To: | Super ATV, LLC (docketdept@uspatent.com) |
Subject: | U.S. Trademark Application Serial No. 88159838 - WARRIOR - 24244-144 |
Sent: | December 02, 2020 03:28:20 PM |
Sent As: | ecom112@uspto.gov |
Attachments: |
United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO)
Office Action (Official Letter) About Applicant’s Trademark Application
U.S. Application Serial No. 88159838
Mark: WARRIOR
|
|
Correspondence Address: |
|
Applicant: Super ATV, LLC
|
|
Reference/Docket No. 24244-144
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: December 02, 2020
This Office action is in response to applicant’s communication filed on 11/05/2020.
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.
In this case, the applied for mark WARRIOR is highly similar to the registered mark TRAIL WARRIOR and the associated goods are closely related, if not identical and directly competitive. Thus, confusion as to source is likely. In traversing the refusal to register, applicant contends that it is the “senior user”. See Response. The examining attorney respectfully submits that this claim of priority of use is not relevant to this ex parte proceeding. See In re Calgon Corp., 435 F.2d 596, 168 USPQ 278 (C.C.P.A. 1971). Trademark Act Section 7(b), 15 U.S.C. §1057(b), provides that a certificate of registration on the Principal Register is prima facie evidence of the validity of the registration, of the registrant’s ownership of the mark, and of the registrant’s exclusive right to use the mark in commerce on or in connection with the goods and/or services specified in the certificate. During ex parte prosecution, the trademark examining attorney has no authority to review or to decide on matters that constitute a collateral attack on the cited registration. TMEP §1207.01(d)(iv).
Moreover, applicant’s statement that it will “seek to work with registrant to determine whether there is really any likelihood of confusion in this case, and will then proceed with either a consent agreement or a cancellation proceeding, depending on the facts” is not persuasive. See Response. . As a general rule, the USPTO will not delay or suspend action in a trademark matter in order to allow an applicant to obtain a consent agreement from the owner of a cited registration. TMEP §716.02. However, should applicant initiate formal legal proceedings to cancel the cited registration(s), suspension would be appropriate. TMEP §716.02(a).
The refusal to register under Trademark Act 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).
Kimberly Boulware Perry
/Kimberly Boulware Perry/
Trademark Attorney, Law Office 112
571-272-9208 (direct)
kimberly.perry@uspto.gov
RESPONSE GUIDANCE