Offc Action Outgoing

United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO)

Office Action (Official Letter) About Applicant’s Trademark Application

 

 

 

FINAL 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) and/or Electronic System for Trademark Trials and Appeals (ESTTA).  A link to the appropriate TEAS response form and/or to ESTTA for an appeal appears at the end of this Office action. 

 

 

Issue date:  January 12, 2020

 

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

 

Introduction

In the initial Office Action, dated November 28, 2018, the trademark examining attorney refused registration of the applied-for mark, based on the following:

• Trademark Act Section 2(d) Refusal – Likelihood of Confusion
• Amended Identification of Goods Required
• Disclaimer Statement Required
• Mark Drawing Does Not Agree With Mark in Foreign Registration

 

In a subsequent Office Action, dated June 19, 2019, the trademark examining attorney noted that applicant had satisfied the ID and disclaimer requirements, the Mark Drawing requirement had been obviated, and maintained the likelihood of confusion refusal. Additionally, examining attorney noted that applicant’s response raised the following new refusal and requirement: Specimen Refusal – Digital Rendering or Mock-up, and Information about Specimen Required.

 

Based on Applicant’s response, examining attorney notes the specimen refusal and information requirement have been satisfied and are now withdrawn.

 

For the reasons set forth below, the likelihood of confusion refusal under Trademark Act Section 2(d) is now made FINAL.

 

FINAL Trademark Act Section 2(d) Refusal – Likelihood of Confusion

Registration of the applied-for mark was previously refused because of a likelihood of confusion with the mark in U.S. Registration No. 5025578.  Trademark Act Section 2(d), 15 U.S.C. §1052(d); see TMEP §§1207.01 et seq.  See the previously attached registration.

 

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 PICKY SKIN (stylized) for “Non-medicated skin care preparations, namely, moisturizers, creams, lotions, gels, toners, cleaners, peels, oils, serums, masks, and essences; Non-medicated preparations all for the care of skin, hair and scalp” in International Class 003, as amended.

 

Registrant’s mark is PICKY (standard characters) for “False eyelashes; Cosmetics and cosmetic preparations; Beauty supplies, namely, false eyelashes and eyelash extensions” in International Class 003.

 

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 initial Office Action, examining attorney found the marks similar where the first term of applicant’s mark, PICKY SKIN, is shared with registrant’s mark, PICKY, and consumers are more likely to focus on the first portion of a mark. Examining attorney further found that applicant’s addition of the term SKIN does not diminish the similarities between the marks because this term is descriptive for applicant’s goods, and is therefore less significant, and renders the shared first portion, PICKY, the dominant portion of the mark.

 

In applicant’s response, applicant argues the marks are not similar. First, applicant argues the addition of the term SKIN to its mark creates a different commercial impression between the marks because applicant provides goods related to skin care, while registrant does not, and therefore, consumers are likely to focus on the word SKIN as differentiating the marks. Second, applicant argues the term PICKY is highly suggestive for the goods and therefore entitled to only a narrow scope of protection.

 

Examining attorney has carefully considered applicant’s arguments and respectfully disagrees.

 

First, applicant has expressly conceded in its argument that consumers are more likely to focus on the first portion of a mark, and therefore this wording is often considered the more dominant portion of a mark. Additionally, applicant’s argument regarding the significance of the term SKIN in relation to its goods is unpersuasive. Registrant’s goods include cosmetics and cosmetic preparations. Contrary to applicant’s argument that cosmetics refers to makeup, the attached evidence from Merriam-Webster defines COSMETICS as “a substance (such as a cream, lotion, or powder) that you put on your face or body to improve your appearance.” Further, the attached evidence from Wikipedia shows that cosmetics are commonly used as part of skin care. Therefore, registrant’s goods are broad enough to include a wide variety of skin care products, including applicant’s goods, and applicant’s addition of the highly descriptive term SKIN does not substantially alter the overall shared commercial impression of the mark.

 

Notably, applicant has provided a disclaimer of the term SKIN, which is an acknowledgement that this term is less significant. Although marks are compared in their entireties, one feature of a mark may be more significant or dominant in creating a commercial impression.  See In re Viterra Inc., 671 F.3d 1358, 1362, 101 USPQ2d 1905, 1908 (Fed. Cir. 2012); In re Nat’l Data Corp., 753 F.2d 1056, 1058, 224 USPQ 749, 751 (Fed. Cir. 1985); TMEP §1207.01(b)(viii), (c)(ii).  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). Therefore, the shared wording PICKY is the dominant portion of applicant’s mark.

 

Further, adding a term to a registered mark generally 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 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 and BENGAL LANCER and design confusingly similar); In re Toshiba Med. Sys. Corp., 91 USPQ2d 1266, 1269 (TTAB 2009) (finding TITAN and VANTAGE TITAN confusingly similar); In re El Torito Rests., Inc., 9 USPQ2d 2002, 2004 (TTAB 1988) (finding MACHO and MACHO COMBOS confusingly similar); TMEP §1207.01(b)(iii).  In the present case, the marks are identical in part.

 

Second, examining attorney does not agree that the term PICKY is highly suggestive or laudatory, and finds applicant’s evidence to this point insufficient. However, even if the term PICKY were found to be weak, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit and the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board have recognized that marks deemed “weak” or merely descriptive are still entitled to protection under Section 2(d) against the registration by a subsequent user of a similar mark for closely related goods and/or services.  TMEP §1207.01(b)(ix); see King Candy Co. v. Eunice King’s Kitchen, Inc., 496 F.2d 1400, 1401, 182 USPQ 108, 109 (C.C.P.A. 1974); In re Max Capital Grp. Ltd., 93 USPQ2d 1243, 1246 (TTAB 2010).  Thus, this protection under Section 2(d) extends to marks registered on the Supplemental Register.  TMEP §1207.01(b)(ix); see, e.g., In re Morinaga Nyugyo Kabushiki Kaisha, 120 USPQ2d 1738, 1743 (TTAB 2016) (citing Towers v. Advent Software, Inc., 913 F.2d 942, 946, 16 USPQ2d 1039, 1042 (Fed. Cir. 1990); In re Research & Trademark Corp., 793 F.2d 1276, 1278, 230 USPQ 49, 49 (Fed. Cir. 1986); In re Clorox Co., 578 F.2d 305, 307-08, 198 USPQ 337, 340 (C.C.P.A. 1978)).

 

As such, the marks are confusingly similar.

 

Comparison of the Goods

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).

 

In the initial Office Action, examining attorney found the goods related where registrant’s broadly worded “cosmetics and cosmetic preparations” encompasses applicant’s more specific list of cosmetic goods.

 

In applicant’s response, applicant argues the goods are not related. First, applicant argues that its goods are limited to skincare products that improve or refine skin conditions, which applicant argues are substantially unrelated and separate from cosmetics. Second, applicant argues that registrant is using its mark solely with false eyelashes which are substantially different from skin care products and would not overlap in trade. Finally, applicant argues the relevant consumer is highly discerning and selective, and would take great care when choosing products, so that confusion is unlikely.

 

Examining attorney has carefully considered applicant’s arguments and respectfully disagrees.

 

First, examining attorney notes that applicant’s evidence from its website is in Korean, and therefore cannot be evaluated. Second, 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, registrant’s goods include cosmetics and cosmetic preparations, which the attached evidence from Merriam-Webster and Wikipedia shows encompasses all types of cosmetics, including skincare preparations.

 

Additionally, despite applicant’s arguments, the attached evidence from Sephora Collection, Tarte, Thrive Cosmetics, and E.L.F. shows the same party commonly provides applicant’s various skin care products together with all types of cosmetics, including makeup and false eyelashes and marketing them all under the same trademarks. Thus, applicant’s and registrant’s goods and/or 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).

 

Finally, applicant has not provided evidence to support its assertion that the relevant consumer is highly discerning and/or likely to be selective. Additionally, neither the application nor the registration is limited to expensive or of the type typically selected with care by the consumer. Further, the attached evidence shows that skin care products similar to the ones applicant is providing are typically of low cost, and of the type subject to impulse purchases by consumers unlikely to practice any particular care when making a purchase.

 

Because the marks are similar and the goods are related, it is likely that consumers would believe that the goods emanate from a common source.

 

The overriding concern is not only to prevent buyer confusion as to the source of the goods and/or services, but to protect the registrant from adverse commercial impact due to use of a similar mark by a newcomer.  See In re Shell Oil Co., 992 F.2d 1204, 1208, 26 USPQ2d 1687, 1690 (Fed. Cir. 1993).  Therefore, any doubt regarding a likelihood of confusion determination is resolved in favor of the registrant.  TMEP §1207.01(d)(i); see Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Packard Press, Inc., 281 F.3d 1261, 1265, 62 USPQ2d 1001, 1003 (Fed. Cir. 2002); In re Hyper Shoppes (Ohio), Inc., 837 F.2d 463, 464-65, 6 USPQ2d 1025, 1026 (Fed. Cir. 1988).

 

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

 

Response Guidelines

If applicant has questions about its application or needs assistance in responding to this Office action, please telephone 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(s) and/or requirement(s) 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. 

 

How to respond.  Click to file a request for reconsideration of this final Office action that fully resolves all outstanding requirements and refusals and/or click to file a timely appeal to the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB) with the required filing fee(s).

 

 

Bechhofer, Yocheved

/Yocheved Bechhofer/

Examining Attorney

Law Office 114

571-272-9329

Yocheved.Bechhofer@uspto.gov

 

 

RESPONSE GUIDANCE

• Missing the response deadline to this letter will cause the application to abandon.  A response or notice of appeal must be received by the USPTO before midnight Eastern Time of the last day of the response period.  TEAS and ESTTA maintenance or unforeseen circumstances could affect an applicant’s ability to timely respond.  

 

• Responses signed by an unauthorized party are not accepted and can cause the application to abandon.  If applicant does not have an attorney, the response must be signed by the individual applicant, all joint applicants, or someone with legal authority to bind a juristic applicant.  If applicant has an attorney, the response must be signed by the attorney.

 

• If needed, find contact information for the supervisor of the office or unit listed in the signature block.

 

United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO)

 

USPTO OFFICIAL NOTICE

 

Office Action (Official Letter) has issued

on January 12, 2020 for

U.S. Trademark Application Serial No. 88072350

 

Your trademark application has been reviewed by a trademark examining attorney.  As part of that review, the assigned attorney has issued an official letter that you must respond to by the specified deadline or your application will be abandoned.  Please follow the steps below.

 

(1)  Read the official letter.

 

(2)  Direct questions about the contents of the Office action to the assigned attorney below. 

 

 

Bechhofer, Yocheved

/Yocheved Bechhofer/

Examining Attorney

Law Office 114

571-272-9329

Yocheved.Bechhofer@uspto.gov

 

Direct questions about navigating USPTO electronic forms, the USPTO website, the application process, the status of your application, and/or whether there are outstanding deadlines or documents related to your file to the Trademark Assistance Center (TAC).

 

(3)  Respond within 6 months (or earlier, if required in the Office action) from January 12, 2020, using the Trademark Electronic Application System (TEAS).  The response must be received by the USPTO before midnight Eastern Time of the last day of the response period.  See the Office action for more information about how to respond

 

 

 

GENERAL GUIDANCE

·         Check the status of your application periodically in the Trademark Status & Document Retrieval (TSDR) database to avoid missing critical deadlines.

 

·         Update your correspondence email address, if needed, to ensure you receive important USPTO notices about your application.

 

·         Beware of misleading notices sent by private companies about your application.  Private companies not associated with the USPTO use public information available in trademark registrations to mail and email trademark-related offers and notices – most of which require fees.  All official USPTO correspondence will only be emailed from the domain “@uspto.gov.”