To: | MyYogaTeacher, Inc. (spink@omm.com) |
Subject: | U.S. TRADEMARK APPLICATION NO. 88227050 - MYYOGATEACHER - N/A |
Sent: | 3/15/2019 4:39:23 PM |
Sent As: | ECOM121@USPTO.GOV |
Attachments: | Attachment - 1 Attachment - 2 Attachment - 3 Attachment - 4 Attachment - 5 Attachment - 6 Attachment - 7 Attachment - 8 Attachment - 9 Attachment - 10 Attachment - 11 Attachment - 12 Attachment - 13 Attachment - 14 Attachment - 15 Attachment - 16 Attachment - 17 Attachment - 18 Attachment - 19 Attachment - 20 Attachment - 21 Attachment - 22 Attachment - 23 Attachment - 24 Attachment - 25 Attachment - 26 Attachment - 27 |
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE (USPTO)
OFFICE ACTION (OFFICIAL LETTER) ABOUT APPLICANT’S TRADEMARK APPLICATION
U.S. APPLICATION SERIAL NO. 88227050
MARK: MYYOGATEACHER
|
|
CORRESPONDENT ADDRESS: |
CLICK HERE TO RESPOND TO THIS LETTER: http://www.gov.uspto.report/trademarks/teas/response_forms.jsp
|
APPLICANT: MyYogaTeacher, Inc.
|
|
CORRESPONDENT’S REFERENCE/DOCKET NO: CORRESPONDENT E-MAIL ADDRESS: |
|
OFFICE ACTION
TO AVOID 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: 3/15/2019
The referenced application has been reviewed by the assigned trademark examining attorney. Applicant must respond timely and completely to the issue(s) below. 15 U.S.C. §1062(b); 37 C.F.R. §§2.62(a), 2.65(a); TMEP §§711, 718.03.
SUMMARY OF ISSUES:
· Refusal: Section 2(d) – Likelihood of Confusion
· Requirement: Identification of Goods and Services – Amendment Required
SECTION 2(d) REFUSAL – LIKELIHOOD OF CONFUSION
Registration of the applied-for mark is refused because of a likelihood of confusion with the marks in U.S. Registration Nos. 3898912, 4493348, 4493349, and 4414713. Trademark Act Section 2(d), 15 U.S.C. §1052(d); see TMEP §§1207.01 et seq. See the attached registrations.
Applicant’s mark is MYYOGATEACHER for use with:
International Class 9: Downloadable physical fitness and exercise instructional videos focusing on one-on-one or group yoga instruction; downloadable video recordings featuring one-on-one or group yoga and meditation instruction; downloadable one-on-one or group yoga and meditation instruction via the internet and wireless devices; downloadable software in the nature of mobile application that provides one-on-one or group yoga instruction
International Class 38: Audio and video broadcasting services over the internet for one-on-one or group yoga instruction; streaming of video material on the internet related to one-on-one or group yoga; video-on-demand transmission services via the internet related to one-on-one or group yoga; teleconferencing and video conferencing services for one-on-one or group yoga instruction
International Class 41: One-on-one or group yoga instruction; educational services, namely, conducting one-on-one or group classes in the field of yoga; providing a website that features one-on-one or group instruction on yoga; online one-on-one or group yoga classes; coordinating yoga instruction based on individual student needs; scheduling one-on-one or group yoga instruction with specialized instructors
The registered marks are:
U.S. Registration No. 3898912 – MY YOGA for use with:
International Class 9: Downloadable video recordings featuring yoga, pilates, meditation, wellness and green-living
U.S. Registration No. 4493348 – MY YOGA ONLINE for use with:
International Class 9: Digital materials, namely, DVDs, CDs, Downloadable audio files and downloadable multimedia files featuring yoga, pilates, meditation, wellness and green-living; Digital media, namely, digital video and audio recordings, pre-recorded video cassettes, digital video discs, digital versatile discs, downloadable audio and video recordings, DVDs, and high definition digital discs featuring yoga, pilates, meditation, wellness and green-living; Downloadable video recordings featuring yoga, Pilates, meditation, and wellness instruction with audio instruction and with or without music via the internet, wireless devices, mobile and TV applications
U.S. Registration No. 4493349 – MY YOGA ONLINE for use with:
International Class 9: Digital materials, namely, DVDs, CDs, Downloadable audio files and downloadable multimedia files featuring yoga, Pilates, meditation, wellness and green-living; Digital media, namely, pre-recorded video cassettes, digital video discs, digital versatile discs, downloadable audio and video recordings, DVDs, and high definition digital discs featuring yoga, Pilates, meditation, wellness and green-living; Downloadable video recordings featuring yoga, Pilates, meditation, and wellness instruction with audio instruction and with or without music via the internet, wireless devices, mobile and TV applications
U.S. Registration No. 4414713 – MY YOGAWORKS for use with:
International Class 41: Providing on-line training and exercise routines in the field of yoga; Yoga instruction
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.
Marks are compared in their entireties for similarities in appearance, sound, connotation, and commercial impression. Stone Lion Capital Partners, LP v. Lion Capital LLP, 746 F.3d 1317, 1321, 110 USPQ2d 1157, 1160 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (quoting Palm Bay Imps., Inc. v. Veuve Clicquot Ponsardin Maison Fondee En 1772, 396 F.3d 1369, 1371, 73 USPQ2d 1689, 1691 (Fed. Cir. 2005)); TMEP §1207.01(b)-(b)(v). “Similarity in any one of these elements may be sufficient to find the marks confusingly similar.” In re Inn at St. John’s, LLC, 126 USPQ2d 1742, 1746 (TTAB 2018) (citing In re Davia, 110 USPQ2d 1810, 1812 (TTAB 2014)); TMEP §1207.01(b).
In this case, applicant’s mark is the standard character mark MYYOGATEACHER. The registered marks are the standard character mark MY YOGA, the composite marks MY YOGA ONLINE, and the composite mark MY YOGAWORKS. Applicant’s mark is highly similar to the registered marks in appearance, sound, and commercial impression.
Regarding U.S. Registration No. 3898912
The difference in spacing in the compared does not obviate a likelihood because consumers with a general recollection of the marks are unlikely to recall or rely on this difference to distinguish between the goods and services. When comparing marks, “[t]he proper test is not a side-by-side comparison of the marks, but instead whether the marks are sufficiently similar in terms of their commercial impression such that [consumers] who encounter the marks would be likely to assume a connection between the parties.” Cai v. Diamond Hong, Inc., __ F.3d __, 127 USPQ2d 1797, 1801 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (quoting Coach Servs., Inc. v. Triumph Learning LLC, 668 F.3d 1356, 1368, 101 USPQ2d 1713, 1721 (Fed. Cir. 2012)); TMEP §1207.01(b). The proper focus is on the recollection of the average purchaser, who retains a general rather than specific impression of trademarks. In re Inn at St. John’s, LLC, 126 USPQ2d 1742, 1746 (TTAB 2018) (citing In re St. Helena Hosp., 774 F.3d 747, 750-51, 113 USPQ2d 1082, 1085 (Fed. Cir. 2014); Geigy Chem. Corp. v. Atlas Chem. Indus., Inc., 438 F.2d 1005, 1007, 169 USPQ 39, 40 (CCPA 1971)); TMEP §1207.01(b).
Regarding U.S. Registration Nos. 4493348 and 4493349
The compared marks contain the identical wording “MY YOGA” save that applicant’s mark appears as one word. The spacing difference is minor and consumers are unlikely to recall or rely on this difference to distinguish between the goods and services. Additionally, the identical wording is also the first two terms in the compared marks. Thus, consumers are more likely to focus their attention on the wording “MY YOGA” when calling for the goods and services.
Moreover, the design element in registrant’s marks does not obviate a likelihood of confusion. 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)). Here, purchasers will call for registrant’s services using the wording “MY YOGA ONLINE”.
Regarding U.S. Registration No. 4414713
The compared marks contain the identical wording “MY YOGA” as such the marks are likely to engender a similar commercial impression of personalized yoga for the consumers. Additionally, the identical wording is also the first terms in the compared marks. Thus, consumers are more likely to focus their attention on the wording “MY YOGA” when calling for the goods and services.
Applicant's mark appears in standard character font therefore it may appear in any stylized font, including one identical to registrant’s mark. A mark in typed or standard characters may be displayed in any lettering style; the rights reside in the wording or other literal element and not in any particular display or rendition. See In re Viterra Inc., 671 F.3d 1358, 1363, 101 USPQ2d 1905, 1909 (Fed. Cir. 2012); In re Mighty Leaf Tea, 601 F.3d 1342, 1348, 94 USPQ2d 1257, 1260 (Fed. Cir. 2010); 37 C.F.R. §2.52(a); TMEP §1207.01(c)(iii). Thus, a mark presented in stylized characters and/or with a design element generally will not avoid likelihood of confusion with a mark in typed or standard characters because the word portion could be presented in the same manner of display. See, e.g., In re Viterra Inc., 671 F.3d at 1363, 101 USPQ2d at 1909; Squirtco v. Tomy Corp., 697 F.2d 1038, 1041, 216 USPQ 937, 939 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (stating that “the argument concerning a difference in type style is not viable where one party asserts rights in no particular display”). Therefore, the stylized design does not detract from the closeness of the marks.
For the reasons mentioned above, when consumers encounter the parties’ goods and services using marks with these similarities, they are likely to be confused as to the source of the goods and services. Therefore, the marks are confusingly similar.
Comparison of the Goods and Services
The compared goods and/or services need not be identical or even competitive to find a likelihood of confusion. See On-line Careline Inc. v. Am. Online Inc., 229 F.3d 1080, 1086, 56 USPQ2d 1471, 1475 (Fed. Cir. 2000); Recot, Inc. v. Becton, 214 F.3d 1322, 1329, 54 USPQ2d 1894, 1898 (Fed. Cir. 2000); TMEP §1207.01(a)(i). They need only be “related in some manner and/or if the circumstances surrounding their marketing are such that they could give rise to the mistaken belief that [the goods and/or services] emanate from the same source.” Coach Servs., Inc. v. Triumph Learning LLC, 668 F.3d 1356, 1369, 101 USPQ2d 1713, 1722 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (quoting 7-Eleven Inc. v. Wechsler, 83 USPQ2d 1715, 1724 (TTAB 2007)); TMEP §1207.01(a)(i).
In this case, applicant’s goods and services are closely related to the registered goods and services because the same entity commonly provides yoga instruction as well as related goods and services such as downloadable videos in the field of yoga instruction, broadcasting services in the field of yoga, and online yoga instruction, and thus purchasers are likely to believe that the goods and services emanate from the same source.
The attached Internet evidence, consisting of screenshots from Sweet Escape Yoga, Core Power Yoga, Beach Body, Glo, Gaia, My Virtual Yoga, YouTube, Plus Performance Yoga, Boho Beautiful, and Yogaia, establishes that the same entity commonly provides the relevant goods and services, markets the goods and services under the same mark, and the relevant goods and services provided through the same trade channels and used by the same classes of consumers in the same fields of use. Thus, applicant’s and the registered goods and services are considered related for likelihood of confusion purposes. See, e.g., In re Davey Prods. Pty Ltd., 92 USPQ2d 1198, 1202-04 (TTAB 2009); In re Toshiba Med. Sys. Corp., 91 USPQ2d 1266, 1268-69, 1271-72 (TTAB 2009).
Conclusion
Because the marks are highly similar and the goods and services are closely related, there is a likelihood of purchaser confusion as to the source of the goods and services. Therefore, registration is refused under Section 2(d) of the Trademark Act. 15 U.S.C. §1052(d).
Although applicant’s mark has been refused registration, applicant may respond to the refusal(s) by submitting evidence and arguments in support of registration. However, if applicant responds to the refusal(s), applicant must also respond to the requirement(s) set forth below.
IDENTIFICATION OF GOODS AND SERVICES – AMENDMENT REQUIRED
Applicant may substitute the following wording, with acceptable amendments in bold and information required from applicant in italics, if accurate:
International Class 9: Downloadable physical fitness and exercise instructional video recordings focusing on one-on-one or group yoga instruction; downloadable video recordings featuring one-on-one or group yoga and meditation instruction; downloadable video recordings featuring one-on-one or group yoga and meditation instruction via the internet and wireless devices; downloadable software in the nature of a mobile application that provides one-on-one or group yoga instruction
International Class 38: Audio and video broadcasting services over the internet for one-on-one or group yoga instruction; streaming of video material on the internet related to one-on-one or group yoga; video-on-demand transmission services via the internet related to one-on-one or group yoga; teleconferencing and video conferencing services for one-on-one or group yoga instruction
International Class 41: One-on-one or group yoga instruction; educational services, namely, conducting one-on-one or group classes in the field of yoga; providing a website that features information about one-on-one or group instruction on yoga; providing online training classes in the field of yoga, namely, one-on-one or group yoga classes; providing fitness instruction services in the field of yoga, namely, coordinating yoga instruction based on individual student needs; providing fitness instruction services in the field of yoga, namely, scheduling one-on-one or group yoga instruction with specialized instructors
SCOPE ADVISORY
For assistance with identifying and classifying goods and services in trademark applications, please see the USPTO’s online searchable U.S. Acceptable Identification of Goods and Services Manual. See TMEP §1402.04.
RESPONSE GUIDELINES
For this application to proceed, 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. 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.
/Geraldine Ingold/
Examining Attorney
Law Office 121
(571) 272-5076
geraldine.ingold@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.