To: | Aqua-Leisure Industries, Inc. (tom@piercemandell.com) |
Subject: | U.S. TRADEMARK APPLICATION NO. 88111618 - LEVEL 4 REFINING SWIM SKILLS - N/A |
Sent: | 12/20/2018 11:43:46 AM |
Sent As: | ECOM106@USPTO.GOV |
Attachments: | Attachment - 1 Attachment - 2 Attachment - 3 Attachment - 4 Attachment - 5 Attachment - 6 Attachment - 7 Attachment - 8 Attachment - 9 Attachment - 10 Attachment - 11 Attachment - 12 Attachment - 13 Attachment - 14 Attachment - 15 Attachment - 16 Attachment - 17 Attachment - 18 Attachment - 19 Attachment - 20 Attachment - 21 Attachment - 22 Attachment - 23 Attachment - 24 |
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE (USPTO)
OFFICE ACTION (OFFICIAL LETTER) ABOUT APPLICANT’S TRADEMARK APPLICATION
U.S. APPLICATION SERIAL NO. 88111618
MARK: LEVEL 4 REFINING SWIM SKILLS
|
|
CORRESPONDENT ADDRESS: |
CLICK HERE TO RESPOND TO THIS LETTER: http://www.gov.uspto.report/trademarks/teas/response_forms.jsp
|
APPLICANT: Aqua-Leisure Industries, Inc.
|
|
CORRESPONDENT’S REFERENCE/DOCKET NO: CORRESPONDENT E-MAIL ADDRESS: |
|
OFFICE ACTION
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: 12/20/2018
The referenced application has been reviewed by the assigned trademark examining attorney. Applicant must respond timely and completely to the issue(s) below. 15 U.S.C. §1062(b); 37 C.F.R. §§2.62(a), 2.65(a); TMEP §§711, 718.03.
SUMMARY OF ISSUES:
· Section 2(d) Refusal – Likelihood of Confusion
· Classification and Identification of Goods
· New Drawing Required
· Description of the Mark
SECTION 2(d) REFUSAL – LIKELIHOOD OF CONFUSION
Applicant’s mark is LEVEL 4 REFINING SWIM SKILLS (in stylized form) for “Flotation devices to aid in teaching swimming, namely, training vests, kickboards, bodyboards, arm floats, and floating baby pool seats; personal floatation devices, namely, life jackets and vests, inner tubes with attached suits, swim trainers, and foam back floats; inflatable toys for recreational use in water, namely, baby play mats, play swimming pools having a canopy top, splash pools, pools, water blobs, and mats; children's apparel, namely, swimwear, hats, rashguards, diapers, backpacks, and bags; water activity toys and games for swim training, namely, balls, splash balls, dive sticks, dive rings, sprinklers, and plush toys; accessory apparel, namely, towels, hoodies, and cover-ups; swim gear, namely, swim goggles, swim masks, ear plugs and noseclips” in International Class 028. Registrant’s marks are LEVEL 4 in U.S. Registration No. 4392079 (in standard character form) for “Athletic apparel, namely, shirts, pants, jackets, footwear, hats and caps, athletic uniforms; Baseball caps and hats; Gloves; Hooded sweat shirts; Jackets; Long-sleeved shirts; Open-necked shirts; Pants; Sandals and beach shoes; Scarfs; Shirts and short-sleeved shirts; Short-sleeved or long-sleeved t-shirts; Sports shirts; Sweat shirts; T-shirts; Woolly hats” in International Class 025 and LEVEL FOUR in U.S. Registration No. 4392078 (in standard character form) for “Athletic apparel, namely, shirts, pants, jackets, footwear, hats and caps, athletic uniforms; Baseball caps and hats; Gloves; Hooded sweat shirts; Jackets; Long-sleeved shirts; Open-necked shirts; Pants; Sandals and beach shoes; Scarfs; Shirts and short-sleeved shirts; Short-sleeved or long-sleeved t-shirts; Sports shirts; Sweat shirts; T-shirts; Woolly hats” in International Class 025.
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.
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 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).
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 this case, applicant’s mark, LEVEL 4 REFINING SWIM SKILLS, is highly similar in sound, appearance, meaning and overall commercial impression to registrant’s mark, LEVEL 4. Both marks contain the identical wording LEVEL 4. 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.
In this case, applicant’s mark, LEVEL 4 REFINING SWIM SKILLS, is highly similar in sound, appearance, meaning and overall commercial impression to registrant’s mark, LEVEL FOUR. Both marks contain the identical wording LEVEL. 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). LEVEL 4 and LEVEL FOUR create the same commercial impression.
Comparison of the Goods and/or Services
The applicant’s goods and/or services are identified as “Flotation devices to aid in teaching swimming, namely, training vests, kickboards, bodyboards, arm floats, and floating baby pool seats; personal floatation devices, namely, life jackets and vests, inner tubes with attached suits, swim trainers, and foam back floats; inflatable toys for recreational use in water, namely, baby play mats, play swimming pools having a canopy top, splash pools, pools, water blobs, and mats; children's apparel, namely, swimwear, hats, rashguards, diapers, backpacks, and bags; water activity toys and games for swim training, namely, balls, splash balls, dive sticks, dive rings, sprinklers, and plush toys; accessory apparel, namely, towels, hoodies, and cover-ups; swim gear, namely, swim goggles, swim masks, ear plugs and noseclips” in International Class 028. The registrant’s goods and/or services are identified as “Athletic apparel, namely, shirts, pants, jackets, footwear, hats and caps, athletic uniforms; Baseball caps and hats; Gloves; Hooded sweat shirts; Jackets; Long-sleeved shirts; Open-necked shirts; Pants; Sandals and beach shoes; Scarfs; Shirts and short-sleeved shirts; Short-sleeved or long-sleeved t-shirts; Sports shirts; Sweat shirts; T-shirts; Woolly hats” in International Class 025.
The marks are similar in sound, appearance, meaning and overall commercial impression and the goods and/or services are closely related. It is likely that consumers will mistakenly believe the goods and/or services emanate from the same 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).
Accordingly, registration is refused pursuant to Section 2(d) of the Trademark Act.
Although applicant’s mark has been refused registration, applicant may respond to the refusal(s) by submitting evidence and arguments in support of registration.
If applicant responds to the refusal(s), applicant must also respond to the requirement(s) set forth below.
CLASSIFICATION AND IDENTIFICATION OF GOODS
The identification of goods is indefinite and must be clarified because it could include goods in other international classes. See TMEP §1402.01. In addition, it appears that some of the goods are misclassified. Notations concerning unacceptable wording are specified in the suggestion below.
For example, applicant must amend the identification to specify the common commercial or generic name of the goods. See TMEP §1402.01. If the goods have no common commercial or generic name, applicant must describe the product, its main purpose and its intended uses. See id.
Applicant should note that any wording in bold, in italics, underlined and/or in ALL CAPS below offers guidance and/or shows the
changes being proposed for the identification of goods and/or services. If there is wording in the applicant’s version of the identification of goods and/or services which should be removed, it will
be shown with a line through it such as this: strikethrough. When making its amendments, applicant should enter them in standard font, not in bold, in italics, underlined and/or in ALL CAPS.
Applicant may adopt the following wording, if accurate:
International Class 005: DISPOSABLE SWIM diapers FOR CHILDREN
International Class 009: Flotation devices to aid in teaching swimming, namely, training FLOTATION vests; personal floatation devices, namely, life jackets and vests; swim gear, namely, swim goggles, swim masks, and nose clips
International Class 010: swim gear, namely, ear plugs
International Class 018: CHILDREN’S backpacks and ______{specify type of bags, e.g., sports, beach, all-purpose carrying} bags;
International Class 024: accessory apparel, namely, towels
International Class 025: children's apparel, namely, swimwear, hats, AND rash guards; accessory apparel, namely, hoodies and cover-ups
International Class 028: Flotation devices to aid in teaching swimming, namely, training vests, kickboards, body boards, arm floats, and
floating baby pool seats BEING SWIMMING AIDS; personal floatation devices, namely, life jackets and vests, INFLATABLE inner tubes with attached suits,
swim trainers BEING SWIMMING RINGS, and foam back SWIMMING floats; inflatable POOL toys for recreational use in water, namely, baby play
mats, play swimming pools having a canopy top, splash pools, pools, water blobs, and mats; children's apparel, namely, swimwear, hats, rashguards, diapers, backpacks, and bags; water activity
toys and games for swim training, namely, _______{specify type, e.g., play} balls, splash _______{specify type, e.g.,
play} balls, dive sticks BEING WATER TOYS, dive rings BEING WATER, TOY sprinklers, and plush toys; accessory apparel, namely,
towels, hoodies, and cover-ups; swim gear, namely, swim goggles, swim masks, ear plugs and noseclips
On-line Acceptable Identification of Goods and Services Manual Information: For assistance with identifying and classifying goods and services in trademark applications, please see the USPTO’s online searchable U.S. Acceptable Identification of Goods and Services Manual. See TMEP §1402.04.
MULTIPLE-CLASS APPLICATION REQUIREMENTS
(1) List the goods and/or services by their international class number in consecutive numerical order, starting with the lowest numbered class.
(2) Submit a filing fee for each international class not covered by the fee(s) already paid (view the USPTO’s current fee schedule). The application identifies goods and/or services that are classified in at least seven classes; however, applicant submitted a fee(s) sufficient for only one class. Applicant must either submit the filing fees for the classes not covered by the submitted fees or restrict the application to the number of classes covered by the fees already paid.
See 15 U.S.C. §§1051(b), 1112, 1126(e); 37 C.F.R. §§2.32(a)(6)-(7), 2.34(a)(2)-(3), 2.86(a); TMEP §§1403.01, 1403.02(c).
See an overview of the requirements for a Section 1(b) multiple-class application and how to satisfy the requirements online using the Trademark Electronic Application System (TEAS) form.
NEW DRAWING REQUIRED
Therefore, applicant must submit a new drawing showing a clear depiction of the mark. All lines must be clean, sharp and solid, and not fine or crowded. 37 C.F.R. §§2.53(c), 2.54(e); TMEP §§807.05(c), 807.06(a). Additionally, the USPTO will not accept a new drawing in which there are amendments or changes that would materially alter the applied-for mark. 37 C.F.R. §2.72; see TMEP §§807.13 et seq., 807.14 et seq.
For more information about drawings and instructions on how to submit a drawing, see the Drawing webpage.
DESCRIPTION OF THE MARK
The following description is suggested, if accurate: The mark consists of a stylized version of the words: “LEVEL 4 REFINING SWIM SKILLS” with the number “4” to the right of the wording in larger font.
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.
RESPONSE GUIDELINES
Response guidelines. For this application to proceed, applicant must explicitly address each refusal and/or requirement in this Office action. For a refusal, applicant may provide written arguments and evidence against the refusal, and may have other response options if specified above. For a requirement, applicant should set forth the changes or statements. Please see “Responding to Office Actions” and the informational video “Response to Office Action” for more information and tips on responding.
/Alison F. Pollack/
Alison F. Pollack
Trademark Examining Attorney
Law Office 106
571-272-4592
alison.pollack@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.