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: 3/11/2019

 

 

This Office action is in response to applicant’s communication filed on February 22, 2019.

 

Applicant has satisfied the requirement for clarification of the identification of services.  See TMEP §§713.02, 714.04. 

 

The prior-filed application noted in the Office action dated August 23, 2018 has registered.  Accordingly, the trademark examining attorney now issues the following new refusal:  Trademark Act Section 2(d) likelihood of confusion refusal.  See TMEP §§706, 711.02. 

 

The following is a SUMMARY OF ISSUES that applicant must address:

• NEW ISSUE: Section 2(d) Refusal, in part – Likelihood of Confusion

 

 

SECTION 2(d) REFUSAL, IN PART – LIKELIHOOD OF CONFUSION

 

THIS PARTIAL REFUSAL APPLIES ONLY TO THE SERVICES SPECIFIED THEREIN.

 

Registration of the applied-for mark is refused because of a likelihood of confusion with the mark in U.S. Registration No. 5635749.  Trademark Act Section 2(d), 15 U.S.C. §1052(d); see TMEP §§1207.01 et seq.  See the attached registration information in Attachment A.

 

Applicant’s mark is MAD (in special form) for Entertainment services, namely, providing online video games, providing online computer games, providing temporary use of non-downloadable video games; video and computer game services provided on-line from a computer network; entertainment services in the nature of live-action, comedy, drama, animated, and reality television series; production of live-action, comedy, drama, animated and reality television series; distribution and display of live-action, comedy, drama and animated motion picture theatrical films; production of live-action, comedy, drama and animated motion picture theatrical films; providing information via an electronic global computer network in the field of entertainment relating specifically to games, music, movies, and television; providing film clips, photographs and other multimedia materials for entertainment purposes via a web site; and providing information for and actual entertainment via an electronic global communications network in the nature of live-action, comedy, drama and animated programs and production of live-action, comedy, drama and animated motion picture films for distribution via a global computer network; providing a computer game that may be accessed by a telecommunications network; electronic games services provided via a global computer network in International Class 41.

 

Registrant’s mark is MAD STUDIO (in standard character form) for, in relevant part, film studios in International Class 41.

 

Standard for Likelihood of Confusion

 

Trademark Act Section 2(d) bars registration of an applied-for mark that is so similar to a registered mark that it is likely consumers would be confused, mistaken, or deceived as to the commercial source of the goods and/or services of the parties.  See 15 U.S.C. §1052(d).  Likelihood of confusion is determined on a case-by-case basis by applying 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) (called the “du Pont factors”).  In re i.am.symbolic, llc, 866 F.3d 1315, 1322, 123 USPQ2d 1744, 1747 (Fed. Cir. 2017).  Only those factors that are “relevant and of record” need be considered.  M2 Software, Inc. v. M2 Commc’ns, Inc., 450 F.3d 1378, 1382, 78 USPQ2d 1944, 1947 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (citing Shen Mfg. Co. v. Ritz Hotel Ltd., 393 F.3d 1238, 1241, 73 USPQ2d 1350, 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2004)); see In re Inn at St. John’s, LLC, 126 USPQ2d 1742, 1744 (TTAB 2018). 

 

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 and/or services.  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)); TMEP §1207.01(b).

 

When comparing marks, “[t]he proper test is not a side-by-side comparison of the marks, but instead whether the marks are sufficiently similar in terms of their commercial impression such that [consumers] who encounter the marks would be likely to assume a connection between the parties.”  Cai v. Diamond Hong, Inc., __ F.3d __, 127 USPQ2d 1797, 1801 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (quoting Coach Servs., Inc. v. Triumph Learning LLC, 668 F.3d 1356, 1368, 101 USPQ2d 1713, 1721 (Fed. Cir. 2012)); TMEP §1207.01(b).  The proper focus is on the recollection of the average purchaser, who retains a general rather than specific impression of trademarks.  In re Inn at St. John’s, LLC, 126 USPQ2d 1742, 1746 (TTAB 2018) (citing In re St. Helena Hosp., 774 F.3d 747, 750-51, 113 USPQ2d 1082, 1085 (Fed. Cir. 2014); Geigy Chem. Corp. v. Atlas Chem. Indus., Inc., 438 F.2d 1005, 1007, 169 USPQ 39, 40 (CCPA 1971)); TMEP §1207.01(b).

 

In this case, the marks create substantially similar commercial impressions because they are comprised of the identical dominant word MAD.

 

Specifically, the marks are similar in appearance in that they include the identical word MAD.  Marks may be confusingly similar in appearance where similar terms or phrases or similar parts of terms or phrases appear in the compared marks and create a similar overall commercial impression.  See Crocker Nat’l Bank v. Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce, 228 USPQ 689, 690-91 (TTAB 1986), aff’d sub nom. Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce v. Wells Fargo Bank, Nat’l Ass’n, 811 F.2d 1490, 1495, 1 USPQ2d 1813, 1817 (Fed. Cir. 1987) (finding COMMCASH and COMMUNICASH confusingly similar); In re Corning Glass Works, 229 USPQ 65, 66 (TTAB 1985) (finding CONFIRM and CONFIRMCELLS confusingly similar); In re Pellerin Milnor Corp., 221 USPQ 558, 560 (TTAB 1983) (finding MILTRON and MILLTRONICS confusingly similar); TMEP §1207.01(b)(ii)-(iii).

 

The likelihood of confusion is not obviated even though the registered mark includes the additional wording “STUDIO”, which has been disclaimed.  Disclaimed matter that is descriptive of or generic for a party’s goods and/or services is typically less significant or less dominant when comparing marks.  In re Detroit Athletic Co., 903 F.3d 1297, 1305, 128 USPQ2d 1047, 1050 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (citing In re Dixie Rests., Inc., 105 F.3d 1405, 1407, 41 USPQ2d 1531, 1533-34 (Fed. Cir. 1997)); TMEP §1207.01(b)(viii), (c)(ii).  As such, “MAD” is rendered the dominant portion that engenders the overall commercial impression of the mark.

 

Lastly, the likelihood of confusion is not obviated even though the applied-for mark is in special form featuring stylized wording.  Here, the registered mark is in standard characters and has the potential to be stylized in a manner similar to the applied-for mark.  A mark in typed or standard characters may be displayed in any lettering style; the rights reside in the wording or other literal element and not in any particular display or rendition.  See In re Viterra Inc., 671 F.3d 1358, 1363, 101 USPQ2d 1905, 1909 (Fed. Cir. 2012); In re Mighty Leaf Tea, 601 F.3d 1342, 1348, 94 USPQ2d 1257, 1260 (Fed. Cir. 2010); 37 C.F.R. §2.52(a); TMEP §1207.01(c)(iii).  Thus, a mark presented in stylized characters and/or with a design element generally will not avoid likelihood of confusion with a mark in typed or standard characters because the word portion could be presented in the same manner of display.  See, e.g., In re Viterra Inc., 671 F.3d at 1363, 101 USPQ2d at 1909; Squirtco v. Tomy Corp., 697 F.2d 1038, 1041, 216 USPQ 937, 939 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (stating that “the argument concerning a difference in type style is not viable where one party asserts rights in no particular display”).

 

Overall, the marks are identical as to “MAD”, the sole component of the applied-for mark and the primary component of the registered mark.  Thus, the marks are confusingly similar.

 

Relatedness of the Services

 

In a likelihood of confusion determination, the goods and/or services are compared to determine whether they are similar, 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, 1207.01(a)(vi).

 

The compared goods and/or services 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); TMEP §1207.01(a)(i).  They 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 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 attached Internet evidence, consisting of screenshots from Wikipedia and third party websites, establishes that the same entity commonly provides the relevant services and markets the services under the same mark.  Specifically, the table below establishes that the same entity commonly provides registrant’s film studio services, as well as applicant’s services, for example:

 

Applicant’s services	Evidence
Entertainment services, namely, providing online video games, providing online computer games, providing temporary use of non-downloadable video games; video and computer game services provided on-line from a computer network; providing a computer game that may be accessed by a telecommunications network; electronic games services provided via a global computer network	Universal: http://www.universalkids.com/games Warner Bros. Entertainment Inc.: http://www.wbkidsgo.com/games Disney: http://lol.disney.com/games   See Attachment B.
entertainment services in the nature of live-action, comedy, drama, animated, and reality television series; production of live-action, comedy, drama, animated and reality television series	Universal: http://www.nbcuniversal.com/business/universal-television 20th Century Fox: http://www.ranker.com/list/tv-shows-produced-by-20th-century-fox-television/reference Warner Bros. Entertainment Inc.:   http://www.warnerbros.com/tv Disney: http://shows.disney.com/   See Attachment C.
distribution and display of live-action, comedy, drama and animated motion picture theatrical films; production of live-action, comedy, drama and animated motion picture theatrical films	Universal: http://www.universalpictures.com/movies 20th Century Fox: http://www.foxmovies.com/ Warner Bros. Entertainment Inc.: http://www.warnerbros.com/movies Disney: http://movies.disney.com/   See Attachment D.
providing information via an electronic global computer network in the field of entertainment relating specifically to games, music, movies, and television	Universal Warner Bros. Entertainment Inc. Disney   See Attachments B, C, and D.
providing film clips, photographs and other multimedia materials for entertainment purposes via a web site	Universal: http://www.universalpictures.com/videos 20th Century Fox: http://www.foxmovies.com/#featured-videos Warner Bros.: http://www.warnerbros.com/movies Disney: http://video.disney.com/   See Attachment E.
providing information for and actual entertainment via an electronic global communications network in the nature of live-action, comedy, drama and animated programs and production of live-action, comedy, drama and animated motion picture films for distribution via a global computer network	Netflix: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_original_films_distributed_by_Netflix#Original_films & http://www.netflix.com/ Warner Bros.: http://www.youtube.com/user/warnervod Disney: http://disneynow.go.com/all-shows   See Attachment F.

 

See also Attachment G showing that Netflix, Warner Bros., Disney, Universal, and 20th Century Fox provide registrant’s film studio services.  Thus, applicant’s and registrant’s services 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).

 

In sum, upon encountering the similar marks of the applicant and registrant on the closely related services concerned in this case, consumers are likely to be confused and mistakenly believe that the respective services emanate from a common source or are connected in some way.  Based on this likelihood of source confusion, registration is refused under Section 2(d) of the Trademark Act.

 

Although applicant’s mark has been refused registration, applicant may respond to the refusal by submitting evidence and arguments in support of registration.

 

ADVISORY: PARTIAL ABANDONMENT

 

If applicant does not respond to this Office action within the six-month period for response, the following services in International Class 41 will be deleted from the application: 

 

Entertainment services, namely, providing online video games, providing online computer games, providing temporary use of non-downloadable video games; video and computer game services provided on-line from a computer network; entertainment services in the nature of live-action, comedy, drama, animated, and reality television series; production of live-action, comedy, drama, animated and reality television series; distribution and display of live-action, comedy, drama and animated motion picture theatrical films; production of live-action, comedy, drama and animated motion picture theatrical films; providing information via an electronic global computer network in the field of entertainment relating specifically to games, music, movies, and television; providing film clips, photographs and other multimedia materials for entertainment purposes via a web site; and providing information for and actual entertainment via an electronic global communications network in the nature of live-action, comedy, drama and animated programs and production of live-action, comedy, drama and animated motion picture films for distribution via a global computer network; providing a computer game that may be accessed by a telecommunications network; electronic games services provided via a global computer network. 

 

The application will then proceed with the following services in International Class 41 only:

 

electronic publishing services, namely, publication of text and magazines on-line featuring articles, novelizations, scripts, comic books, photographs and visual materials; publication of text and graphic works of others on-line featuring articles, novelizations, scripts, comic books, strategy guides, photographs and visual materials; non-downloadable publications in the nature of books featuring characters from animated, action adventure, comedy and/or drama features, comic books, children's books, strategy guides, magazines featuring characters from animated, action adventure, comedy and/or drama features, coloring books, children's activity books and magazines in the field of entertainment

 

 See 37 C.F.R. §2.65(a)-(a)(1); TMEP §718.02(a).

 

RESPONDING TO THIS OFFICE ACTION

 

If applicant has questions regarding this Office action, please telephone or e-mail the assigned trademark examining attorney.  All relevant e-mail communications will be placed in the official application record; however, an e-mail communication will not be accepted as a response to this Office action and will not extend the deadline for filing a proper response.  See 37 C.F.R. §§2.62(c), 2.191; TMEP §§304.01-.02, 709.04-.05. 

 

ADVISORY – TEAS PLUS AND TEAS RF REQUIREMENTS

 

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.  

 

 

 

/Luz Adorno/

Trademark Examining Attorney, Law Office 111

United States Patent and Trademark Office

(571) 272-4902

Luz.Adorno@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 3/11/2019 FOR U.S. APPLICATION SERIAL NO. 87898302

 

Please follow the instructions below:

 

(1)  TO READ THE LETTER:  Click on this link or go to http://tsdr.uspto.gov,enter the U.S. application serial number, and click 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)  TIMELY RESPONSE IS REQUIRED:  Please carefully review the Office action to determine (1) how to respond, and (2) the applicable response time period.  Your response deadline will be calculated from 3/11/2019 (or sooner if specified in the Office action).  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.  For information regarding response time periods, see http://www.gov.uspto.report/trademarks/process/status/responsetime.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.  Instead, the USPTO recommends that you respond online using the TEAS response form located at http://www.gov.uspto.report/trademarks/teas/response_forms.jsp.

 

(3)  QUESTIONS:  For questions about the contents of the Office action itself, please contact the assigned trademark examining attorney.  For technical assistance in accessing or viewing the Office action in the Trademark Status and Document Retrieval (TSDR) system, please e-mail TSDR@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.