Response to Office Action

GOO GOO

Standard Candy Company, LLC

Response to Office Action

Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 no persons are required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a valid OMB control number.
PTO Form 1957 (Rev 10/2011)
OMB No. 0651-0050 (Exp 09/30/2020)

Response to Office Action


The table below presents the data as entered.

Input Field
Entered
SERIAL NUMBER 88221583
LAW OFFICE ASSIGNED LAW OFFICE 118
MARK SECTION
MARK mark
LITERAL ELEMENT GOO GOO
STANDARD CHARACTERS YES
USPTO-GENERATED IMAGE YES
MARK STATEMENT The mark consists of standard characters, without claim to any particular font style, size or color.
OWNER SECTION (current)
NAME Standard Candy Company, LLC
MAILING ADDRESS 116 3rd Avenue South
CITY Nashville
STATE Tennessee
ZIP/POSTAL CODE 37201
COUNTRY/REGION/JURISDICTION/U.S. TERRITORY United States
OWNER SECTION (proposed)
NAME Standard Candy Company, LLC
MAILING ADDRESS 116 3rd Avenue South
CITY Nashville
STATE Tennessee
ZIP/POSTAL CODE 37201
COUNTRY/REGION/JURISDICTION/U.S. TERRITORY United States
EMAIL XXXX
ARGUMENT(S)
The Office Action has rejected the applied-for mark under section 2(d) because of an alleged likelihood of confusion. Furthermore, the applicant respectfully disagrees and submits that the applied for mark would not cause confusion with the cited mark. Likelihood of confusion under Section 2(d) is analyzed using the Du Pont factors, including the similarity or dissimilarity of the marks in their entireties as to appearance, sound, connotation, and commercial impression; the similarity or dissimilarity and nature of the goods or services as described in an application or registration or in connection with which a prior mark is in use; the purchasers of the goods i.e. impulse vs. careful, sophisticated purchasing; and the number and nature of similar marks in use on similar goods. In re E.I. du Pont de Nemours &Co., 476 F.2d 1357, 177 USPQ 563 (C.C.P.A. 1973). The test is not whether the marks can be distinguished in a side-by-side comparison, but rather whether the marks in their entireties create the same overall impression such that confusion is likely to result (see, for example, In re Hyper Shoppes (Ohio), Inc., 837 F.2d 463, 464-65 (Fed. Cir. 1988)). Applicant has a long history and has been using the mark on its candy since 1912. Applicant owns several registrations for the applied for mark in other classes, the earliest of which dates back to 1947: US 508,699 for ?GOO GOO? in class 30; US 4,943,491 for ?GOO GOO CLUSTER? in class 30; US 4,470,005 for ?GOO GOO? in class 30; US 4,470,005 for ?GOO GOO? in class 25; and US 5,735,020 for ?GOO GOO? in class 30. The subject mark, taken as a whole, is different phonetically and in appearance from the cited mark. Applicant?s long history and the registrations for its mark lend weight to the fact that the subject mark will not cause confusion for another mark, particularly considering the differences in both sound and appearance. For at least the reasons set forth above, Applicant respectfully requests withdrawal of the likelihood of confusion rejection.
EVIDENCE SECTION
        EVIDENCE FILE NAME(S)
       ORIGINAL PDF FILE evi_685315475-20201111193 041319149_._Goo_Goo_histo ry_cute.pdf
       CONVERTED PDF FILE(S)
       (12 pages)
\\TICRS\EXPORT18\IMAGEOUT 18\882\215\88221583\xml2\ ROA0002.JPG
        \\TICRS\EXPORT18\IMAGEOUT 18\882\215\88221583\xml2\ ROA0003.JPG
        \\TICRS\EXPORT18\IMAGEOUT 18\882\215\88221583\xml2\ ROA0004.JPG
        \\TICRS\EXPORT18\IMAGEOUT 18\882\215\88221583\xml2\ ROA0005.JPG
        \\TICRS\EXPORT18\IMAGEOUT 18\882\215\88221583\xml2\ ROA0006.JPG
        \\TICRS\EXPORT18\IMAGEOUT 18\882\215\88221583\xml2\ ROA0007.JPG
        \\TICRS\EXPORT18\IMAGEOUT 18\882\215\88221583\xml2\ ROA0008.JPG
        \\TICRS\EXPORT18\IMAGEOUT 18\882\215\88221583\xml2\ ROA0009.JPG
        \\TICRS\EXPORT18\IMAGEOUT 18\882\215\88221583\xml2\ ROA0010.JPG
        \\TICRS\EXPORT18\IMAGEOUT 18\882\215\88221583\xml2\ ROA0011.JPG
        \\TICRS\EXPORT18\IMAGEOUT 18\882\215\88221583\xml2\ ROA0012.JPG
        \\TICRS\EXPORT18\IMAGEOUT 18\882\215\88221583\xml2\ ROA0013.JPG
DESCRIPTION OF EVIDENCE FILE History of GOO GOO
ATTORNEY INFORMATION (current)
NAME Emily A. Shouse
ATTORNEY BAR MEMBERSHIP NUMBER NOT SPECIFIED
YEAR OF ADMISSION NOT SPECIFIED
U.S. STATE/ COMMONWEALTH/ TERRITORY NOT SPECIFIED
FIRM NAME PATTERSON INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW, PC
STREET 1600 DIVISION STREET, SUITE 500
CITY NASHVILLE
STATE Tennessee
POSTAL CODE 37203
COUNTRY/REGION/JURISDICTION/U.S. TERRITORY United States
PHONE 615-242-2400
FAX 6152422221
EMAIL docket@iplawgroup.com
DOCKET/REFERENCE NUMBER 11545-019981
ATTORNEY INFORMATION (proposed)
NAME Emily A. Shouse
ATTORNEY BAR MEMBERSHIP NUMBER XXX
YEAR OF ADMISSION XXXX
U.S. STATE/ COMMONWEALTH/ TERRITORY XX
FIRM NAME PATTERSON INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW, PC
STREET 1600 DIVISION STREET, SUITE 500
CITY NASHVILLE
STATE Tennessee
POSTAL CODE 37203
COUNTRY/REGION/JURISDICTION/U.S. TERRITORY United States
PHONE 615-242-2400
FAX 6152422221
EMAIL docket@iplawgroup.com
DOCKET/REFERENCE NUMBER 11545-019981
OTHER APPOINTED ATTORNEY Mark J. Patterson, Edward D. Lanquist, Jr., Lucian Wayne Beavers, John F. Triggs, Ryan D. Levy, Gary L. Montle, Scott M. Douglass, Jerry Turner Sewell, Grant M. Ford, Seth R. Ogden, William E. Sekyi, Mark A. Kilgore
CORRESPONDENCE INFORMATION (current)
NAME EMILY A. SHOUSE
PRIMARY EMAIL ADDRESS FOR CORRESPONDENCE docket@iplawgroup.com
SECONDARY EMAIL ADDRESS(ES) (COURTESY COPIES) eas@iplawgroup.com
DOCKET/REFERENCE NUMBER 11545-019981
CORRESPONDENCE INFORMATION (proposed)
NAME Emily A. Shouse
PRIMARY EMAIL ADDRESS FOR CORRESPONDENCE docket@iplawgroup.com
SECONDARY EMAIL ADDRESS(ES) (COURTESY COPIES) eas@iplawgroup.com
DOCKET/REFERENCE NUMBER 11545-019981
SIGNATURE SECTION
RESPONSE SIGNATURE /emily a. shouse/
SIGNATORY'S NAME Emily A. Shouse
SIGNATORY'S POSITION Attorney of record
SIGNATORY'S PHONE NUMBER 6152422400
DATE SIGNED 11/11/2020
AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY YES
FILING INFORMATION SECTION
SUBMIT DATE Wed Nov 11 19:45:22 ET 2020
TEAS STAMP USPTO/ROA-XX.XX.XXX.XX-20
201111194522841068-882215
83-7505299268eec0d33f3adc
b995bcf24c72dec21b78ce4ac
d329fd64b7c39674162-N/A-N
/A-20201111193041319149



Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 no persons are required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a valid OMB control number.
PTO Form 1957 (Rev 10/2011)
OMB No. 0651-0050 (Exp 09/30/2020)

Response to Office Action


To the Commissioner for Trademarks:

Application serial no. 88221583 GOO GOO(Standard Characters, see http://uspto.report/TM/88221583/mark.png) has been amended as follows:

ARGUMENT(S)
In response to the substantive refusal(s), please note the following:

The Office Action has rejected the applied-for mark under section 2(d) because of an alleged likelihood of confusion. Furthermore, the applicant respectfully disagrees and submits that the applied for mark would not cause confusion with the cited mark. Likelihood of confusion under Section 2(d) is analyzed using the Du Pont factors, including the similarity or dissimilarity of the marks in their entireties as to appearance, sound, connotation, and commercial impression; the similarity or dissimilarity and nature of the goods or services as described in an application or registration or in connection with which a prior mark is in use; the purchasers of the goods i.e. impulse vs. careful, sophisticated purchasing; and the number and nature of similar marks in use on similar goods. In re E.I. du Pont de Nemours &Co., 476 F.2d 1357, 177 USPQ 563 (C.C.P.A. 1973). The test is not whether the marks can be distinguished in a side-by-side comparison, but rather whether the marks in their entireties create the same overall impression such that confusion is likely to result (see, for example, In re Hyper Shoppes (Ohio), Inc., 837 F.2d 463, 464-65 (Fed. Cir. 1988)). Applicant has a long history and has been using the mark on its candy since 1912. Applicant owns several registrations for the applied for mark in other classes, the earliest of which dates back to 1947: US 508,699 for ?GOO GOO? in class 30; US 4,943,491 for ?GOO GOO CLUSTER? in class 30; US 4,470,005 for ?GOO GOO? in class 30; US 4,470,005 for ?GOO GOO? in class 25; and US 5,735,020 for ?GOO GOO? in class 30. The subject mark, taken as a whole, is different phonetically and in appearance from the cited mark. Applicant?s long history and the registrations for its mark lend weight to the fact that the subject mark will not cause confusion for another mark, particularly considering the differences in both sound and appearance. For at least the reasons set forth above, Applicant respectfully requests withdrawal of the likelihood of confusion rejection.

EVIDENCE
Evidence has been attached: History of GOO GOO
Original PDF file:
evi_685315475-20201111193 041319149_._Goo_Goo_histo ry_cute.pdf
Converted PDF file(s) ( 12 pages) Evidence-1Evidence-2Evidence-3Evidence-4Evidence-5Evidence-6Evidence-7Evidence-8Evidence-9Evidence-10Evidence-11Evidence-12

OWNER AND/OR ENTITY INFORMATION
Applicant proposes to amend the following:
Current: Standard Candy Company, LLC, a limited liability company legally organized under the laws of Tennessee, having an address of
      116 3rd Avenue South
      Nashville, Tennessee 37201
      United States

Proposed: Standard Candy Company, LLC, a limited liability company legally organized under the laws of Tennessee, having an address of
      116 3rd Avenue South
      Nashville, Tennessee 37201
      United States
      Email Address: XXXX

The owner's/holder's current attorney information: Emily A. Shouse. Emily A. Shouse of PATTERSON INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW, PC, is located at

      1600 DIVISION STREET, SUITE 500
      NASHVILLE, Tennessee 37203
      United States
The docket/reference number is 11545-019981.
      The phone number is 615-242-2400.
      The fax number is 6152422221.
      The email address is docket@iplawgroup.com

The owner's/holder's proposed attorney information: Emily A. Shouse. Other appointed attorneys are Mark J. Patterson, Edward D. Lanquist, Jr., Lucian Wayne Beavers, John F. Triggs, Ryan D. Levy, Gary L. Montle, Scott M. Douglass, Jerry Turner Sewell, Grant M. Ford, Seth R. Ogden, William E. Sekyi, Mark A. Kilgore. Emily A. Shouse of PATTERSON INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW, PC, is a member of the XX bar, admitted to the bar in XXXX, bar membership no. XXX, and the attorney(s) is located at

      1600 DIVISION STREET, SUITE 500
      NASHVILLE, Tennessee 37203
      United States
The docket/reference number is 11545-019981.
      The phone number is 615-242-2400.
      The fax number is 6152422221.
      The email address is docket@iplawgroup.com

Emily A. Shouse submitted the following statement: The attorney of record is an active member in good standing of the bar of the highest court of a U.S. state, the District of Columbia, or any U.S. Commonwealth or territory.Correspondence Information (current):
      EMILY A. SHOUSE
      PRIMARY EMAIL FOR CORRESPONDENCE: docket@iplawgroup.com
      SECONDARY EMAIL ADDRESS(ES) (COURTESY COPIES): eas@iplawgroup.com

The docket/reference number is 11545-019981.
Correspondence Information (proposed):
      Emily A. Shouse
      PRIMARY EMAIL FOR CORRESPONDENCE: docket@iplawgroup.com
      SECONDARY EMAIL ADDRESS(ES) (COURTESY COPIES): eas@iplawgroup.com

The docket/reference number is 11545-019981.

Requirement for Email and Electronic Filing: I understand that a valid email address must be maintained by the owner/holder and the owner's/holder's attorney, if appointed, and that all official trademark correspondence must be submitted via the Trademark Electronic Application System (TEAS).

SIGNATURE(S)
Response Signature
Signature: /emily a. shouse/     Date: 11/11/2020
Signatory's Name: Emily A. Shouse
Signatory's Position: Attorney of record

Signatory's Phone Number: 6152422400

The signatory has confirmed that he/she is a U.S.-licensed attorney who is an active member in good standing of the bar of the highest court of a U.S. state (including the District of Columbia and any U.S. Commonwealth or territory); and he/she is currently the owner's/holder's attorney or an associate thereof; and to the best of his/her knowledge, if prior to his/her appointment another U.S.-licensed attorney not currently associated with his/her company/firm previously represented the owner/holder in this matter: the owner/holder has revoked their power of attorney by a signed revocation or substitute power of attorney with the USPTO; the USPTO has granted that attorney's withdrawal request; the owner/holder has filed a power of attorney appointing him/her in this matter; or the owner's/holder's appointed U.S.-licensed attorney has filed a power of attorney appointing him/her as an associate attorney in this matter.

Mailing Address:    EMILY A. SHOUSE
   PATTERSON INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW, PC
   
   1600 DIVISION STREET, SUITE 500
   NASHVILLE, Tennessee 37203
Mailing Address:    Emily A. Shouse
   PATTERSON INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW, PC
   1600 DIVISION STREET, SUITE 500
   NASHVILLE, Tennessee 37203
        
Serial Number: 88221583
Internet Transmission Date: Wed Nov 11 19:45:22 ET 2020
TEAS Stamp: USPTO/ROA-XX.XX.XXX.XX-20201111194522841
068-88221583-7505299268eec0d33f3adcb995b
cf24c72dec21b78ce4acd329fd64b7c39674162-
N/A-N/A-20201111193041319149


Response to Office Action [image/jpeg]

Response to Office Action [image/jpeg]

Response to Office Action [image/jpeg]

Response to Office Action [image/jpeg]

Response to Office Action [image/jpeg]

Response to Office Action [image/jpeg]

Response to Office Action [image/jpeg]

Response to Office Action [image/jpeg]

Response to Office Action [image/jpeg]

Response to Office Action [image/jpeg]

Response to Office Action [image/jpeg]

Response to Office Action [image/jpeg]


uspto.report is an independent third-party trademark research tool that is not affiliated, endorsed, or sponsored by the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) or any other governmental organization. The information provided by uspto.report is based on publicly available data at the time of writing and is intended for informational purposes only.

While we strive to provide accurate and up-to-date information, we do not guarantee the accuracy, completeness, reliability, or suitability of the information displayed on this site. The use of this site is at your own risk. Any reliance you place on such information is therefore strictly at your own risk.

All official trademark data, including owner information, should be verified by visiting the official USPTO website at www.uspto.gov. This site is not intended to replace professional legal advice and should not be used as a substitute for consulting with a legal professional who is knowledgeable about trademark law.

© 2024 USPTO.report | Privacy Policy | Resources | RSS Feed of Trademarks | Trademark Filings Twitter Feed