UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE (USPTO)
OFFICE ACTION (OFFICIAL LETTER) ABOUT APPLICANT’S TRADEMARK APPLICATION
U.S. APPLICATION SERIAL NO. 88122530
MARK: JIMMY
|
|
CORRESPONDENT ADDRESS: |
CLICK HERE TO RESPOND TO THIS LETTER: http://www.gov.uspto.report/trademarks/teas/response_forms.jsp
|
APPLICANT: KingClean Electric Co.,Ltd
|
|
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: 12/29/2018
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.
SECTION 2(d) REFUSAL – LIKELIHOOD OF CONFUSION
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 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).
Applicant’s mark is JIMMY in stylized form.
Registrants’ marks are JIMMY’Z in standard character form (RN 5583247) and JIMI in stylized form (RN 5260630).
The registered mark JIMI is phonetically and connotatively identical to applicant’s mark. The marks are essentially phonetic equivalents and thus sound similar. 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).
The use of different stylizations in connection with applicant’s mark and the mark JIMI is not sufficient to distinguish the marks. When evaluating a composite mark consisting of words and a design, the word portion is normally accorded greater weight because it is likely to make a greater impression upon purchasers, be remembered by them, and be used by them to refer to or request the goods and/or services. In re Aquitaine Wine USA, LLC, 126 USPQ2d 1181, 1184 (TTAB 2018) (citing In re Viterra Inc., 671 F.3d 1358, 1362, 101 USPQ2d 1905, 1908 (Fed. Cir. 2012)); TMEP §1207.01(c)(ii). Thus, although marks must be compared in their entireties, the word portion is often considered the dominant feature and is accorded greater weight in determining whether marks are confusingly similar, even where the word portion has been disclaimed. In re Viterra Inc., 671 F.3d at 1366-67, 101 USPQ2d at 1911 (citing Giant Food, Inc. v. Nation’s Foodservice, Inc., 710 F.2d 1565, 1570-71, 218 USPQ2d 390, 395 (Fed. Cir. 1983)).
Applicant’s mark JIMMY and the cited registered mark JIMMY’Z (RN 5583247) differ in their literal portions only in that the registered mark appears in possessive form with the use of the phonetically equivalent “Z” for an “S.” This additional matter has little, if any, trademark significance and does not otherwise affect the overall similarity of the marks in terms of commercial impression. See In re Binion, 93 USPQ2d 1531, 1534 (TTAB 2009) (noting that “[t]he absence of the possessive form in applicant’s mark . . . has little, if any, significance for consumers in distinguishing it from the cited mark”); In re Curtice-Burns, Inc., 231 USPQ 990, 992 (TTAB 1986) (finding the marks McKENZIE’S and McKENZIE “virtually identical in commercial impression”); Winn’s Stores, Inc. v. Hi-Lo, Inc., 203 USPQ 140, 143 (TTAB 1979) (noting that “little if any trademark significance can be attributed to the apostrophe and the letter ‘s’ in opposer’s mark”).
Moreover, because the registered mark JIMMY’Z is presented in standard character form, it can be displayed in a manner similar to applicant’s stylization. A mark in typed or standard characters may be displayed in any lettering style; the rights reside in the wording or other literal element and not in any particular display or rendition. See In re Viterra Inc., 671 F.3d 1358, 1363, 101 USPQ2d 1905, 1909 (Fed. Cir. 2012); In re Mighty Leaf Tea, 601 F.3d 1342, 1348, 94 USPQ2d 1257, 1260 (Fed. Cir. 2010); 37 C.F.R. §2.52(a); TMEP §1207.01(c)(iii). Thus, a mark presented in stylized characters and/or with a design element generally will not avoid likelihood of confusion with a mark in typed or standard characters because the word portion could be presented in the same manner of display. See, e.g., In re Viterra Inc., 671 F.3d at 1363, 101 USPQ2d at 1909; Squirtco v. Tomy Corp., 697 F.2d 1038, 1041, 216 USPQ 937, 939 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (stating that “the argument concerning a difference in type style is not viable where one party asserts rights in no particular display”).
Applicant’s mark and the cited registered marks create similar commercial impressions.
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).
Comparison of Goods
Registration No. 5583247 for JIMMY’Z:
Registrant’s relevant goods are:
Aerosol dispensers for medical purposes; in International Class 10 (RN 5583247);
Applicant’s relevant goods are:
Apparatus for DNA and RNA testing for medical purposes; Dental apparatus, namely, apex locator; Dental apparatus, namely, intra-oral light systems; Dental bridges; Dental chairs; Dental crowns; Dental drills; Dental examination chairs; Dental excavators; Dental mirrors; Dental operating lamps; Dental picks; Dental syringes; Electric acupuncture instruments; Electric blankets for medical purposes; Electric foot spa massagers; Electric massage appliances, namely, electric vibrating massager; Electric massage chairs; Hearing aids; Massage apparatus and instruments; Massage apparatus for massaging necks and backs, feet, face, arms, legs; Medical apparatus and instruments for use in orthopedic surgery; Medical apparatus and instruments for use in surgery; Medical instruments, namely, orthopedic apparatus and instruments; Therapeutic saunas; Belts, electric, for medical purposes; Blankets, electric, for medical purposes; Diagnostic kits consisting primarily of probes, buffers and reagents for use in microbial testing; Electric massage apparatus for household use; Electromagnetic medical diagnostic imaging apparatus; Electrotherapy devices for providing transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation, infrared heat and compression; External orthopedic devices using electrical signals to stimulate bone growth; Heating cushions, electric, for medical purposes; Implant bridges for dental purposes; Medical apparatus and instruments for diagnostic radiopharmaceutical use; Medical diagnostic apparatus, analytical apparatus for medical purposes and blood pressure measuring apparatus; Medical testing devices for measuring hearing loss in patients, namely, audiometers; Medical apparatus, namely, electric vaporizer for upper respiratory conditions; Medical diagnostic apparatus for testing DNA and RNA samples; Medical diagnostic apparatus for testing blood sugar levels, cancer cells, DNA; Medical specimen bags for holding body tissue samples for testing purposes; Organoleptic diagnostic testing apparatus for medical, dental or cosmetic use; Programmable milling apparatus for dental purposes; Static electric therapy apparatus; Surgical apparatus and instruments for medical, dental or veterinary use; Surgical and medical apparatus and instruments for use in general surgery; Surgical and medical apparatus and instruments for use in orthopedic surgery; Surgical and medical apparatus and instruments for use in spinal, general, orthopedic surgery; Ultrasound diagnostic apparatus; X-ray apparatus for dental imaging; X-ray diagnostic apparatus; in International Class 10.
Applicant’s International Class 10 goods are closely related to the aerosol dispensers for medical purposes that are the subject of Registration Number 5583247.
Registration No. 5260630 for JIMI:
Registrant’s goods are:
Aeronautical engines; Centrifugal mills; Crushers for kitchen use, electric; Dishwashers; Door closers, hydraulic; Dust exhausting installations for cleaning purposes; Electric mixers; Garbage disposals; Hand-held battery actuated hydraulic crimp tool; Milking machines; Vacuum cleaners; Valves for pumps; Washing machines for clothes; Whisks, electric, for household purposes; Window openers, electric; Wringing machines for laundry; Cylinders for mills and for use in the manufacture of colorants and chocolate; Electric fruit presses; Juice machines; Mechanical seals; in International Class 7 (RN 5260630).
Applicant’s relevant goods are:
Brushes for vacuum cleaners; Centrifugal mills; Cleaning appliances utilizing steam; Electric food blenders; Food processors, electric; Fruit presses, electric, for household purposes; Grating machines for vegetables; Mixing machines; Parquet wax-polishers, electric; Suction nozzles for vacuum cleaners; Vacuum cleaner attachments for disseminating perfumes and disinfectants; Vacuum cleaner bags; Vacuum cleaner hoses; Vacuum cleaners; Electric food blenders; Electric food choppers; Electric food preparation apparatus, namely, tumblers for marinating food; Electric food processors; Electric food slicers; Electric meat grinders; Electric mixers; Electric wax-polishing machines for household purposes; Electric wax-polishing machines for industrial purposes; Electric garlic peeling machines; Electric hand-held mixers for household purposes; Electric machines and apparatus for carpet shampooing; Food peeling machines for commercial use; Industrial mixer for mixing liquids in the pharmaceutical and chemical industries; in International Class 7.
Applicant’s and registrant’s International Class 7 goods directly overlap in some instances (Centrifugal mills/Centrifugal mills; Fruit presses, electric, for household purposes/Electric fruit presses; Mixing machines/Electric mixers; Vacuum cleaners/Vacuum cleaners; Electric mixers/Electric mixers; Electric hand-held mixers for household purposes/Electric mixers).
Applicant’s International Class 7 goods are closely related to the goods in Registration No. 5260630. For example, applicant’s “Brushes for vacuum cleaners;” “Suction nozzles for vacuum cleaners; Vacuum cleaner attachments for disseminating perfumes and disinfectants; Vacuum cleaner bags; Vacuum cleaner hoses; Vacuum cleaners” share a close and obvious relationship with registrant’s “Dust exhausting installations for cleaning purposes” and “Vacuum cleaners.” The fact that applicant’s International Class 7 identification of goods includes items identical to those listed in the cited registration’s identification demonstrates the overall relatedness of the goods.
In response to this Office action, applicant may present arguments in support of registration by addressing the issue of the potential conflict between applicant’s mark and the mark in the referenced application. Applicant’s election not to submit arguments at this time in no way limits applicant’s right to address this issue later if a refusal under Section 2(d) issues.
REQUIREMENT
If applicant responds to the refusal, applicant must also respond to the requirement set forth below.
If modifying one of the duplicate entries, applicant may amend it to clarify or limit the goods and/or services, but not to broaden or expand the goods and/or services beyond those in the original application or as acceptably amended. See 37 C.F.R. §2.71(a); TMEP §1402.06. Also, generally, any deleted goods and/or services may not later be reinserted. TMEP §1402.07(e).
ASSISTANCE
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.
Jeri Fickes
/Jeri Fickes/
Trademark Examining Attorney
Law Office 107
USPTO
571/272-9157
jeri.fickes@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.