “TRIUMPH.” Similarity in any one of these elements alone is sufficient to find a likelihood of confusion. In re Mack, 197 USPQ 755 (TTAB 1977).
As to the design element in Registration No. 1967559, when evaluating a composite mark containing both words and designs, the word portion is 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 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)).
Analysis of Goods and Services
Second, the relationship of the goods is evident because all the marks are for jewelry items. The applicant’s goods are “jewellery; watches; clocks; watch bands, straps and chains; bracelets; cufflinks; key rings; key fobs; badges; articles made of precious metal or coated therewith; tie clips and pins; watch chains; structural parts for all the aforesaid goods.” to the registrant’s goods shows the relationship between them. The registrant’s marks are both for watches. The overlapping identifications of watches evidence the relationship.
The examining attorney must determine whether there is a likelihood of confusion on the basis of the goods identified in the application and registration. If the application or cited registration describes the goods broadly and there are no limitations as to their nature, type, channels of trade or classes of purchasers, it is presumed that the application and registration encompass all goods of the type described, that they move in all normal channels of trade, and that they are available to all potential customers. Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce v. Wells Fargo Bank, 811 F.2d 1490, 1 USPQ2d 1813 (Fed. Cir. 1987); Paula Payne Products Co., v. Johnson Publishing Co., Inc., 473 F.2d 901, 177 USPQ 76 (CCPA 1973); In re Elbaum, 211 USPQ 639 (TTAB 1981). The applicant’s identification of watch accessories is seen to include watch bands, straps and chains for the registrant’s goods.
The examining attorney must consider any goods in the registrant's normal fields of expansion to determine whether the registrant's goods are related to the applicant's identified goods under Section 2(d). In re General Motors Corp., 196 USPQ 574 (TTAB 1977). Accordingly, the mark is likely to cause consumer confusion as to source.
Option as to Class 18
(1) Deleting the class to which the refusal pertains;
(2) Filing a request to divide out the goods that have not been refused registration, so that the mark may proceed toward publication for opposition in the class to which the refusal does not pertain. See 37 C.F.R. §2.87. See generally TMEP §§1110 et seq. (regarding the requirements for filing a request to divide). If applicant files a request to divide, then to avoid abandonment, applicant must also file a timely response to all outstanding issues in this Office action, including the refusal. 37 C.F.R. §2.87(e).; or
(3) Amending the basis for that class, if appropriate. TMEP §806.03(h). (The basis cannot be changed for applications filed under Trademark Act Section 66(a). TMEP §1904.01(a).)
Other Considerations
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 applicant chooses to respond to the refusal to register, the following issue must also be addressed.
The wording “tool belts” in the identification of goods for International Class 18 must be clarified because it is too broad and includes goods in another international class. See 37 C.F.R. §2.32(a)(6); TMEP §§1402.01, 1402.03. “Tool belts” are properly classified in Class 8.
Applicant may adopt the following identification, if accurate (suggested wording appears italicized print):
Tool belts in Class 8.
-and-
Jewellery; watches; clocks; watch bands, straps and chains; bracelets; cufflinks; key rings; decorative key fobs; badges of precious metal; articles made of precious metal or coated therewith, namely, _____ (indicate specific goods, e.g. trophies, figures); tie clips and pins; watch chains; structural parts for all the aforesaid goods in Class 14.
-and-
Luggage; trunks; umbrellas; fitted belts for luggage, belly bands for dogs and straps for luggage; briefcases; key cases; back packs; rucksacks; handbags; boxes of leather; wallets and purses; structural parts for all of the aforesaid goods in Class 18. TMEP Section 1402.01.
Applicant may amend the identification to clarify or limit the goods, but not to broaden or expand the goods beyond those in the original application or as acceptably amended. See 37 C.F.R. §2.71(a); TMEP §1402.06. Generally, any deleted goods may not later be reinserted. See TMEP §1402.07(e).
The application identifies goods in more than one international class; therefore, applicant must satisfy all the requirements below for each international class based on Trademark Act Section 1(b):
(1) List the goods and/or services by their international class number in consecutive numerical order, starting with the lowest numbered class.
(2) Submit a filing fee for each international class not covered by the fee already paid (view the USPTO’s current fee schedule). The application identifies goods that are classified in at least three classes; however, applicant submitted a fee sufficient for only two classes. Applicant must either submit the filing fees for the classes not covered by the submitted fees or restrict the application to the number of classes covered by the fees already paid.
See 15 U.S.C. §§1051(b), 1112, 1126(e); 37 C.F.R. §§2.32(a)(6)-(7), 2.34(a)(2)-(3), 2.86(a); TMEP §§1403.01, 1403.02(c).
See an overview of the requirements for a Section 1(b) application and how to satisfy the requirements online using the Trademark Electronic Application System (TEAS) form.
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 $125 per 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.
/Jason F. Turner/
Jason F. Turner
Law Office 108
(571) 272-9353
jason.turner@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.
