UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE (USPTO)

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

 

 

 

OFFICE ACTION

 

STRICT DEADLINE TO RESPOND TO THIS LETTER

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: 1/22/2019

 

 

 

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.  

 

 

 

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.
• Description.

• Information.

 

 

 

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. 4065573.  Trademark Act Section 2(d), 15 U.S.C. §1052(d); see TMEP §§1207.01 et seq.  See the attached registration.

 

 

The applicant has applied to register the mark I'ME FEELING DELICIOUS for shoes, shirts, bras, panties, pants, and shorts. 

 

 

The registered mark is I'ME for belts; dresses; jackets; pants; scarves; shirts; shoes; skirts; sweaters.

 

 

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.

 

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).

 

 

 

Similarity of the Marks

 

In the present case, applicant’s proposed mark I'ME FEELING DELICIOUS is similar to the registered mark I'ME.  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 instance, the respective marks create the same general overall commercial impression because the marks share the same sound, appearance, and connotation created by the identical and dominant first terms I'ME.[1]  The I’ME wording in the applicant’s proposed mark is the dominant portion of the proposed mark because it is the first term and in a much larger font than the remaining wording.  Consumers are generally more inclined to focus on the first word, prefix, or syllable in any trademark or service mark.  See Palm Bay Imps., Inc. v. Veuve Clicquot Ponsardin Maison Fondee En 1772, 396 F.3d 1369, 1372, 73 USPQ2d 1689, 1692 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (finding similarity between VEUVE ROYALE and two VEUVE CLICQUOT marks in part because “VEUVE . . . remains a ‘prominent feature’ as the first word in the mark and the first word to appear on the label”); Century 21 Real Estate Corp. v. Century Life of Am., 970 F.2d 874, 876, 23 USPQ2d 1698, 1700 (Fed Cir. 1992) (finding similarity between CENTURY 21 and CENTURY LIFE OF AMERICA in part because “consumers must first notice th[e] identical lead word”); see also In re Detroit Athletic Co., 903 F.3d 1297, 1303, 128 USPQ2d 1047, 1049 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (finding “the identity of the marks’ two initial words is particularly significant because consumers typically notice those words first”).

 

The additional wording in the applicant’s proposed mark does not prevent the refusal.  Adding a term to a registered mark generally 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 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 and BENGAL LANCER and design confusingly similar); In re Toshiba Med. Sys. Corp., 91 USPQ2d 1266, 1269 (TTAB 2009) (finding TITAN and VANTAGE TITAN confusingly similar); In re El Torito Rests., Inc., 9 USPQ2d 2002, 2004 (TTAB 1988) (finding MACHO and MACHO COMBOS confusingly similar); TMEP §1207.01(b)(iii).  In the present case, the marks are legally identical in part.

 

Furthermore, the likelihood of confusion is increased in this case because the goods are identical in part and/or are closely related.  Where the goods and/or services of an applicant and registrant are identical or virtually identical, 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 goods and/or services.  See In re Bay State Brewing Co., 117 USPQ2d 1958, 1960 (TTAB 2016) (citing Coach Servs., Inc. v. Triumph Learning LLC, 668 F.3d 1356, 1368, 101 USPQ2d 1713, 1721 (Fed. Cir. 2012)); United Global Media Grp., Inc. v. Tseng, 112 USPQ2d 1039, 1049 (TTAB 2014) (quoting Century 21 Real Estate Corp. v. Century Life of Am., 970 F.2d 874, 877, 23 USPQ2d 1698, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 1992)); TMEP §1207.01(b).

 

Thus, upon encountering applicant’s proposed mark I'ME FEELING DELICIOUS for shoes, shirts, bras, panties, pants, and shorts and registrant’s mark I'ME for belts; dresses; jackets; pants; scarves; shirts; shoes; skirts; sweaters, consumers are likely to be confused and mistakenly believe that the respective identical and/or closely related goods emanate from a common source.

 

 

 

Relatedness of the Goods and/or Services

 

The respective goods of the parties are identical and/or closely related.  The compared goods and/or 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 goods and/or 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).

 

The applicant’s shoes, shirts, bras, panties, pants, and shorts are closely related to the registrant’s belts; dresses; jackets; pants; scarves; shirts; shoes; skirts; sweaters because the respective goods are marketed to the same type of customers in the same channels of trade.  The identifications alone are evidence that the respective goods are identical in part and/or are closely related because the identifications contain identical goods in part and the remaining clothing items are closely related.

 

Therefore, because the marks share the identical and dominant wording I’ME and the goods are identical and/or are closely related, there is a likelihood of confusion as to the source of applicant’s goods.  Consequently, the applicant’s mark is not entitled to registration.

 

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.

 

 

 

DESCRIPTION OF MARK REQUIRED

 

Applicant must clarify the colors that are being claimed as a feature of the mark.  See 37 C.F.R. §§2.37, 2.52(b)(1), 2.61(b); TMEP §§807.07(a) et seq.  The drawing shows the mark in the colors black, gold, and red; however, the following colors appear in the color claim and description of the mark:  black and red in the color claim and only red in the description of the proposed mark. 

 

Where the color claim and/or description of the mark and drawing are inconsistent with one another, generally the USPTO looks to the drawing to determine what the mark is.  TMEP §807.07(a)(i)-(a)(ii), (c).  Additionally, the colors in the drawing, color claim, and description must match.  See 37 C.F.R. §2.52(b)(1); TMEP §§807.07 et seq. 

 

To clarify the colors in the mark, applicant may satisfy one of the following:

 

(1)       Submit a new color drawing that shows the mark in the colors specified in the color claim and description.  TMEP §807.07(c).  However, any other amendments to the drawing will not be accepted if they would materially alter the mark.  37 C.F.R. §2.72; see TMEP §§807.07(c), 807.14 et seq.

 

(2)       Submit an amended color claim and description that matches the colors in the drawing.  Generic color names must be used to describe the colors in the mark, e.g., red, yellow, blue.  TMEP §807.07(a)(i)-(ii).  If black, white, and/or gray represent background, outlining, shading, and/or transparent areas and are not part of the mark, applicant must so specify in the description.  See TMEP §807.07(d). 

 

The following color claim and description are suggested:

 

Color claim:  “The colors black, gold, and red are claimed as a feature of the mark.”

 

Description:  “The mark consists of the stylized wording I’ME FEELING DELICIOUS and gold [specify the nature of the gold design at the end of the wording DELICIOUS].  The wording I’ME is black.  The wording FEELING DELICIOUS is black but for the red letter L in both words.  The color white represents background, outlining, shading, and/or transparent areas and is not part of the mark.”

 

For more information about drawings and instructions on how to submit a new color drawing, amended color claim and/or description online using the Trademark Electronic Application System (TEAS) form, see the Drawing webpage.

 

 

 

INFORMATION ABOUT GOODS/SERVICES REQUIRED

 

To permit proper examination of the application, applicant must submit additional information about applicant’s goods.  See 37 C.F.R. §2.61(b); TMEP §§814, 1402.01(e).  The information requested below is reasonably necessary to the examination of the application because it will provide a more in-depth understanding of the mark, goods and/or services, and/or issue(s) at hand.  TMEP §814.

 

Factual information about the goods must clearly indicate how they operate, their salient features, and their prospective customers and channels of trade.  Factual information about the services must clearly indicate what the services are and how they are rendered, their salient features, and their prospective customers and channels of trade.  Conclusory statements will not satisfy this requirement for information.

 

Failure to comply with a request for information is grounds for refusing registration.  In re Harley, 119 USPQ2d 1755, 1757-58 (TTAB 2016); TMEP §814. 

 

Merely stating that information about the goods or services is available on applicant’s website is an insufficient response and will not make the relevant information of record.  See In re Planalytics, Inc., 70 USPQ2d 1453, 1457-58 (TTAB 2004).

 

 

The applicant must directly answer the following question(s) and/or provide the information requested:

 

1.  If available, the applicant will provide a website address at which the goods and/or services are offered and/or the mark is used.  If no website is available, then the applicant will state this fact for the record.

 

2.  Other than any identical goods, does the applicant manufacture or offer any of the goods and/or services that appear in the registrant’s identification of goods and/or services?

 

3.  Other than any identical goods, is the applicant aware of any other company and/or person(s) that provides both the goods and/or services, in whole or in part, listed in both the applicant’s identification and the registrant’s identification(s)?  If so, the applicant must provide the name of the company and/or person(s) and any available website address for the same.  The applicant need not provide more than five references per each cited registration and/or prior pending application.

 

 

 

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.

 

The USPTO website provides information for those unfamiliar with the process of applying for federal trademark registration, such as an e-booklet about registering trademarks, FAQs, and more.  Two tools on the USPTO’s website that are particularly helpful during the examination process are the (1) informational videos and (2) application processing timelines.  The videos provide information in a broadcast news format regarding a range of issues that arise during the examination of an application, such as specimens and goods and services.  The application processing timelines provide information regarding the USPTO’s processing time for certain documents, as well as crucial legal deadlines.

 

The USPTO applies the following legal authority to a trademark application:

 

•  The Trademark Act of 1946 (15 U.S.C. §§1051 et seq.)

 

•  The Trademark Rules of Practice (37 C.F.R. pts. 2, 3, 6, 7, 11)

 

•  Precedential court and Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB) decisions

 

•  The Trademark Manual of Examining Procedure (TMEP)  is a manual written by USPTO trademark attorneys that explains the laws and procedures applicable to the trademark application, registration, and post-registration processes.  The USPTO updates the TMEP periodically to reflect changes in law, policy, and procedure. 

 

•  The Trademark Trial and Appeal Board Manual of Procedure (TBMP)

 

 

 

APPLICANT MAY WISH TO HIRE A PRIVATE ATTORNEY

 

Because of the legal technicalities and strict deadlines involved in the USPTO application process, applicant may wish to hire a private attorney specializing in trademark matters to represent applicant in this process and provide legal advice.  Although the undersigned trademark examining attorney is permitted to help an applicant understand the contents of an Office action as well as the application process in general, no USPTO attorney or staff is permitted to give an applicant legal advice or statements about an applicant’s legal rights.  TMEP §§705.02, 709.06. 

 

For attorney referral information, applicant may consult the American Bar Association’s Consumers’ Guide to Legal Help; an online directory of legal professionals, such as FindLaw®; or a local telephone directory.  The USPTO, however, may not assist an applicant in the selection of a private attorney.  37 C.F.R. §2.11.

 

Non-attorneys, e.g., non-attorney persons from a trademark assistance company, are not recognized to practice before the USPTO in trademark matters on behalf of others and thus may not perform any of the following actions:

 

1.  Giving advice to an applicant or registrant in contemplation of filing a trademark application or application-related document.

 

2. Preparing or prosecuting an application, response, post-registration maintenance document, or other related document.

 

3.  Signing amendments to applications, responses to Office actions, petitions to the Director, requests to change the correspondence address, or letters of express abandonment.

 

4. Authorizing issuance of examiner’s amendments and priority actions.

 

See 37 C.F.R. §§11.5(b)(2), 11.14(b); TMEP §§602.01, 608.01. 

 

Employing an individual who is not authorized to practice before the USPTO to represent you in connection with your trademark application may: 

•  Delay and prolong the trademark application examination process. 

            •  Lead to the abandonment of your application.

            •  Jeopardize the validity of any resulting registration. 

See: http://www.gov.uspto.report/trademark/trademark-updates-and-announcements/proper-representation-trademark-matters.

 

BEWARE OF MISLEADING NOTICES SENT BY PRIVATE COMPANIES ABOUT YOUR APPLICATION 

 

Private companies not associated with the USPTO often use public information provided in USPTO trademark applications to mail and email trademark-related offers and notices – most of which require fees.  These companies often have names similar to the USPTO. 

 

All official USPTO correspondence will only be emailed from the domain “@uspto.gov.” 

 

For a current list of companies the USPTO has received complaints about, information on how to identify these offers and notices, and what to do if you receive one, see the misleading notices webpage. 

 

QUESTIONS ABOUT THIS ACTION

If the applicant has technical questions about the TEAS response to Office action form, the applicant can review the electronic filing tips available online at http://www.gov.uspto.report/trademarks/teas/e_filing_tips.jsp and send technical questions to the TEAS Support Team at TEAS@uspto.gov via e-mail.  Please include your name, telephone number, serial number and/or registration number, a description of the issue, including the name of the TEAS form you are having problems with (e.g., “Response to Office Action Form,” “Request for Extension of Time to File a Statement of Use,” etc.), and a screen shot of any error message that you are receiving.  You should receive a response within two (2) hours if the e-mail message is submitted during normal business hours. 

 

For status inquiries or copies of documents, an applicant may check the status of or view documents filed in the trademark and/or service mark application or registration twenty-four (24) hours a day, seven (7) days a week, using the Trademark Status and Document Retrieval (TSDR) database on the USPTO website at http://tsdr.gov.uspto.report/.  To obtain this status or view these documents, enter the application serial number or registration number and click on “Status” or “Documents.”  Do not attempt to check status until approximately four to five (4-5) days after submission of a filing, to allow sufficient time for all USPTO databases to be updated.

 

For all other non-legal matters, including petitions to revive or reinstate an application, please contact the Trademark Assistance Center (TAC).  TAC may be reached by e-mail at TrademarkAssistanceCenter@uspto.gov or by telephone at (800) 786-9199.  For non-technical matters, TAC is open from 8:30 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. Eastern Standard Time (EST), Monday through Friday, except on federal government holidays.  A list of federal government holidays is available at the following website: http://www.opm.gov/policy-data-oversight/snow-dismissal-procedures/federal-holidays/.

 

If applicant has questions regarding the legal issues in this Office action, please call the assigned trademark examining attorney.

 

/Brian Pino/

Examining Attorney

Law Office 114

571.272.9209 Telephone

571.273.9209 Facsimile

Brian.Pino2@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.