Suspension Letter

United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO)

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

 

 

 

SUSPENSION NOTICE

No Response Required

 

 

Issue date:  July 03, 2019

 

 

The application is suspended for the reason(s) specified below.  See 37 C.F.R. §2.67; TMEP §§716 et seq. 

 

Action on this application is SUSPENDED pending the disposition of the previously referenced potentially-conflicting pending application(s).  37 C.F.R. §2.83(c); TMEP §§716.02(c), 1208.02(c).

 

Applicant was previously provided information regarding pending U.S. Application Serial No(s). 86648094, 86648097, 86648112, 86938813, and 87895685, which may present a bar to registration of applicant’s mark based on a likelihood of confusion under Trademark Act Section 2(d).  See 15 U.S.C. §1052(d); 37 C.F.R. §2.83; TMEP §§1208 et seq.  In response, applicant argued that the mark in the pending applications are not likely to cause confusion with applicant’s mark.  Specifically, applicant argued that the marks are visually dissimilar.

 

With respect to applicant’s argument, the argument is unpersuasive because the marks at issue contain similar wording.   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).

 

Furthermore, the services at issue are closely related.  Where the services of an applicant and registrant are “similar in kind and/or closely related,” the degree of similarity between the marks required to support a finding of likelihood of confusion is not as great as in the case of diverse services.  In re J.M. Originals Inc., 6 USPQ2d 1393, 1394 (TTAB 1987); see Shen Mfg. Co. v. Ritz Hotel Ltd., 393 F.3d 1238, 1242, 73 USPQ2d 1350, 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2004); TMEP §1207.01(b).

 

The trademark examining attorney has found applicant’s arguments unpersuasive and still believes there may be a likelihood of confusion between applicant’s mark and the mark(s) in the cited prior-pending application(s), should they register.  Thus, this application is suspended.

 

Refusal(s) and maintained and continued.  See TMEP §713.02.  The following refusal(s) and/or requirement(s) is/are maintained and continued: 

 

•        Section 2(d) Refusal – Likelihood of Confusion

•        Sections 1 and 45 Refusal – Failure to Show Use in Commerce

 

Section 2(d) Refusal – Likelihood of Confusion

 

Applicant argues that the applied-for mark and registered marks are visually dissimilar and that there are third-party registrations featuring components of the mark at issue.  These arguments are unpersuasive.

 

In this case, the applied-for mark and registered marks (Registration Nos. 2359486, 43718530, and 4961242) contain the identical wording “GREENLIGHT” and “THE FUTURE OF ENTERTAINMENT”.   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).

 

With respect to the applied-for mark and the registered mark (Registration No. 5301913), the marks are sufficiently similar in their commercial impression because they both include the wording “THE FUTURE OF” and “ENTERTAINMENT”.  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).

 

The overriding concern is not only to prevent buyer confusion as to the source of the 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).

 

Applicant argues that the examining attorney has improperly dissected the marks.  Marks must be compared in their entireties and should not be dissected; however, a trademark examining attorney may weigh the individual components of a mark to determine its overall commercial impression.  In re Detroit Athletic Co., 903 F.3d 1297, 1305, 128 USPQ2d 1047, 1050 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (“[Regarding the issue of confusion,] there is nothing improper in stating that . . . more or less weight has been given to a particular feature of a mark, provided the ultimate conclusion rests on consideration of the marks in their entireties.” (quoting In re Nat’l Data Corp., 753 F.2d 1056, 1058, 224 USPQ 749, 751 (Fed. Cir. 1985)).  In this case, the entirety of the marks at issue along with the services at issue stimulate the same mental reaction and overall commercial impression.

 

Furthermore, the third-party registrations are not persuasive because, in their entireties, the third party registrations do not create the same overall commercial impression as the marks at issue.

 

Applicant also argues that the services are not identical or similar.  This argument is unpersuasive and is not supported by any evidence of record.  Attached to the prior Office action was evidence from www.amazon.com, www.hulu.com, and www.youtube.com establishing the services at issue – specifically telecommunications and broadcasting services in Class 38 and entertainment services in Class 41 originate from a common source.   Therefore, they are related in a manner that could give rise to the mistaken belief that the services emanate from the same source.  The compared 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 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).

 

Sections 1 and 45 Refusal – Failure to Show Use in Commerce

 

Neither the original nor the substitute specimen show any association between the applied-for mark and enumerated services.  The original specimen contains a screenshot of applicant’s website and Facebook ® page.  The substitute specimen contains similar screenshots. None of these specimens show the applied-for mark in the actual sale, rendering or advertising of “Streaming of audiovisual and multimedia content via internet; transmission and delivery of audiovisual and multimedia content via the internet; video on-demand transmission services”.  At best applicant’s Facebook ® page establishes that applicant is a software company and the substitute specimen of applicant’s webpage indicates that applicant’s services feature blockchain technology.  No inference can be made that a software company or a website that features blockchain technology is providing “Streaming of audiovisual and multimedia content via internet; transmission and delivery of audiovisual and multimedia content via the internet; video on-demand transmission”.

 

These refusals will be made final once this application is removed from suspension, unless a new issue arises.  See TMEP §716.01.

 

Suspension process.  The USPTO will periodically check this application to determine if it should remain suspended.  See TMEP §716.04.  As needed, the trademark examining attorney will issue a letter to applicant to inquire about the status of the reason for the suspension.  TMEP §716.05. 

 

No response required.  Applicant may file a response, but is not required to do so. 

 

 

/Katrina J. Goodwin/

Examining Attorney

Law Office 122

571-272-7605

Katrina.Goodwin@uspto.gov

 

 

 

United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO)

 

USPTO OFFICIAL NOTICE

 

Office Action (Official Letter) has issued

on July 03, 2019 for

U.S. Trademark Application Serial No. 88098135

 

Your trademark application has been reviewed by a trademark examining attorney.  As part of that review, the assigned attorney has issued an official letter.  Please follow the steps below.

 

(1)  Read the official letter.  No response is necessary.

 

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

 

/Katrina J. Goodwin/

Examining Attorney

Law Office 122

571-272-7605

Katrina.Goodwin@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).

 

 

 

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.”