Suspension Letter

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE (USPTO)

OFFICE ACTION (OFFICIAL LETTER) ABOUT APPLICANT’S TRADEMARK APPLICATION

 

 

 

SUSPENSION NOTICE: NO RESPONSE NEEDED

 

ISSUE/MAILING DATE: 6/13/2019

 

 

INTRODUCTION:  The trademark examining attorney is suspending action on the application for the reasons stated below.  See 37 C.F.R. §2.67; TMEP §§716 et seq. 

 

PRIOR-FILED APPLICATION:  The effective filing date of the pending application identified below precedes the filing date of applicant’s application.  If the mark in the referenced application registers, applicant’s mark may be refused registration under Section 2(d) because of a likelihood of confusion with that registered mark.  See 15 U.S.C. §1052(d); 37 C.F.R. §2.83; TMEP §§1208 et seq.  Therefore, action on this application is suspended until the earlier-filed referenced application is either registered or abandoned.  37 C.F.R. §2.83(c).  A copy of information relevant to this referenced application was sent previously.

 

            - Application Serial No. 88088131 

 

Applicant argues that the applied-for mark and the mark in the prior-filed application are not similar because they are spelled differently.  This argument is unpersuasive because the marks are identical in sound and virtually identical in appearance, and are thus confusingly similar for the purposes of determining likelihood of confusion.  See, e.g., Seaguard Corp. v. Seaward Int’l, Inc., 223 USPQ 48, 51 (TTAB 1984) (“[T]he marks ‘SEAGUARD’ and ‘SEA GUARD’ are, in contemplation of law, identical [internal citation omitted].”); In re Best W. Family Steak House, Inc., 222 USPQ 827, 827 (TTAB 1984) (“There can be little doubt that the marks [BEEFMASTER and BEEF MASTER] are practically identical”); Stock Pot, Inc., v. Stockpot Rest., Inc., 220 USPQ 52, 52 (TTAB 1983), aff’d 737 F.2d 1576, 222 USPQ 665 (Fed. Cir. 1984) (“There is no question that the marks of the parties [STOCKPOT and STOCK POT] are confusingly similar.  The word marks are phonetically identical and visually almost identical.”). 

 

Applicant argues that the parties’ goods are not related because they are different types of furniture.  This argument is unpersuasive because the compared goods 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). 

 

Applicant argues that the applied-for mark should be allowed to register because registration was not refused in the prosecution of the prior-filed application.  In response to this argument, it is noted that prior decisions and actions of other trademark examining attorneys in registering other marks have little evidentiary value and are not binding upon the USPTO or the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board.  TMEP §1207.01(d)(vi); see In re USA Warriors Ice Hockey Program, Inc., 122 USPQ2d 1790, 1793 n.10 (TTAB 2017).  Each case is decided on its own facts, and each mark stands on its own merits.  In re USA Warriors Ice Hockey Program, Inc., 122 USPQ2d at 1793 n.10 (quoting In re Boulevard Entm’t, 334 F.3d 1336, 1343, 67 USPQ2d 1475, 1480 (Fed. Cir. 2003)).  Thus, applicant’s argument is unpersuasive.

 

REFUSAL CONTINUED AND MAINTAINED:  The Section 2(d) refusal is continued and maintained.  See TMEP §716.01. 

 

Applicant argues that the applied-for mark and the cited registered mark are not similar because they are spelled differently.  This argument is unpersuasive because the marks are phonetic equivalents, and 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, 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 the instant case, because the marks have similar commercial impressions because they are phonetic equivalents.

 

Applicant argues that the goods are not related because the goods identified in the registration that are legally identical to the goods identified in the application is a part of listing of a larger number of goods, and thus, tends to indicate the registrant’s goods are of a different type than is described in the registration.  This argument is unpersuasive because determining likelihood of confusion is based on the description of the goods stated in the application and registration at issue, and the goods stated in the application and registration are legally identical.  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)).  

 

FOREIGN REGISTRATION:  Applicant is required to provide a true copy, a photocopy, a certification, or a certified copy of a foreign registration from applicant’s country of origin that will be in force at the time the United States registration issues.  15 U.S.C. §1126(e); 37 C.F.R. §2.34(a)(3)(ii)-(iii); In re Societe D’Exploitation de la Marque Le Fouquet’s, 67 USPQ2d 1784, 1788-89 (TTAB 2003); TMEP §§1003.04(a)-(b), 1004.01, 1004.01(a).  Action on this application is suspended until the USPTO receives a copy of such foreign registration or proof of its renewal.  TMEP §§716.02(b), 1003.04(a)-(b), 1004.01(a).  If the foreign registration or renewal document is not in English, applicant must provide an English translation.  37 C.F.R. §2.34(a)(3)(ii)-(iii); TMEP §1004.01(b).  Further, applicant should notify the trademark examining attorney in the event that the foreign application abandons or the foreign registration is not renewed.  See TMEP §§1003.08, 1004.01(a).  In such case, applicant may amend the application to rely on another basis, if appropriate, and will retain the priority filing date, if applicable.  TMEP §§1003.08, 1004.01(a).

 

CONCLUSION:  The USPTO will periodically conduct a status check of the application to determine whether suspension remains appropriate, and the trademark examining attorney will issue as needed an inquiry letter to applicant regarding the status of the matter on which suspension is based.  TMEP §§716.04, 716.05.  Applicant will be notified when suspension is no longer appropriate.  See TMEP §716.04.

 

No response to this notice is necessary; however, if applicant wants to respond, applicant should use the “Response to Suspension Inquiry or Letter of Suspension” form online at http://teasroa.gov.uspto.report/rsi/rsi.

 

 

Toy, Joshua

/Joshua S. Toy/

Trademark Examining Attorney

Law Office 120

(571) 272-4856

joshua.toy@uspto.gov

 

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 Trademark Electronic Application System (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 6/13/2019 FOR U.S. APPLICATION SERIAL NO.88088131

 

Please follow the instructions below:

 

(1)  TO READ THE LETTER:  Click on this link or go to http://tsdr.gov.uspto.report/, 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)  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

 

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.