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: 4/2/2019

 

 

THIS IS A FINAL ACTION.

 

This Office action is in response to applicant’s communication filed on March 17, 2019.

 

In a previous Office action dated September 18, 2018, the trademark examining attorney refused registration of the applied-for mark under Section 2(d) of the Trademark Act due to a likelihood of confusion with Registration No. 0679617.  In addition, applicant was required to clarify the applicant name and entity information.

 

Based on applicant’s response, the trademark examining attorney notes that the requirements to clarify the applicant name and entity information have been satisfied.  See TMEP §§713.02, 714.04. 

 

For the reasons set forth below, the partial refusal under Trademark Act Section 2(d) is now made FINAL with respect to U.S. Registration No. 0679617.  See 15 U.S.C. §1052(d); 37 C.F.R. §2.63(b).

 

SUMMARY OF ISSUES MADE FINAL that applicant must address:

• Section 2(d) Refusal – Likelihood of Confusion With Registration No. 0679617 (Specific Goods)

 

SECTION 2(d) REFUSAL – LIKELIHOOD OF CONFUSION WITH REGISTRATION NO. 0679617 (SPECIFIC GOODS)

 

The stated refusal refers to the following goods and does not bar registration for the other goods: “Automobile tires; Bicycle tyres; Casings for pneumatic tires; Inner tubes; Pneumatic inner tubes for vehicle wheels; Pneumatic tyres; Treads for retreading tyres; Tubeless tyres for bicycles; Tyres for vehicle wheels.”

 

Registration of the applied-for mark is refused because of a likelihood of confusion with the mark in U.S. Registration No. 0679617.  Trademark Act Section 2(d), 15 U.S.C. §1052(d); see TMEP §§1207.01 et seq.  See the previously attached registration.

 

Applicant’s mark is TRANSEAGLE in standard character form for “Automobile tires; Bicycle tyres; Casings for pneumatic tires; Inner tubes; Pneumatic inner tubes for vehicle wheels; Pneumatic tyres; Treads for retreading tyres; Tubeless tyres for bicycles; Turn signal levers for vehicles; Tyres for vehicle wheels” in Class 12.

 

Registrant’s mark is EAGLE in typed form for “Tires” in Class 12.

 

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).

 

Applicant’s mark is TRANSEAGLE in standard character form whereas registrant’s mark is EAGLE in typed form.

 

The marks are similar because applicant’s mark shares the same wording and encompasses registrant’s mark and the marks have similar overall commercial impressions.

 

Incorporating the entirety of one mark within another does not obviate the similarity between the compared marks, as in the present case, nor does it overcome a likelihood of confusion under Section 2(d).  See Wella Corp. v. Cal. Concept Corp., 558 F.2d 1019, 1022, 194 USPQ 419, 422 (C.C.P.A. 1977) (finding CALIFORNIA CONCEPT and surfer design and CONCEPT confusingly similar); Coca-Cola Bottling Co. v. Jos. E. Seagram & Sons, Inc., 526 F.2d 556, 557, 188 USPQ 105, 106 (C.C.P.A. 1975) (finding BENGAL LANCER and design and BENGAL confusingly similar); In re Integrated Embedded, 120 USPQ2d 1504, 1513 (TTAB 2016) (finding BARR GROUP and BARR confusingly similar); In re Mr. Recipe, LLC, 118 USPQ2d 1084, 1090 (TTAB 2016) (finding JAWS DEVOUR YOUR HUNGER and JAWS confusingly similar); TMEP §1207.01(b)(iii).  In the present case, the marks are identical in part because applicant’s mark is comprised of the words “TRANS” and “EAGLE”, which entirely incorporates registrant’s mark for “EAGLE”.  The presence of “EAGLE” in applicant’s mark results in the marks being identical in-part with respect to sound and structure.

 

In addition to the marks being phonetically and structurally identical in-part, the marks also present similar overall commercial impressions.  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).  According to the attached dictionary evidence from merriam-webster.com, the words “TRANS” and “EAGLE” are defined to mean “on or to the other side of: across: beyond” and “any of various large diurnal birds of prey,” respectively.  The commercial impressions of the marks is therefore that of a large bird of prey, with the impression of applicant’s mark also being that of across or beyond a large bird of prey.  While the word “TRANS” coupled with “EAGLE” does slightly alter the commercial impression of applicant’s mark as compared to registrant’s, the principal impression is that of an eagle, which is highly similar to the commercial impression of registrant’s mark.

 

For these reasons, the marks are confusingly similar.

 

RELATEDNESS OF THE GOODS

 

Determining likelihood of confusion is based on the description of the goods and/or services 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 registration uses broad wording to describe tires, which presumably encompasses all goods of the type described, including applicant’s more narrow automobile tires.  Additionally, the attached dictionary evidence from ahdictionary.com shows the word “tyre,” as it appears in applicant’s recitation of goods, to be a British variant of the word “tire.”  Thus, applicant’s “bicycle tires,” “pneumatic tyres,” “tubeless tyres for bicycles,” and “tyres for vehicle wheels” are also encompassed by registrant’s broadly worded entry for “tires.”  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.  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)).

 

Additionally, the goods and/or services 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 and/or services are related.

 

The attached Internet evidence, consisting of third-party manufacturers providing tires, inner tubes, and retreading for tires, also establishes that the same entity commonly manufactures the relevant goods and markets the goods under the same mark and the relevant goods are sold or provided through the same trade channels and used by the same classes of consumers in the same fields of use.  Thus, applicant’s and registrant’s goods 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).

 

Michelin

http://www.cokertire.com/15f13-185-195r15-tr-13-michelin-tube.html

http://www.cokertire.com/tires/brands/michelin-tires/michelin-xzx.html

http://www.michelintruck.com/tires-and-retreads/retreads/

 

Pirelli

http://www.bikebandit.com/tires-tubes/tubes/pirelli-heavy-duty-inner-tube/p/11120

http://www.pirelli.com/tires/en-us/car-light-truck/find-your-tires/product-sheet/pzero

 

Bridgestone

http://www.denniskirk.com/bridgestone/17-tr-4-cmvradial-tire-tube-140-70r-150-70r-160-70r-17-549541.p535225.prd/535225.sku

http://www.bridgestonetire.com/catalog?type=Passenger&country=US

 

Dunlop

http://www.jpcycles.com/product/903-695/dunlop-mt-mu-90-16-standard-tr-4-offset-metal-stem-tube

http://www.dunlopmotorcycletires.com/tire-line/cruisemax/

 

Continental

http://www.wiggle.com/continental-quality-road-inner-tube-1/

http://www.continental-tires.com/car/tires/ecocontact6

http://www.continental-truck.com/truck/products/tires?tread=retread&ref=2817992

 

Goodyear

http://www.goodyear.com/en-US/tires/wrangler-ht

http://www.walmart.com/ip/Goodyear-26-Heavy-Duty-Tube-26-x-1-9-2-3-Black/773396230?athcpid=773396230&athpgid=athenaItemPage&athcgid=null&athznid=PWVUB&athieid=v0&athstid=CS020&athguid=41d3d85c-f3d-169dba02294353&athena=true

http://www.goodyeartrucktires.com/retreads/retread-results.html?v=1&p=all%20position&s=10.00-20

 

In addition to the above third-party website evidence, 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 as those of both applicant and registrant in this case.  This evidence shows that the goods listed therein, namely tires, inner tubes, treads for retreading tyres, and casings for pneumatic tires, are of a kind that may emanate from a single source under a single mark.  See In re I-Coat Co., 126 USPQ2d 1730, 1737 (TTAB 2018) (citing In re Infinity Broad. Corp., 60 USPQ2d 1214, 1217-18 (TTAB 2001); In re Albert Trostel & Sons Co.,29 USPQ2d 1783, 1785-86 (TTAB 1993); In re Mucky Duck Mustard Co., 6 USPQ2d 1467, 1470 n.6 (TTAB 1988)); TMEP §1207.01(d)(iii).

 

See the following attached third-party Registration Nos.: 5212249, 5321306, 5322022, 5390043, 5470988, 5487744, 5519197, 5585185, 5585186, 5607806, 5618186, 5620487, 5648935, 5662444, and 5709816.

 

Thus, upon encountering applicant’s mark TRANSEAGLE in commerce, consumers are likely to be confused as to the source of applicant’s and the cited registrant’s goods.  Therefore, with the contemporaneous use of highly similar marks, consumers are likely to conclude that the goods are related and originate from the same source. As such, registration on the Principal Register must be refused under Trademark Act Section 2(d).

 

RESPONSE OPTIONS

 

Applicant must respond within six months of the date of issuance of this final Office action or the following goods to which the final refusal applies will be deleted from the application by Examiner’s Amendment: 

 

Class 12: Automobile tires; Bicycle tyres; Casings for pneumatic tires; Inner tubes; Pneumatic inner tubes for vehicle wheels; Pneumatic tyres; Treads for retreading tyres; Tubeless tyres for bicycles; Tyres for vehicle wheels. 

 

37 C.F.R. §2.65(a); see 15 U.S.C. §1062(b).

 

The application will then proceed for the following goods: 

 

Class 12: Turn signal levers for vehicles. 

 

In addition, in response to a refusal that pertains only to certain goods, an applicant may divide the application into two or more separate applications so that any acceptable classes, goods, may be transferred to the divided out application and proceed toward registration.  See 37 C.F.R. §2.87; TMEP §1110 et seq.  Any outstanding deadline in effect at the time the application is divided will generally apply to each new divided out application.  See 37 C.F.R. §2.87(e); TMEP §1110.05 (see list of exceptions).

 

To divide an application, file a request to divide online using the Trademark Electronic Application System (TEAS) form and include a fee of $100 for each new application created.  See 37 C.F.R. §§2.6(a)(19)(ii), 2.87(b); TMEP §1110.04.  If dividing out some, but not all, of the goods or services within a class, an additional application filing fee will be required for each new separate application created by the division.  37 C.F.R. §§2.6(a)(1)(i)-(iii), 2.87(b); TMEP §1110.02.

 

Applicant may respond by providing one or both of the following:

 

(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).

 

ASSISTANCE

 

Please call or email the assigned trademark examining attorney with questions about this Office action.  Although the trademark examining attorney cannot provide legal advice or statements about applicant’s rights, the trademark examining attorney can provide applicant with additional explanation about the refusal in this Office action.  See TMEP §§705.02, 709.06.  Although the USPTO does not accept emails as responses to Office actions, emails can be used for informal communications and will be included in the application record.  See 37 C.F.R. §§2.62(c), 2.191; TMEP §§304.01-.02, 709.04-.05. 

 

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.  

 

 

 

Daniel Donegan

/Daniel Donegan/

Trademark Examining Attorney

Law Office 104

571-270-0455

daniel.donegan@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 4/2/2019 FOR U.S. APPLICATION SERIAL NO. 88053102

 

Your trademark application has been reviewed.  The trademark examining attorney assigned by the USPTO to your application has written an official letter to which you must respond.  Please follow these steps:

 

(1)  Read the LETTER by clicking on this link or going to http://tsdr.gov.uspto.report/, entering your U.S. application serial number, and clicking 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)  Respond within 6 months (or sooner if specified in the Office action), calculated from 4/2/2019, using the Trademark Electronic Application System (TEAS) response form located at http://www.gov.uspto.report/trademarks/teas/response_forms.jsp.  A response transmitted through TEAS must be received before midnight Eastern Time of the last day of the response period.

 

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. 

 

(3)  Questions about the contents of the Office action itself should be directed to the trademark examining attorney who reviewed your application, identified below. 

 

Daniel Donegan

/Daniel Donegan/

Trademark Examining Attorney

Law Office 104

571-270-0455

daniel.donegan@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.