To: | Cooper-Standard Automotive Inc. (skoenig@faysharpe.com) |
Subject: | U.S. Trademark Application Serial No. 87791968 - EASY-LOCK - CSAZ 500496U |
Sent: | February 09, 2021 09:50:52 AM |
Sent As: | ecom113@uspto.gov |
Attachments: | Attachment - 1 Attachment - 2 Attachment - 3 Attachment - 4 Attachment - 5 Attachment - 6 Attachment - 7 Attachment - 8 Attachment - 9 Attachment - 10 Attachment - 11 Attachment - 12 Attachment - 13 Attachment - 14 Attachment - 15 Attachment - 16 Attachment - 17 Attachment - 18 Attachment - 19 Attachment - 20 Attachment - 21 Attachment - 22 Attachment - 23 Attachment - 24 Attachment - 25 Attachment - 26 Attachment - 27 Attachment - 28 Attachment - 29 Attachment - 30 Attachment - 31 Attachment - 32 Attachment - 33 Attachment - 34 Attachment - 35 Attachment - 36 Attachment - 37 Attachment - 38 |
United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO)
Office Action (Official Letter) About Applicant’s Trademark Application
U.S. Application Serial No. 87791968
Mark: EASY-LOCK
|
|
Correspondence Address:
|
|
Applicant: Cooper-Standard Automotive Inc.
|
|
Reference/Docket No. CSAZ 500496U
Correspondence Email Address: |
|
NONFINAL OFFICE ACTION
The USPTO must receive applicant’s response to this letter within six months of the issue date below or the application will be abandoned. Respond using the Trademark Electronic Application System (TEAS). A link to the appropriate TEAS response form appears at the end of this Office action.
Issue date: February 09, 2021
The Office has reassigned this application to the undersigned trademark examining attorney.
This Office Action is in response to applicant’s Response to Suspension Inquiry, dated December 1, 2020.
This application was suspended on January 2, 2019 pending resolution of U.S. Application Serial No. 87789396. This application has been abandoned and no longer presents a bar to registration.
However, upon further review, there is a likelihood of confusion with the mark in U.S. Registration No. 3263095. The examining attorney sincerely apologizes for the delay in raising this issue.
SECTION 2(d) REFUSAL – LIKELIHOOD OF CONFUSION
Applicant’s mark is EASY-LOCK for “Non-metal quick connect couplings for use in automotive fluid transfer systems; non-metal couplings for automotive use” in Class 12.
The registered mark is EZ-LOK for “Connectors and adapters for windshield wiper blades” in Class 12.
Although not all du Pont factors may be relevant, there are generally two key considerations in any likelihood of confusion analysis: (1) the similarities between the compared marks and (2) the relatedness of the compared goods. See In re i.am.symbolic, llc, 866 F.3d at 1322, 123 USPQ2d at 1747 (quoting Herbko Int’l, Inc. v. Kappa Books, Inc., 308 F.3d 1156, 1164-65, 64 USPQ2d 1375, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2002)); Federated Foods, Inc. v. Fort Howard Paper Co.,544 F.2d 1098, 1103, 192 USPQ 24, 29 (C.C.P.A. 1976) (“The fundamental inquiry mandated by [Section] 2(d) goes to the cumulative effect of differences in the essential characteristics of the goods [or services] and differences in the marks.”); TMEP §1207.01.
Similarity of the Marks
Marks are compared in their entireties for similarities in appearance, sound, connotation, and commercial impression. Stone Lion Capital Partners, LP v. Lion Capital LLP, 746 F.3d 1317, 1321, 110 USPQ2d 1157, 1160 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (quoting Palm Bay Imps., Inc. v. Veuve Clicquot Ponsardin Maison Fondee En 1772, 396 F.3d 1369, 1371, 73 USPQ2d 1689, 1691 (Fed. Cir. 2005)); TMEP §1207.01(b)-(b)(v). “Similarity in any one of these elements may be sufficient to find the marks confusingly similar.” In re Inn at St. John’s, LLC, 126 USPQ2d 1742, 1746 (TTAB 2018) (citing In re Davia, 110 USPQ2d 1810, 1812 (TTAB 2014)), aff’d per curiam, 777 F. App’x 516, 2019 BL 343921 (Fed. Cir. 2019); TMEP §1207.01(b).
In this case, applicant’s mark is EASY-LOCK and the registered mark is EZ-LOK. These marks are similar.
First, EZ is a common abbreviation of EASY and so the terms are similar in sound and meaning. See http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/EZ (listing EZ as an abbreviation of EASY). EASY means “causing or involving little difficulty or discomfort”. See http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/easy.
Second, LOK has no meaning in English, but shares most of its lettering with “lock” and so appears to be a fanciful spelling of the term. See http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/lok (showing no results for “LOK”); http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/lock (defining LOCK as “a locking or fastening together”).
Taken together EASY-LOCK and EZ-LOK are likely to be pronounced identically and create the same commercial impression of something fastening with little difficulty.
Therefore, because the marks may be pronounced the same and are similar in meaning, these marks are confusingly similar.
Relatedness of the Goods
Here, applicant’s goods are “Non-metal quick connect couplings for use in automotive fluid transfer systems; non-metal couplings for automotive use” in Class 12.
The registrant’s goods are “Connectors and adapters for windshield wiper blades” in Class 12.
These goods are related.
First, applicant’s goods overlap registrant’s goods. Determining likelihood of confusion is based on the description of the goods stated in the application and registration at issue, not on extrinsic evidence of actual use. See In re Detroit Athletic Co., 903 F.3d 1297, 1307, 128 USPQ2d 1047, 1052 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (citing In re i.am.symbolic, llc, 866 F.3d 1315, 1325, 123 USPQ2d 1744, 1749 (Fed. Cir. 2017)).
In this case, the application uses broad wording to describe its automotive couplings which encompass registrant’s more narrow connectors for windshield wipers. See, e.g., In re Solid State Design Inc., 125 USPQ2d 1409, 1412-15 (TTAB 2018); Sw. Mgmt., Inc. v. Ocinomled, Ltd., 115 USPQ2d 1007, 1025 (TTAB 2015). Thus, applicant’s and registrant’s goods are legally identical in part. See, e.g., In re i.am.symbolic, llc, 127 USPQ2d 1627, 1629 (TTAB 2018) (citing Tuxedo Monopoly, Inc. v. Gen. Mills Fun Grp., Inc., 648 F.2d 1335, 1336, 209 USPQ 986, 988 (C.C.P.A. 1981); Inter IKEA Sys. B.V. v. Akea, LLC, 110 USPQ2d 1734, 1745 (TTAB 2014); Baseball Am. Inc. v. Powerplay Sports Ltd., 71 USPQ2d 1844, 1847 n.9 (TTAB 2004)).
Specifically, a coupling is “a device that serves to connect the ends of adjacent parts or objects”. See http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/coupling. The wording “coupling” is used to describe connectors for windshield wiper blades. See http://patents.google.com/patent/US3928887 (using “coupling” to describe windshield wiper connectors). Therefore, these goods are overlapping and so are related.
Additionally, the goods of the parties have no restrictions as to nature, type, channels of trade, or classes of purchasers and are “presumed to travel in the same channels of trade to the same class of purchasers.” In re Viterra Inc., 671 F.3d 1358, 1362, 101 USPQ2d 1905, 1908 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (quoting Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Packard Press, Inc., 281 F.3d 1261, 1268, 62 USPQ2d 1001, 1005 (Fed. Cir. 2002)). Thus, applicant’s and registrant’s goods are related.
Further, these goods travel through the same channels of trade and are sold in the same specialty stores. See http://www.myautovaluestore.com/windshield-wiper-blade-adapter-rep-l3-30007/?filter=brand:anco&filter=wiper-and-washer-rep-l1-387; http://www.myautovaluestore.com/search?query=couplings (auto parts store selling blade adapters and couplings); http://densoautoparts.com/wiper-blades?gclid=EAIaIQobChMInKvLm_rc7gIVirbICh15pgs8EAMYASAAEgKPK_D_BwE; http://densoautoparts.com/fuel-pumps.aspx (offering wiper blades and a variety of auto parts under the same mark); http://shop.advanceautoparts.com/c4/windshield-washer-t-fitting/13835; http://shop.advanceautoparts.com/c3/wipers-washer-parts/15570 (offering wipers and washer parts, including connectors in the same auto specialty store).
See attached U.S. Registration Nos. 5507488, 5691575, 5829143, 5833978, 5887987, and 5931021.
Because the marks are confusingly similar and the goods are related, there is a likelihood of confusion between the marks. Consequently, registration is refused pursuant to Section 2(d) of the Trademark Act.
Response to Section 2(d) Refusal – Likelihood of Confusion
RESPONSE GUIDELINES
For this application to proceed, applicant must explicitly address each refusal and/or requirement in this Office action. For a refusal, applicant may provide written arguments and evidence against the refusal, and may have other response options if specified above. For a requirement, applicant should set forth the changes or statements. Please see “Responding to Office Actions” and the informational video “Response to Office Action” for more information and tips on responding.
How to respond. Click to file a response to this nonfinal Office action.
/Alison Keeley/
Examining Attorney
Law Office 113
(571) 272-4514
Alison.Keeley@uspto.gov
RESPONSE GUIDANCE