To: | Ford Motor Company (tmdocket@ford.com) |
Subject: | U.S. Trademark Application Serial No. 88205065 - THUNDER - N/A |
Sent: | September 19, 2019 01:52:30 PM |
Sent As: | ecom108@uspto.gov |
Attachments: |
United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO)
Office Action (Official Letter) About Applicant’s Trademark Application
U.S. Application Serial No. 88205065
Mark: THUNDER
|
|
Correspondence Address: |
|
Applicant: Ford Motor Company
|
|
Reference/Docket No. N/A
Correspondence Email Address: |
|
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: September 19, 2019
This Office action is in response to applicant’s communication filed on August 28, 2019.
In a previous Office action dated February 28, 2019, the trademark examining attorney refused registration of the applied-for mark based on Section 2(d) of the Trademark Act for a likelihood of confusion with a registered mark.
The trademark examining attorney maintains and now makes FINAL the refusal 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
Applicant’s mark “THUNDER” (in standard characters) is, as amended, for “Motor vehicles, namely, passenger automobiles, trucks, sport utility vehicles, off-road vehicles, and structural parts, fittings, and badges therefor; metal license plate frames” in Class 12.
The registered mark “THUNDER WHEELER” (stylized with design) is for “land vehicles; electric land vehicles” in Class 12.
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.
Applicant contends that doubt should be resolved in favor of the applicant. This is not true with regard to likelihood of confusion. The overriding concern is not only to prevent buyer confusion as to the source of the goods, 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).
Applicant’s and Registrant’s Marks are Confusingly Similar
In this case, the applied-for mark is “THUNDER”, and the cited mark is “THUNDER WHEELER” with design.
Moreover, the design portion does not obviate the similarities. 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)). In this instance the design further emphasis the term “THUNDER” as the dominant element in the registered mark, increasing the risk of confusion among consumers.
Applicant contends that applicant has a long history of using the mark “THUNDERBIRD” in connection with vehicles, and that the term “THUNDER” is used so frequently in Class 12, that it has become diluted. Applicant’s reference to third-party registrations without making the registrations evidence on record is improper, and they cannot carry weight in the argument. Even assuming that they were properly admitted as evidence, each of those registrations either identify different goods, or contain other wording in the mark that help distinguish them. In this case, the applicant is applying for the term “THUNDER” alone. Even if the term were weak, as applicant argues, it is still entitled to protection. Particularly where applicant’s mark has no other distinguishing element, and the only other term in registrant’s mark, “WHEELER”, is disclaimed as descriptive of the goods.
For these reasons, the examining attorney maintains that the marks are confusingly similar for purposes of likelihood of confusion.
Applicant’s and Registrant’s Goods are Related
In this case, registrant’s goods are defined broadly to encompass applicant’s goods, making them identical for purposes of relatedness. Applicant’s amendment to remove “electric vehicles” does not change this. Because applicant’s remaining goods remain mostly within registrant’s more broadly defined goods, it is still presumed that the channels of trade and class 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, the examining attorney maintains that applicant’s and registrant’s goods are related.
Because applicant’s and registrant’s marks are confusingly similar and the associated goods are related, there is a likelihood of confusion, and the previously issued refusal is now maintained and made FINAL.
PROPER RESPONSE TO THIS FINAL ACTION
Response guidelines. For this application to proceed, applicant must still 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.
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.
How to respond. Click to file a response to this final Office action and/or appeal it to the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB)
Jonathon Schlegelmilch
/Jonathon Schlegelmilch/
Examining Attorney
Law Office 108
571-272-7758
jonathon.schlegelmilch@uspto.gov
RESPONSE GUIDANCE