Offc Action Outgoing

United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO)

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

 

 

 

NON-FINAL OFFICE ACTION

 

THE USPTO MUST RECEIVE APPLICANT’S RESPONSE TO THIS LETTER WITHIN SIX (6) MONTHS OF THE ISSUE DATE BELOW OR THE APPLICATION WILL BE ABANDONED. RESPOND USING THE TRADEMARK ELECTRONIC APPLICATION SYSTEM (TEAS). A LINK TO THE APPROPRIATE TEAS RESPONSE FORM APPEARS AT THE END OF THIS OFFICE ACTION. 

 

Issue date:  January 27, 2020

 

On December 3, 2018, action on this application was suspended pending the disposition of U.S. Application Serial No. 87772486. The referenced prior-pending application has since registered. Therefore, registration is refused as follows.

 

SECTION 2(d) REFUSAL – LIKELIHOOD OF CONFUSION

 

Registration of the applied-for mark is refused because of a likelihood of confusion with the mark in U.S. Registration No. 5927290. Trademark Act Section 2(d), 15 U.S.C. §1052(d); see TMEP §§1207.01 et seq. See the attached registration.

 

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 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. 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 and differences in the marks.”); TMEP §1207.01.

 

For the reasons set forth below, the examining attorney submits that there is a likelihood of confusion between applicant’s mark JOURNEY for “Bicycles; Electric bicycles” in International Class 12, and registrant’s mark:

 

• JURNI for “Suspension forks and rear shocks of bicycles” in International Class 12.

 

COMPARISON OF THE MARKS

 

The registered mark is a novel spelling or an intentional misspelling that is the phonetic equivalent the applied-for mark. Similarity in sound alone may be sufficient to support a finding that the marks are confusingly similar. In re White Swan Ltd., 8 USPQ2d 1534, 1535 (TTAB 1988); see In re 1st USA Realty Prof’ls, Inc., 84 USPQ2d 1581, 1586 (TTAB 2007); TMEP §1207.01(b)(iv).

 

Moreover, since JURNI is merely a phonetic equivalent of JOURNEY, the marks create identical commercial impressions, namely, “the act of traveling from one place to another, especially when involving a considerable distance; a trip.” The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language (5th ed. 2020), http://www.ahdictionary.com/word/search.html?q=journey.

 

The fact that the marks differ in appearance will not prevent a finding that the marks are confusingly similar. 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., 901 F.3d 1367, 1373, 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 (C.C.P.A. 1971)); TMEP §1207.01(b).

 

As such, the marks are confusingly similar because they are identical in sound and commercial impression.

 

COMPARISON OF THE GOODS

 

A likelihood of confusion analysis is concerned not with confusion between particular goods, but likelihood of confusion as to the source or sponsorship of those goods. In re Majestic Distilling Co., 315 F.3d 1311, 1316, 65 USPQ2d 1201, 1205 (Fed. Cir. 2003); In re Shell Oil Co., 992 F.2d 1204, 1208, 26 USPQ2d 1687, 1689 (Fed. Cir. 1993); TMEP §1207.01. Confusion as to the source or sponsorship of the goods is likely when the goods at issue are closely related. Coach Servs., Inc. v. Triumph Learning LLC, 668 F.3d 1356, 1369, 101 USPQ2d 1713, 1722 (Fed. Cir. 2012); TMEP §1207.01(a)(i). In this analysis, the comparison of the parties’ goods is based on the goods as they are identified in the application and registration, without limitations or restrictions that are not reflected therein. In re Dakin’s Miniatures, Inc., 59 USPQ2d 1593, 1595 (TTAB 1999); see Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Packard Press Inc., 281 F.3d 1261, 1267-68, 62 USPQ2d 1001, 1004-05 (Fed. Cir. 2002); In re Thor Tech, Inc., 90 USPQ2d 1634, 1638-39 (TTAB 2009); TMEP §1207.01(a)(iii). 

 

In this case, applicant offers bicycles, which are a type of vehicle. See The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language (5th ed. 2020), http://www.ahdictionary.com/word/search.html?q=bicycle. Registrant offers parts for these vehicles. Vehicles and their various parts may be closely related goods such that the average person encountering the same or similar marks for such products is likely to be confused as to their source. See, e.g., In re Gen. Motors Corp., 196 USPQ 574, 576 (TTAB 1977). Indeed, the examining attorney has attached evidence from the USPTO’s X-Search database consisting of a representative sample of ten (10) 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 bicycles and their parts, including forks and shocks, 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). The following additional evidence also demonstrates that the goods at issue may emanate from a single source:

 

• Marin:

·         http://www.marinbikes.com/bike-archive/bikes/2019-rift-zone-3 (bicycles)

·         http://www.marinbikes.com/bikes/type/e-bikes (electric bicycles)

·         http://store.marinbikes.com/collections/parts (bicycle parts)

 

• Trek:

·         http://www.trekbikes.com/us/en_US/bikes/mountain-bikes/c/B300/ (bicycles)

·         http://www.trekbikes.com/us/en_US/bikes/mountain-bikes/electric-mountain-bikes/c/B512/ (electric bicycles)

·         http://www.trekbikes.com/us/en_US/equipment/cycling-components/bike-frame-parts/c/E357/ (bicycle parts)

 

As such, consumer confusion as to the source or sponsorship of the goods being provided is likely since applicant’s goods are closely related to the registrant’s goods.

 

CONCLUSION

 

Because the applied-for mark and the registered mark are identical in sound and commercial impression, and because applicant’s goods are closely related to the registrant’s goods, the applied-for mark must be refused registration under Trademark Act Section 2(d) on the ground that the marks are likely to be confused.

 

RESPONSE REQUIRED

 

For this application to proceed, applicant must explicitly address the refusal in this Office action by providing written arguments and evidence against the refusal. Please see “Responding to Office Actions” and the informational video “Response to Office Action” for more information and tips on responding.

 

Click to file a response to this non-final Office action 

 

Because of the legal technicalities and strict deadlines of the trademark application process, applicant may wish to hire a private attorney who specializes in trademark matters to assist in the process. USPTO staff cannot provide legal advice or statements about an applicant’s legal rights.  TMEP §§705.02, 709.06. See Hiring a U.S.-licensed trademark attorney for more information.

 

If applicant does not respond to this Office action within six months of the issue date, the application process will end and the trademark will fail to register. See 15 U.S.C. §1062(b); 37 C.F.R. §§2.65(a), 2.68(a); TMEP §§718.01, 718.02. Additionally, the USPTO will not refund the application filing fee, which is a required processing fee. See 37 C.F.R. §§2.6(a)(1)(i)-(iv), 2.209(a); TMEP §405.04.

 

 

/Andrew Leaser/

Trademark Examining Attorney

Law Office 117

(571) 272-1911

andrew.leaser@uspto.gov

 

 

RESPONSE GUIDANCE

 

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

 

Informal communications will not be accepted as responses to Office actions and will not be considered; therefore, do not respond to this Office action by telephone or e-mail. All informal communications relevant to this application will be placed in the official application record.

 

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.

 

TEAS PLUS 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 must (1) file certain documents online using TEAS, including responses to Office actions (see TMEP §819.02(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); TMEP §819. TEAS Plus applicants who do not meet these requirements must submit an additional processing fee of $125 per class of goods. 37 C.F.R. §§2.6(a)(1)(v), 2.22(c); TMEP §819.04. However, in certain situations, TEAS Plus applicants may respond to an Office action by authorizing an examiner’s amendment by telephone or e-mail without incurring this additional fee.  

 

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 27, 2020 for

U.S. Trademark Application Serial No. 88081319

 

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. 

 

 

/Andrew Leaser/

Trademark Examining Attorney

Law Office 117

(571) 272-1911

andrew.leaser@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 27, 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.”