To: | W. C. Bradley/Zebco Holdings, Inc. (trademarks@wcbradley.com) |
Subject: | U.S. Trademark Application Serial No. 88235710 - RELIANCE - N/A |
Sent: | September 25, 2019 11:02:26 AM |
Sent As: | ecom101@uspto.gov |
Attachments: |
United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO)
Office Action (Official Letter) About Applicant’s Trademark Application
U.S. Application Serial No. 88235710
Mark: RELIANCE
|
|
Correspondence Address: |
|
Applicant: W. C. Bradley/Zebco Holdings, Inc.
|
|
Reference/Docket No. N/A
Correspondence Email Address: |
|
SUSPENSION NOTICE
No Response Required
Issue date: September 25, 2019
This Office action is in response to applicant’s communication filed on 10 September 2019.
The application is suspended for the reason(s) specified below. See 37 C.F.R. §2.67; TMEP §§716 et seq.
The pending application(s) below has an earlier filing date or effective filing date than applicant’s application. If the mark in the application(s) below registers, the USPTO may refuse registration of applicant’s mark under Section 2(d) because of a likelihood of confusion with the registered mark(s). 15 U.S.C. §1052(d); see 37 C.F.R. §2.83; TMEP §§1208.02(c). Action on this application is suspended until the prior-filed application(s) below either registers or abandons. 37 C.F.R. §2.83(c). Information relevant to the application(s) below was sent previously.
- U.S. Application Serial No(s). 88227293[1]
Suspension process. The USPTO will periodically check this application to determine if it should remain suspended. See TMEP §716.04. As needed, the trademark examining attorney will issue a letter to applicant to inquire about the status of the reason for the suspension. TMEP §716.05.
No response required. Applicant may file a response, but is not required to do so.
/Katherine Stoides/
Examining Attorney
571-272-9230
katherine.stoides@uspto.gov (unofficial use only)
[1] The examining attorney has carefully considered the applicant’s argument, however she remains unpersuaded. The marks are identical. Moreover, referenced applications and registrations containing the term RELIANCE fail to support the applicant’s argument that the term is weak. Indeed, the applicant’s RELIANCE is the only mark in Class 28 and the cited registration is the only one containing the word RELIANCE in Class 25. And finally, where the marks of the respective parties are identical or virtually identical, as in this case, the degree of similarity or relatedness between the goods and/or services needed to support a finding of likelihood of confusion declines. See In re i.am.symbolic, llc, 116 USPQ2d 1406, 1411 (TTAB 2015) (citing In re Shell Oil Co., 992 F.2d 1204, 1207, 26 USPQ2d 1687, 1689 (Fed. Cir. 1993)), aff’d, 866 F.3d 1315, 123 USPQ2d 1744 (Fed. Cir. 2017); TMEP §1207.01(a).