UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE (USPTO)
OFFICE ACTION (OFFICIAL LETTER) ABOUT APPLICANT’S TRADEMARK APPLICATION
U.S. APPLICATION SERIAL NO. 88020489
MARK: CARROLL LEATHER
|
|
CORRESPONDENT ADDRESS: |
CLICK HERE TO RESPOND TO THIS LETTER: http://www.gov.uspto.report/trademarks/teas/response_forms.jsp
|
APPLICANT: Carroll Companies, Inc.
|
|
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: 8/6/2018
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.
· Section 2(d) – Likelihood of Confusion Refusal
Section 2(d) – Likelihood of Confusion Refusal
Trademark Act Section 2(d) bars registration of an applied-for mark that so resembles a registered mark that it is likely a consumer would be confused, mistaken, or deceived as to the source of the goods and/or services of the applicant and registrant(s). See 15 U.S.C. §1052(d). Determining likelihood of confusion is made 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). In re i.am.symbolic, llc, 866 F.3d 1315, 1322, 123 USPQ2d 1744, 1747 (Fed. Cir. 2017). However, “[n]ot all of the [du Pont] factors are relevant to every case, and only factors of significance to the particular mark need be considered.” Coach Servs., Inc. v. Triumph Learning LLC, 668 F.3d 1356, 1366, 101 USPQ2d 1713, 1719 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (quoting In re Mighty Leaf Tea, 601. F.3d 1342, 1346, 94 USPQ2d 1257, 1259 (Fed. Cir 2010)). The USPTO may focus its analysis “on dispositive factors, such as similarity of the marks and relatedness of the goods [and/or services].” 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)); see TMEP §1207.01.
Applicant’s mark is “CARROLL LEATHER” for “Leather hides used for making handbags, wallets and jewelry; leather hides used in bookbinding”, in Class 18; “Leather upholstery for furniture; leather upholstery for pillows; leather upholstery for bedding; leather upholstery for the automotive industry; leather upholstery for the aviation industry; leather upholstery for the marine industry; leather upholstery for the railroad and mass transit industry; leather upholstery for the hospitality industry”, in Class 24; “Cowhide rugs, goatskin rugs, sheepskin rugs”, in Class 27; and “Wholesale of leather upholstery for furniture; wholesale of cowhide rugs, goatskin rugs, sheepskin rugs; wholesale and retail of leather scrap; wholesale and retail of leather hides”, in Class 35.
Registrant’s mark is “CAROLL” for goods and services including “Goods of leather and imitations of leather, namely, traveling bags and luggage sets, garment bags for travel, trunks, suitcases, unfitted vanity cases, backpacks, handbags, beach bags, school bags, suitcases and carrying cases, travel sets, namely, leather luggage sets, document holders, namely, briefcases, satchels, clutch bags, wallets and leather wallets, purses and coin purses, not of precious metal, key cases and leather key cases, and card cases; umbrellas, parasols, sunshades, and walking sticks”, in Class 18; and “Retail store and online retail store services for clothing, footwear, leather goods, and headgear;”, in Class 35.
Comparison 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 Davia, 110 USPQ2d 1810, 1812 (TTAB 2014) (citing In re 1st USA Realty Prof’ls, Inc., 84 USPQ2d 1581, 1586 (TTAB 2007)); In re White Swan Ltd., 8 USPQ2d 1534, 1535 (TTAB 1988)); TMEP §1207.01(b).
In the present case, applicant’s mark is “CARROLL LEATHER” and registrant’s mark is “CAROLL”.
In the case of the applied-for mark, the dominant portion of the mark is the word “CARROLL”. Specifically, “CARROLL” appears arbitrary when viewed in relation to the goods and services and is the first wording in the mark. Consumers are generally more inclined to focus on the first word, prefix, or syllable in any trademark or service mark. See Palm Bay Imps., Inc. v. Veuve Clicquot Ponsardin Maison Fondee En 1772, 396 F.3d 1369, 1372, 73 USPQ2d 1689, 1692 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (“VEUVE . . . remains a ‘prominent feature’ as the first word in the mark and the first word to appear on the label”); In re Integrated Embedded, 120 USPQ2d 1504, 1513 (TTAB 2016) (“[T]he dominance of BARR in [a]pplicant’s mark BARR GROUP is reinforced by its location as the first word in the mark.”); Presto Prods., Inc. v. Nice-Pak Prods., Inc., 9 USPQ2d 1895, 1897 (TTAB 1988) (“it is often the first part of a mark which is most likely to be impressed upon the mind of a purchaser and remembered” when making purchasing decisions).
Moreover, the only other wording in the mark, “LEATHER”, is merely descriptive and must be disclaimed. Disclaimed matter that is descriptive of or generic for a party’s goods and services is typically less significant or less dominant when comparing marks. See In re Dixie Rests., Inc., 105 F.3d 1405, 1407, 41 USPQ2d 1531, 1533-34 (Fed. Cir. 1997); In re Nat’l Data Corp., 753 F.2d at 1060, 224 USPQ at 752; TMEP §1207.01(b)(viii), (c)(ii).
Therefore, “CARROLL” is more likely to be impressed upon the minds of consumers and used when calling for the goods and services.
In comparing the applied-for and registered marks, the marks are confusingly similar.
Specifically, a single letter differentiates the dominant portion of the applied-for mark from the registered mark.
Moreover, not only do the marks appear similar, the dominant portion of the applied-for mark and the totality of the registered mark are phonetically identical. Slight differences in the sound of similar marks will not avoid a likelihood of confusion. In re Energy Telecomm. & Elec. Ass’n, 222 USPQ 350, 351 (TTAB 1983); see In re Viterra Inc., 671 F.3d 1358, 1367, 101 USPQ2d 1905, 1912 (Fed. Cir. 2012).
Thus, the marks are similar in terms of appearance and sound. In addition, the connotation and commercial impression of the marks do not differ when considered in connection with applicant’s and registrant’s respective goods and services.
Therefore, the marks are confusingly similar.
In addition to the similarity of the marks themselves, the goods and services of the registrant and applicant are also similar.
Comparison of Goods and Services
In the present case, applicant’s goods and services are “Leather hides used for making handbags, wallets and jewelry; leather hides used in bookbinding”, in Class 18; “Leather upholstery for furniture; leather upholstery for pillows; leather upholstery for bedding; leather upholstery for the automotive industry; leather upholstery for the aviation industry; leather upholstery for the marine industry; leather upholstery for the railroad and mass transit industry; leather upholstery for the hospitality industry”, in Class 24; “Cowhide rugs, goatskin rugs, sheepskin rugs”, in Class 27; and “Wholesale of leather upholstery for furniture; wholesale of cowhide rugs, goatskin rugs, sheepskin rugs; wholesale and retail of leather scrap; wholesale and retail of leather hides”, in Class 35.
Registrant’s goods and services include “Goods of leather and imitations of leather, namely, traveling bags and luggage sets, garment bags for travel, trunks, suitcases, unfitted vanity cases, backpacks, handbags, beach bags, school bags, suitcases and carrying cases, travel sets, namely, leather luggage sets, document holders, namely, briefcases, satchels, clutch bags, wallets and leather wallets, purses and coin purses, not of precious metal, key cases and leather key cases, and card cases; umbrellas, parasols, sunshades, and walking sticks”, in Class 18; and “Retail store and online retail store services for clothing, footwear, leather goods, and headgear”, in Class 35.
Thus, the goods and services are highly related, and it is presumed that they move in all normal channels of trade and are available to all potential customers. 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).
The attached web evidence from
demonstrates the relatedness of applicant’s and registrant’s goods and services and that such goods and services travel in the same channels of trade. Specifically, the evidence shows it is common for leather and leather goods, as well as retail store services featuring the same, specifically including those of applicant and registrant, to emanate from a single source.
Furthermore, the use of similar marks on or in connection with both products and retail-store services has been held likely to cause confusion where the evidence showed that the retail-store services featured the same type of products. See In re House Beer, LLC, 114 USPQ2d 1073, 1078 (TTAB 2015) (holding the use of identical marks for beer and for retail store services featuring beer likely to cause confusion); In re Thomas, 79 USPQ2d 1021, 1023 (TTAB 2006) (holding the use of similar marks for jewelry and for retail-jewelry and mineral-store services likely to cause confusion); In re Peebles, Inc., 23 USPQ2d 1795, 1796 (TTAB 1992) (holding the use of nearly identical marks for coats and for retail outlets featuring camping and mountain climbing equipment, including coats, likely to cause confusion, noting that “there is no question that store services and the goods which may be sold in that store are related goods and services for the purpose of determining likelihood of confusion”); TMEP §1207.01(a)(ii).
In the instant case, the “retail store and online retail store services for clothing, footwear, leather goods, and headgear” is broad enough to encompass all types of “leather goods”, including the leather goods of the applicant.
Additionally, the trademark examining attorney has attached evidence from the USPTO’s X-Search database consisting of a number of third-party marks registered for use in connection with the same or similar goods and services as those of both applicant and registrant in this case. This evidence shows that the goods and services listed therein, namely leather and leather goods, as well as retail store services featuring the same, are of a kind that may emanate from a single source under a single mark. See In re Aquamar, Inc., 115 USPQ2d 1122, 1126 n.5 (TTAB 2015) (citing In re Mucky Duck Mustard Co., 6 USPQ2d 1467, 1470 n.6 (TTAB 1988)); In re Albert Trostel & Sons Co.,29 USPQ2d 1783, 1785-86 (TTAB 1993); TMEP §1207.01(d)(iii).
Finally, although the goods and services are highly related, it is generally held that the greater degree of similarity between the applied-for mark and the registered mark, the lesser the degree of similarity between the goods and services of the parties is required to support a finding of likelihood of confusion. In re C.H. Hanson Co., 116 USPQ2d 1351, 1353 (TTAB 2015) (citing In re Opus One Inc., 60 USPQ2d 1812, 1815 (TTAB 2001)); In re Thor Tech, Inc., 90 USPQ2d 1634, 1636 (TTAB 2009). Because the goods and services are so similar, any differences between the goods and services become all the more attenuated.
Accordingly, because the marks are confusingly similar, and because the goods and services of the applicant and registrant travel in the same channels of trade, the applied-for mark is refused because of a likelihood of confusion with the mark in U.S. Registration No. 4824241.
Although applicant’s mark has been refused registration, applicant may respond to the refusal(s) by submitting evidence and arguments in support of registration.
If applicant responds to the refusal(s), applicant must also respond to the requirement(s) set forth below.
Identification of Services Indefinite
Class 18
Class 18 is acceptable as written.
Class 24
Class 24 is acceptable as written.
Class 27
Class 27 is acceptable as written.
Class 35
The wording “wholesale” used throughout the identification is unacceptable as indefinite. Specifically, “wholesale” does not specify any particular service. Therefore, applicant must specify the type of wholesale services.
Additionally, applicant must specify the type of “retail” services it provide because, similar to its use of “wholesale”, “retail” does not identify any particular service (e.g. wholesale store services featuring leather upholstery for furniture; wholesale store services featuring cowhide rugs, goatskin rugs, sheepskin rugs; wholesale and retail store services featuring leather scrap; wholesale and retail store services featuring leather hides).
Suggested Identifications
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.
Applicant may adopt the following identification, if acceptable:
Class 18
Leather hides used for making handbags, wallets and jewelry; leather hides used in bookbinding
Class 24
Leather upholstery for furniture; leather upholstery for pillows; leather upholstery for bedding; leather upholstery for the automotive industry; leather upholstery for the aviation industry; leather upholstery for the marine industry; leather upholstery for the railroad and mass transit industry; leather upholstery for the hospitality industry
Class 27
Cowhide rugs, goatskin rugs, sheepskin rugs
Class 35
Wholesale store services featuring leather upholstery for furniture; wholesale store services featuring cowhide rugs, goatskin rugs, sheepskin rugs; wholesale and retail store services featuring leather scrap; wholesale and retail store services featuring leather hides
Disclaimer Required
Applicant must disclaim the wording “LEATHER” because it merely describes an ingredient, quality, characteristic, function, feature, purpose, or use of applicant’s goods and services, and thus is an unregistrable component of the mark. See 15 U.S.C. §§1052(e)(1), 1056(a); DuoProSS Meditech Corp. v. Inviro Med. Devices, Ltd., 695 F.3d 1247, 1251, 103 USPQ2d 1753, 1755 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (quoting In re Oppedahl & Larson LLP, 373 F.3d 1171, 1173, 71 USPQ2d 1370, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2004)); TMEP §§1213, 1213.03(a).
The application demonstrates that applicant offers leather goods and services featuring leather. Therefore, the wording merely describes a feature of applicant’s goods and services; namely, a variety of leather goods and wholesale and retail services featuring leather goods.
An applicant may not claim exclusive rights to terms that others may need to use to describe their goods and/or services in the marketplace. See Dena Corp. v. Belvedere Int’l, Inc., 950 F.2d 1555, 1560, 21 USPQ2d 1047, 1051 (Fed. Cir. 1991); In re Aug. Storck KG, 218 USPQ 823, 825 (TTAB 1983). A disclaimer of unregistrable matter does not affect the appearance of the mark; that is, a disclaimer does not physically remove the disclaimed matter from the mark. See Schwarzkopf v. John H. Breck, Inc., 340 F.2d 978, 978, 144 USPQ 433, 433 (C.C.P.A. 1965); TMEP §1213.
If applicant does not provide the required disclaimer, the USPTO may refuse to register the entire mark. See In re Stereotaxis Inc., 429 F.3d 1039, 1040-41, 77 USPQ2d 1087, 1088-89 (Fed. Cir. 2005); TMEP §1213.01(b).
Applicant should submit a disclaimer in the following standardized format:
No claim is made to the exclusive right to use “LEATHER” apart from the mark as shown.
For an overview of disclaimers and instructions on how to satisfy this disclaimer requirement online using the Trademark Electronic Application System (TEAS) form, please go to http://www.gov.uspto.report/trademarks/law/disclaimer.jsp.
Assistance
/Daniel Stringer/
Trademark Examining Attorney
Law Office 103
571.272.8975
daniel.stringer@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.