To: | Source Type GmbH (nwells@legendslaw.com) |
Subject: | U.S. Trademark Application Serial No. 88157765 - MAGISTER - 4804.19 |
Sent: | June 30, 2020 04:00:23 PM |
Sent As: | ecom107@uspto.gov |
Attachments: |
United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO)
Office Action (Official Letter) About Applicant’s Trademark Application
U.S. Application Serial No. 88157765
Mark: MAGISTER
|
|
Correspondence Address:
|
|
Applicant: Source Type GmbH
|
|
Reference/Docket No. 4804.19
Correspondence Email Address: |
|
FINAL OFFICE ACTION
The USPTO must receive applicant’s response to this letter within six months of the issue date below or the application will be abandoned. Respond using the Trademark Electronic Application System (TEAS) and/or Electronic System for Trademark Trials and Appeals (ESTTA). A link to the appropriate TEAS response form and/or to ESTTA for an appeal appears at the end of this Office action.
Issue date: June 30, 2020
This Office action is in response to applicant’s Petition to Revive filed on 6/3/2020.
In a previous Office action(s) dated 12/2/2019, the trademark examining attorney refused registration of the applied-for mark based on the following: Trademark Act Section 2(d) for a likelihood of confusion with a registered mark. In addition, applicant was required to satisfy the following requirement(s): amend the identification of goods to align the scope thereof to that of the foreign registration.
Based on applicant’s response, the trademark examining attorney notes that the following requirement(s) have been satisfied: acceptable amended identification provided. See TMEP §§713.02, 714.04.
However, the trademark examining attorney maintains and now makes FINAL the refusal(s) and/or requirement(s) in the summary of issues below. See 37 C.F.R. §2.63(b); TMEP §714.04.
SUMMARY OF ISSUES MADE FINAL that applicant must address:
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.
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
In the present case, applicant’s mark is MAGISTER (standard character) and registrant’s mark is MAGISTER (standard character). These marks are identical in appearance, sound, and meaning, “and have the potential to be used . . . in exactly the same manner.” In re i.am.symbolic, llc, 116 USPQ2d 1406, 1411 (TTAB 2015), aff’d, 866 F.3d 1315, 123 USPQ2d 1744 (Fed. Cir. 2017). Additionally, because they are identical, these marks are likely to engender the same connotation and overall commercial impression when considered in connection with applicant’s and registrant’s respective goods and/or services. Id.
Therefore, the marks are confusingly similar.
COMPARISON OF THE GOODS AND SERVICES
The applicant’s goods and services are as follows:
Downloadable printing fonts; typeface fonts recorded on magnetic media; computer software for downloading printing fonts; in International Class 9
Graphic representations; printing fonts; tracing paper, namely, handwriting specimens for copying; printed books in the field of graphic design; bookbinding material; printing blocks; in International Class 16
Industrial and graphic art design; providing temporary use of non-downloadable web-based software for downloading printing fonts; design and development of computer software; design, development, maintenance and updating of computer software for word processing, data processing and process control; Software as a service (SAAS) services featuring software for downloading fonts; in International Class 42
The registrant’s goods are “Paper; cardboard; printed publications and printed matter, namely, printed certificates, booklets, coupons, lectures, leaflets, paper signs, manuals, curricula, newsletters, informational cards and brochures in the fields of art, music and artistic performances, entertainment, fashion, sports, culture, general human interest, film production, languages, science and technology, law; Inking Ribbons for computer printers; bookbinding materials; books in the field of art, music and artistic performances, entertainment, fashion, sports, culture, general human interest, film production, languages, science and technology, law; adhesives for stationery or household purposes; artists' paint brushes; music sheets; printed music scores on sheets; periodical magazines in the field of art, music and artistic performances, entertainment, fashion, sports, culture, general human interest, film production, languages, science and technology, law; photographs; stationery and educational supplies, namely, blank note books and school supply kits containing various combinations of selected school supplies, namely, writing instruments, pens, pencils, mechanical pencils, erasers, markers, crayons, highlighter pens, folders, notebooks, paper, protractors, paper clips, pencil sharpeners, writing grips, glue for stationery or household use and book marks; typewriters; printed instructional and teaching material, except apparatus, namely, in the field of art, music and artistic performances, entertainment, fashion, sports, culture, general human interest, film production, languages, science and technology, law; plastic materials, namely, bags, bubble packs and films for packaging; printing blocks.”
When analyzing an applicant’s and registrant’s goods for similarity and relatedness, that determination is based on the description of the goods in the application and registration at issue, not on extrinsic evidence of actual use. See Stone Lion Capital Partners, LP v. Lion Capital LLP, 746 F.3d 1317, 1323, 110 USPQ2d 1157, 1162 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (quoting Octocom Sys. Inc. v. Hous. Computers Servs. Inc., 918 F.2d 937, 942, 16 USPQ2d 1783, 1787 (Fed. Cir. 1990)).
In this case, the goods in the application and registration(s) are identical in part. Therefore, it is presumed that the channels of trade and class(es) of purchasers are the same for these goods. See Cai v. Diamond Hong, Inc., __ F.3d __, 27 USPQ2d 1797, 1801 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (quoting In re Viterra Inc., 671 F.3d 1358, 1362, 101 USPQ2d 1905, 1908 (Fed. Cir. 2012)). Thus, applicant’s and registrant’s goods are related. Furthermore, applicant’s provision of Class 9 and Class 42 goods and services in connection with the Class 16 goods show that these goods and services emanate from the same source under the same mark.
In conclusion, the applicant’s and registrant’s goods and services are related.
Assuming arguendo, that the goods and services were any less related, where the marks of the respective parties are identical, as in this case, the degree of similarity or relatedness between the goods and services needed to support a finding of likelihood of confusion declines. See In re i.am.symbolic, llc, 116 USPQ2d 1406, 1411 (TTAB 2015) (citing In re Shell Oil Co., 992 F.2d 1204, 1207, 26 USPQ2d 1687, 1689 (Fed. Cir. 1993)), aff’d, 866 F.3d 1315, 123 USPQ2d 1744 (Fed. Cir. 2017); TMEP §1207.01(a).
Accordingly, the refusal under Section 2(d) is now made FINAL.
How to respond. Click to file a request for reconsideration of this final Office action that fully resolves all outstanding requirements and refusals and/or click to file a timely appeal to the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB) with the required filing fee(s).
/Cynthia R. Smith/
Trademark Examining Attorney
Law Office 107
(571) 272-4685
cynthia.smith@uspto.gov
RESPONSE GUIDANCE