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 PARTIAL 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: 2/12/2019

 

 

 

 

 

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 issues below.  15 U.S.C. §1062(b); 37 C.F.R. §§2.62(a), 2.65(a); TMEP §§711, 718.03.

 

Summary of Issues Applicant Must Address

• Section 2(d) Refusal – Likelihood of Confusion

 

This Office action also includes an advisory regarding earlier filed applications.

 

Section 2(d) Refusal – Likelihood of Confusion – As to Specific Services

 

Registration of the applied-for mark is refused because of a likelihood of confusion with the mark in U.S. Registration No. 5040432.  Trademark Act Section 2(d), 15 U.S.C. §1052(d); see TMEP §§1207.01 et seq.  See the enclosed registration.

 

The applicant has applied to register GLITCHCAM in stylized form for:

 

Editing or recording of sounds and images; Educational examination services; Educational services, namely, conducting classes, seminars, workshops in the field of computers, computer games; Electronic desktop publishing; Electronic games services provided by means of the internet; Entertainment services, namely, live, televised and movie appearances by a professional entertainer; Entertainment services, namely, providing online video games; Entertainment services, namely, providing temporary use of non-downloadable electronic games; Entertainment services, namely, providing temporary use of non-downloadable interactive games; Entertainment services, namely, providing a website featuring games and puzzles; Entertainment services, namely, providing temporary use of non-downloadable computer learning games; Entertainment services, namely, providing online electronic games; Entertainment in the nature of computer games, namely, providing temporary use of non-downloadable computer games; Entertainment services, namely, providing on-line computer games; Entertainment services, namely, providing an on-line computer game; Film production, other than advertising films; Gambling services; Games equipment rental; Non-downloadable electronic publications in the nature of e-books, online magazines, online newspapers, electronic journals and blogs in the field of computer and video games; Operating lotteries; Organisation of games; Organization of sports competitions; Party planning; Photo editing; Post-production editing services in the field of music, videos and film; Production of music; Production of musical videos; Providing amusement arcade services; Providing information on-line relating to computer games and computer enhancements for games; Providing information relating to education services; Providing on-line computer games; Providing recreation facilities; Publication of books; Scriptwriting services for non-advertising purposes; Training services in the field of computers, computer games; Video editing; Entertainment services, namely, casino gaming; Entertainment services, namely, arranging for ticket reservations for water parks and amusement centers; Multimedia publishing of books, magazines, journals, software, games, music, and electronic publications; Providing casino facilities; Providing information relating to organizing community sporting and cultural activities, contests and games, in Class 41. 

 

This refusal is limited to the services highlighted above in bold.

 

The registered mark is THE GLITCH in standard-character form for:

 

Entertainment services by a musical artist and producer, namely, musical composition for others and production of musical sound recordings; Entertainment services in the nature of recording, production and post-production services in the field of music; Entertainment, namely, live performances by a musical band; Production of music, in Class 41.

 

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 the Services

 

Determining likelihood of confusion is based on the description of the goods and/or services stated in the application and registration at issue, not on extrinsic evidence of actual use.  See In re Detroit Athletic Co., 903 F.3d 1297, 1307, 128 USPQ2d 1047, 1052 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (citing In re i.am.symbolic, llc, 866 F.3d 1315, 1325, 123 USPQ2d 1744, 1749 (Fed. Cir. 2017)).  

 

In this case, the parties’ services both include music production and post-production services.  The applicant’s film and video production, and video editing services may also include music production services, such as production of music videos.  The applicant’s “Editing or recording of sounds and images” is broad enough to include the registrant’s music recording services.  The applicant’s photo and image editing are also closely related to the registrant’s services because these services could include editing of photos and images of musical performers.  The applicant’s “Entertainment services, namely, live, televised and movie appearances by a professional entertainer” are also closely related to the registrant’s live performances by a musical band because the applicant’s “entertainer” could be a band or similar musical performer.  See, e.g., In re Solid State Design Inc., 125 USPQ2d 1409, 1412-15 (TTAB 2018); Sw. Mgmt., Inc. v. Ocinomled, Ltd., 115 USPQ2d 1007, 1025 (TTAB 2015).  Thus, applicant’s and registrant’s services are legally identical.  See, e.g., In re i.am.symbolic, llc, 127 USPQ2d 1627, 1629 (TTAB 2018) (citing Tuxedo Monopoly, Inc. v.Gen. Mills Fun Grp., Inc., 648 F.2d 1335, 1336, 209 USPQ 986, 988 (C.C.P.A. 1981); Inter IKEA Sys. B.V. v. Akea, LLC, 110 USPQ2d 1734, 1745 (TTAB 2014); Baseball Am. Inc. v. Powerplay Sports Ltd., 71 USPQ2d 1844, 1847 n.9 (TTAB 2004)).

 

Additionally, the services of the parties have no restrictions as to channels of trade or classes of purchasers and are “presumed to travel in the same channels of trade to the same class of purchasers.”  In re Viterra Inc., 671 F.3d 1358, 1362, 101 USPQ2d 1905, 1908 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (quoting Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Packard Press, Inc., 281 F.3d 1261, 1268, 62 USPQ2d 1001, 1005 (Fed. Cir. 2002)).  Thus, applicant’s and registrant’s services are related.

 

Comparison of the Marks

 

Where the goods and/or services of an applicant and registrant are “similar in kind and/or closely related,” 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.  In re J.M. Originals Inc., 6 USPQ2d 1393, 1394 (TTAB 1987); see Shen Mfg. Co. v. Ritz Hotel Ltd., 393 F.3d 1238, 1242, 73 USPQ2d 1350, 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2004); TMEP §1207.01(b).

 

In this case, the applicant’s mark GLITCHCAM and the registrant’s mark THE GLITCH are similar in commercial impression.

 

Marks must be compared in their entireties and should not be dissected; however, a trademark examining attorney may weigh the individual components of a mark to determine its overall commercial impression.  Stone Lion Capital Partners, LP v. Lion Capital LLP, 746 F.3d 1317, 1322, 110 USPQ2d 1157, 1161 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (“[Regarding the issue of confusion,] there is nothing improper in stating that . . . more or less weight has been given to a particular feature of a mark, provided the ultimate conclusion rests on consideration of the marks in their entireties.”) (quoting In re Nat’l Data Corp., 753 F.2d 1056, 1058, 224 USPQ 749, 751 (Fed. Cir. 1985))). 

 

Although marks are compared in their entireties, one feature of a mark may be more significant or dominant in creating a commercial impression.  See In re Detroit Athletic Co., 903 F.3d 1297, 1305, 128 USPQ2d 1047, 1050 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (citing In re Dixie Rests., 105 F.3d 1405, 1407, 41 USPQ2d 1531, 1533-34 (Fed. Cir. 1997)); TMEP §1207.01(b)(viii), (c)(ii).  Greater weight is often given to this dominant feature when determining whether marks are confusingly similar.  See In re Detroit Athletic Co., 903 F.3d at 1305, 128 USPQ2d at 1050 (citing In re Dixie Rests., 105 F.3d at 1407, 41 USPQ2d at 1533-34).

 

When comparing similar marks, the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board has found that inclusion of the term “the” at the beginning of one of the marks will generally not affect or otherwise diminish the overall similarity between the marks.  See In re Thor Tech Inc., 90 USPQ2d 1634, 1635 (TTAB 2009) (finding WAVE and THE WAVE “virtually identical” marks; “[t]he addition of the word ‘The’ at the beginning of the registered mark does not have any trademark significance.”); In re Narwood Prods. Inc., 223 USPQ 1034, 1034 (TTAB 1984) (finding THE MUSIC MAKERS and MUSIC-MAKERS “virtually identical” marks; the inclusion of the definite article “the” is “insignificant in determining likelihood of confusion”).  Thus, the dominant term in the registered mark is the term GLITCH.  This term appears to be arbitrary in the context of the registrant’s services, and thus, is entitled to a broad scope of protection.

 

The applicant’s mark combines the identical term GLITCH with the term CAM, which would be perceived as an abbreviation for “camera.”  Because some of the applicant’s services involve photos and video, the term CAM in the mark merely describes these services and is entitled to less weight in comparing the marks.  Additionally, this term does not change the meaning of the common term GLITCH.

 

Thus, when viewed in their entireties, the marks are similar in commercial impression.

 

Since the marks are similar and the goods closely related and in part identical, there is a likelihood of confusion as to the source of applicant’s services included in this refusal.  Therefore, applicant’s mark is not entitled to registration, and registration is refused under Section 2(d) as to the services identified above.

 

Although applicant’s mark has been refused registration, applicant may respond to the refusal by submitting evidence and arguments in support of registration.

 

Potential Section 2(d) Refusal – Likelihood of Confusion – As to Specific Services

 

The filing dates of pending U.S. Application Serial Nos. 87440906, 87532843, 87532909, 87532939, 87532970, 87532995, 87533017, 88122234, and 88122287 precede applicant’s filing date.  See attached referenced applications.  If one or more of the marks in the referenced applications register, applicant’s mark may be refused registration under Trademark Act Section 2(d) because of a likelihood of confusion with the registered mark(s).  See 15 U.S.C. §1052(d); 37 C.F.R. §2.83; TMEP §§1208 et seq.  Therefore, upon receipt of applicant’s response to this Office action, action on this application may be suspended pending final disposition of the earlier-filed referenced applications.

 

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 marks in the referenced applications.  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.

 

The applicant is advised that if the applicant's mark is refused registration under Trademark Act Section 2(d) because of a likelihood of confusion with any of the marks in these applications, the following services will not be included in the refusal:

 

Educational examination services; Electronic desktop publishing; Providing information relating to education services; Publication of books; Scriptwriting services for non-advertising purposes; Multimedia publishing of books, magazines, journals, and electronic publications, in Class 41.

 

ADVISORY – Domestic Representative

 

Applicant is encouraged to designate a domestic representative upon whom notices or process may be served.  TMEP §610.  If applicant does not designate a domestic representative, any notice or process in proceedings affecting the mark may be served on the Director of the USPTO.  15 U.S.C. §§1051(e), 1141h(d); 37 C.F.R. §2.24(a)(1)-(2); see TMEP §610.

 

Applicant may file a designation of domestic representative form online using the Trademark Electronic Application System (TEAS) at http://www.gov.uspto.report/trademarks/teas/correspondence.jsp. 

 

A designation of domestic representative must be personally signed or include an electronic signature personally entered by someone with legal authority to bind a juristic applicant (e.g., a corporate officer or general partner), or an authorized attorney.  37 C.F.R. §§2.24(a)(1)(ii), 2.193(a), (e)(8); TMEP §610. 

 

ADVISORY – Partial Abandonment

 

If applicant does not respond to this Office action within the six-month period for response, the following services will be deleted from the application: 

 

Editing or recording of sounds and images; Educational services, namely, conducting classes, seminars, workshops in the field of computers, computer games; Electronic games services provided by means of the internet; Entertainment services, namely, live, televised and movie appearances by a professional entertainer; Entertainment services, namely, providing online video games; Entertainment services, namely, providing temporary use of non-downloadable electronic games; Entertainment services, namely, providing temporary use of non-downloadable interactive games; Entertainment services, namely, providing a website featuring games and puzzles; Entertainment services, namely, providing temporary use of non-downloadable computer learning games; Entertainment services, namely, providing online electronic games; Entertainment in the nature of computer games, namely, providing temporary use of non-downloadable computer games; Entertainment services, namely, providing on-line computer games; Entertainment services, namely, providing an on-line computer game; Film production, other than advertising films; Gambling services; Games equipment rental; Non-downloadable electronic publications in the nature of e-books, online magazines, online newspapers, electronic journals and blogs in the field of computer and video games; Operating lotteries; Organisation of games; Organization of sports competitions; Party planning; Photo editing; Post-production editing services in the field of music, videos and film; Production of music; Production of musical videos; Providing amusement arcade services; Providing information on-line relating to computer games and computer enhancements for games; Providing on-line computer games; Providing recreation facilities; Training services in the field of computers, computer games; Video editing; Entertainment services, namely, casino gaming; Entertainment services, namely, arranging for ticket reservations for water parks and amusement centers; software, games, music; Providing casino facilities; Providing information relating to organizing community sporting and cultural activities, contests and games

 

The application will then proceed with the following services only: 

 

Educational examination services; Electronic desktop publishing; Providing information relating to education services; Publication of books; Scriptwriting services for non-advertising purposes; Multimedia publishing of books, magazines, journals, and electronic publications, in Class 41.

 

See 37 C.F.R. §2.65(a)-(a)(1); TMEP §718.02(a).

 

Response Guidelines

 

Responses to Office actions must be properly signed.  See 37 C.F.R. §§2.62(b), 2.193(e)(2); TMEP §§712, 712.01.  If an applicant is not represented by an attorney, the response must be signed by someone with legal authority to bind a juristic applicant (e.g., a corporate officer or general partner).  See 37 C.F.R. §2.193(e)(2)(ii); TMEP §§611.03(b), 611.06(b)-(h), 712.01. 

 

For this application to proceed further for all of the applicant’s services, 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. 

 

In addition, because applicant filed a TEAS Plus application, applicant must respond online using the Trademark Electronic Application System (TEAS) to avoid incurring an additional fee.  See 37 C.F.R. §2.22(b)(1), (c).  Please see “Responding to Office Actions” and the informational video “Response to Office Action” for more information and tips on responding.

 

Because of the legal technicalities and strict deadlines involved in the USPTO application process, applicant may wish to hire a qualified U.S. 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 or an online directory of legal professionals, such as FindLaw®.  The USPTO, however, may not assist an applicant in the selection of a private attorney.  37 C.F.R. §2.11.

 

Please note that foreign attorneys, other than duly authorized Canadian attorneys, are not permitted to represent applicants before the USPTO.  See 37 C.F.R. §§2.17(e), 11.14(c), (e); TMEP §602.03-.03(c).  The only attorneys who may practice before the USPTO in trademark matters are (1) attorneys in good standing with a bar of the highest court of any U.S. state, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and other U.S. commonwealths/territories; and (2) duly authorized Canadian agents/attorneys.  See 37 C.F.R. §§2.17(e), 11.14(a), (c); TMEP §602.

 

Please call or email the assigned trademark examining attorney with questions about this Office action.  Although the trademark examining attorney cannot provide legal advice or statements about applicant’s rights, the trademark examining attorney can provide applicant with additional explanation about the refusal(s) and/or requirement(s) in this Office action.  See TMEP §§705.02, 709.06.  Although the USPTO does not accept emails as responses to Office actions, emails can be used for informal communications and will be included in the application record.  See 37 C.F.R. §§2.62(c), 2.191; TMEP §§304.01-.02, 709.04-.05. 

 

 

 

 

/Kim Teresa Moninghoff/

Examining Attorney

Law Office 113

Phone:  571-272-4738

Fax: 571-273-9113

Email:  kim.moninghoff@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.

 

 

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE (USPTO)

 

 

IMPORTANT NOTICE REGARDING YOUR

U.S. TRADEMARK APPLICATION

 

USPTO OFFICE ACTION (OFFICIAL LETTER) HAS ISSUED

ON 2/12/2019 FOR U.S. APPLICATION SERIAL NO. 88209730

 

Your trademark application has been reviewed.  The trademark examining attorney assigned by the USPTO to your application has written an official letter to which you must respond.  Please follow these steps:

 

(1)  Read the LETTER by clicking on this link or going to http://tsdr.gov.uspto.report/, entering your U.S. application serial number, and clicking on “Documents.”

 

The Office action may not be immediately viewable, to allow for necessary system updates of the application, but will be available within 24 hours of this e-mail notification. 

 

(2)  Respond within 6 months (or sooner if specified in the Office action), calculated from 2/12/2019, using the Trademark Electronic Application System (TEAS) response form located at http://www.gov.uspto.report/trademarks/teas/response_forms.jsp.  A response transmitted through TEAS must be received before midnight Eastern Time of the last day of the response period.

 

Do NOT hit “Reply” to this e-mail notification, or otherwise e-mail your response because the USPTO does NOT accept e-mails as responses to Office actions. 

 

(3)  Questions about the contents of the Office action itself should be directed to the trademark examining attorney who reviewed your application, identified below. 

 

/Kim Teresa Moninghoff/

Examining Attorney

Law Office 113

Phone:  571-272-4738

Fax: 571-273-9113

Email:  kim.moninghoff@uspto.gov

 

 

WARNING

 

Failure to file the required response by the applicable response deadline will result in the ABANDONMENT of your application.  For more information regarding abandonment, see http://www.gov.uspto.report/trademarks/basics/abandon.jsp. 

 

PRIVATE COMPANY SOLICITATIONS REGARDING YOUR APPLICATION:  Private companies not associated with the USPTO are using information provided in trademark applications to mail or e-mail trademark-related solicitations.  These companies often use names that closely resemble the USPTO and their solicitations may look like an official government document.  Many solicitations require that you pay “fees.” 

 

Please carefully review all correspondence you receive regarding this application to make sure that you are responding to an official document from the USPTO rather than a private company solicitation.  All official USPTO correspondence will be mailed only from the “United States Patent and Trademark Office” in Alexandria, VA; or sent by e-mail from the domain “@uspto.gov.”  For more information on how to handle private company solicitations, see http://www.gov.uspto.report/trademarks/solicitation_warnings.jsp.