To: | Lightning Motors Corporation (info@lightningmotorcycle.com) |
Subject: | U.S. TRADEMARK APPLICATION NO. 87850656 - LIGHTNING - N/A |
Sent: | 12/10/2018 3:43:14 PM |
Sent As: | ECOM107@USPTO.GOV |
Attachments: |
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE (USPTO)
OFFICE ACTION (OFFICIAL LETTER) ABOUT APPLICANT’S TRADEMARK APPLICATION
U.S. APPLICATION SERIAL NO. 87850656
MARK: LIGHTNING
|
|
CORRESPONDENT ADDRESS: |
CLICK HERE TO RESPOND TO THIS LETTER: http://www.gov.uspto.report/trademarks/teas/response_forms.jsp
|
APPLICANT: Lightning Motors Corporation
|
|
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: 12/10/2018
THIS IS A FINAL ACTION.
This Office action is in response to applicant’s communication filed on November 18, 2018.
In a previous Office action dated July 18, 2018, 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 requirement: clarify the color claim and color location statement.
Based on applicant’s response, the trademark examining attorney maintains and now makes FINAL the refusal and requirement 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
In the previous Office action, the trademark examining attorney refused registration of the applied-for mark because of a likelihood of confusion with the mark in U.S. Registration Nos. 3994359 and 4311303. Trademark Act Section 2(d), 15 U.S.C. §1052(d); see TMEP §§1207.01 et seq. After reviewing and considering applicant response, the trademark examining has determined to maintain this refusal.
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.
Applicant seeks to register “LIGHTNING” and design for use on “electric cars” and “toy vehicles.”
The registered marks are:
Applicant’s mark closely resembles either registrant’s mark because it completely incorporates the mark, which is distinctive per se. The fact that applicant’s mark includes the entirety of another’s mark may lead the ordinary consumer to perceive that the source of the mark “LIGHTNING” plus design is the same as the source for the wording “LIGHTNING” alone.
In its response, applicant argued that it “essentially is using our TM Name in our designed Logo,” so there would be no likelihood of confusion.
When evaluating a composite mark consisting of words and a design, the word portion is normally accorded greater weight because it is likely to make a greater impression upon purchasers, be remembered by them, and be used by them to refer to or request the goods and/or services. In re Aquitaine Wine USA, LLC, 126 USPQ2d 1181, 1184 (TTAB 2018) (citing In re Viterra Inc., 671 F.3d 1358, 1362, 101 USPQ2d 1905, 1908 (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)).
Furthermore, applicant’s and the registrants’ goods are closely related, if not identical, because they are all toy vehicles (U.S. Registration No. 3994359) or electric cars (U.S. Registration No. 4311303).
In its response, applicant argued that it owns a “LIGHTNING” mark “in US (SN: 74628022) and 30+ countries in the world. Applicant appears to argue that no likelihood of confusion exists because (1) applicant owns a prior registration for a substantially similar or identical mark for identical or identical in part goods to those in the application, and (2) such registration has co-existed with the cited registrations. Applicant concludes there is no likelihood of confusion between the applied-for mark and registrants’ marks; therefore, the trademark examining attorney should withdraw the Trademark Act Section 2(d) refusal.
However, in In re Strategic Partners, Inc., 102 USPQ2d 1397, 1399-1400 (TTAB 2012), the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board only reversed a Section 2(d) refusal based on an applicant’s prior registration for the following unique set of facts: (1) the marks in applicant’s prior registration and application were virtually identical (“no meaningful difference” existed between them, such that they were “substantially similar”); (2) the goods were identical in part; and (3) the prior registration had co-existed for at least five years with the cited registration (both being more than five years old and thus immune from attack on likelihood of confusion grounds). See TMEP §1207.01. The Board acknowledged these facts constituted a “unique situation,” such that an applicant’s prior registration would generally need to fit within these precise parameters to overcome a Section 2(d) refusal. In re Strategic Partners, Inc., 102 USPQ2d at 1400; see In re USA Warriors Ice Hockey Program, Inc., 122 USPQ2d 1790, 1793-94 (TTAB 2017); TMEP §1207.01.
In this case, by contrast, applicant’s prior registration does not correspond to the facts set forth in In re Strategic Partners, Inc. See TMEP §1207.01. Specifically, applicant’s prior registration is not for the same mark or goods. Thus applicant’s prior registration does not obviate the Section 2(d) refusal.
Applicant’s mark closely resembles the registrants’ marks and the goods identified by these marks are closely related. When used on its identified goods, applicant’s mark may cause confusion or mistake to the ordinary consumers as to the source of such goods in relation to the registrants’ marks.
Based on the above discussion, the refusal to register applicant’s mark is therefore maintained and 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.
If applicant responds to the refusal, applicant must also respond to the requirement set forth below.
COLOR CLAIM AND LOCATION STATEMENT
In the previous Office action, the trademark examining attorney pointed out that the color claim and color location statement do not correctly and completely identify all the colors in the drawing of the mark. The color claim and location statement must identify all the colors in the mark on the drawing. See 37 C.F.R. §2.52(b)(1); TMEP §§807.07(a) et seq.
Therefore, applicant must submit a complete color claim and description of the mark that references all of the colors appearing in the drawing of the mark. See 37 C.F.R. §2.52(b)(1); TMEP §§807.07(a) et seq.
The following color claim and color location statement are suggested:
The colors black, white, green and gray are claimed as a feature of the mark.
The mark consists of a black filled shield design outlined in gray. Inside the shield appears the wording “LIGHTNING” in white stylized font. Above this wording is a horizontal line in green color. Below the wording appears a green design consisting of a vertical line representing a road line and a lightning rod on the left and right sides of the vertical line. Below the shield design appears a black horizontal line.
In its response, applicant did not address this issue.
Based on the above discussion, the requirement for an acceptable color claim and location statement is therefore maintained and made FINAL.
RESPONSE TO FINAL REFUSAL/REQUIREMENT
(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).
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.
/Dawn Han/
Examining Attorney
Law Office 107
(571) 272-0399
dawn.han@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.