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 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:4/8/2019

 

The assigned examining attorney has reviewed the referenced application and determined the following.

 

I.  LIKELIHOOD OF CONFUSION – in-part as to: “Self-adhesive tapes for windows and vehicle windows; Plastic film, other than for wrapping, namely, tinted anti-scratch plastic film for use on vehicle windows, and clear sheets of polymeric film to be applied to automotive vehicles to coat and protect the vehicle's finish; Tinted plastic film for use on windows; Polyurethane film for use in glass laminations; Poly-olefin film with a rubber adhesive used to protect surfaces; Polyethylene film with a rubber resin adhesive used to protect surfaces such as stainless steel; Polyvinylchloride film with an acrylic adhesive for the protection of glass and other fragile surface materials”:

 

The examining attorney refuses registration under Trademark Act Section 2(d), 15 U.S.C. §1052(d), because the applicant's mark, when used on or in connection with the identified goods in-part as specified above, so resembles the mark in U.S. Registration No. 3,791,995 as to be likely to cause confusion, to cause mistake, or to deceive.  TMEP section 1207.  See the enclosed registration.

 

The court in In re E. I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., 476 F.2d 1357, 177 USPQ 563 (C.C.P.A. 1973) listed the principal factors to be considered when determining whether there is a likelihood of confusion under Section 2(d).  See TMEP §1207.01.  However, not all of the factors are necessarily relevant or of equal weight, and any one factor may be dominant in a given case, depending upon the evidence of record.  In re Majestic Distilling Co., 315 F.3d 1311, 1315, 65 USPQ2d 1201, 1204 (Fed. Cir. 2003); see In re E. I. du Pont, 476 F.2d at 1361-62, 177 USPQ at 567.

 

Taking into account the relevant du Pont factors, a likelihood of confusion determination in this case (as with other cases) involves at minimum a two-part analysis.  First, the marks are compared in their ‘entireties’ for similarities in sound, appearance, meaning/connotation, and commercial impression.  In re Viterra Inc., 671 F.3d 1358, 1362, 101 USPQ2d 1905, 1908 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (quoting In re E. I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., 476 F.2d 1357, 1361, 177 USPQ 563, 567 (C.C.P.A. 1973)); TMEP §1207.01(b)-(b)(v).  Second, the goods and/or services are compared to determine whether they are similar or commercially related or travel in the same trade channels.  See Coach Servs., Inc. v. Triumph Learning LLC, 668 F.3d 1356, 1369-71, 101 USPQ2d 1713, 1722-23 (Fed. Cir. 2012); Herbko Int’l, Inc. v. Kappa Books, Inc., 308 F.3d 1156, 1165, 64 USPQ2d 1375, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2002); TMEP §1207.01, (a)(vi).  The key concern is whether confusion as to the source of the goods/services is likely.

 

-  COMPARISON OF THE MARKS:

 

The examining attorney must compare the marks in their entireties for similarities in sound, appearance, and meaning/connotation.  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).

 

A comparison of the applicant’s mark BOP BODYGUARD & Design and the registered mark BODYGUARD shows that the marks are quite similar in sound, appearance, and meaning and, thus, overall commercial impression, in that the applicant has appropriated the entirety of the registrant’s mark to form an equally prominent part of its mark.  Such an appropriation does not alter the overall similar commercial impressions of the marks to obviate concerns of likelihood of confusion.  Therefore, it stands to reason that purchasers who are familiar with the registered mark would assume that the applicant’s mark simply reflects a new or alternative product offered by the registrant under its “BODYGUARD” brand name.

 

Adding a term to a registered mark generally does not obviate the similarity between the compared marks, as in the present case, nor does it overcome a likelihood of confusion under Section 2(d).  See Coca-Cola Bottling Co. v. Jos. E. Seagram & Sons, Inc., 526 F.2d 556, 557, 188 USPQ 105, 106 (C.C.P.A. 1975) (finding BENGAL and BENGAL LANCER and design confusingly similar); In re Toshiba Med. Sys. Corp., 91 USPQ2d 1266, 1269 (TTAB 2009) (finding TITAN and VANTAGE TITAN confusingly similar); In re El Torito Rests., Inc., 9 USPQ2d 2002, 2004 (TTAB 1988) (finding MACHO and MACHO COMBOS confusingly similar); TMEP §1207.01(b)(iii).  As such, the mere addition of BOP & Design to the registered mark does not serve to distinguish the marks.

 

Finally, when evaluating a composite mark consisting of word(s) 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)).  As such, the addition of the design element in the applicant’s mark does not minimize the similarity between the marks.

 

-  COMPARISON OF THE GOODS/SERVICES (in part) – as listed above:

 

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).

 

The applicant’s above noted goods in-part and the registrant’s goods in-part are related in that numerous of the applicant’s above listed goods have the same function as the registrant’s self-adhesive films,[1] namely, to protect the vehicle body/windows from damage, while others are broad enough to subsume the latter functionality (i.e., ‘self-adhesive tapes for windows and vehicle windows,’ and ‘Polyurethane film for use in glass laminations’).  Finally, the remaining applicant’s goods in-part (i.e., ‘tinted plastic film for use on windows’) are related in that they travel in the same channels of trade.  If similar goods travel in the same channels of trade confusion as to source is likely.  This is more so true if they are sold under the same marks.  In this regard, please see the attached evidence indicating that those who produce protective vehicle film also produce tinting and the like vehicle film under the same marks in commerce.  For example, http://www.llumar.com/automotive-film.  Therefore, the applicant’s goods in-part are highly likely to be encountered by the same purchasers of the registrant’s goods.

 

Please note that, if the applicant deletes the above listed goods and does not otherwise amend the remaining goods to maintain confusion, this refusal will be withdrawn.

 

Consequently, there is a likelihood of confusion as between the applicant’s mark and the registered mark(s).

 

If the applicant chooses to respond to the refusal to register, the applicant must also respond to the following informality.

 

II. DESCRIPTION:

 

Applicant must submit an accurate and concise description of the mark.  37 C.F.R. §2.37; see TMEP §§808.01, 808.02.  The one submitted by the applicant is unacceptable because it is incomplete.  The applicant may accept the following, if accurate:

 

The mark consists of stylized letters “BOP BODYGUARD” with a checkered square design attached to the left side of the B in BOP.

 

III.  CONCLUSION:

 

Although the examining attorney has refused registration, the applicant may respond to the refusal to register by submitting evidence and arguments in support of registration.

 

Please note, if the applicant needs representation by an attorney licensed in the U.S. in responding to this Action, the Patent and Trademark Office cannot aid in the selection process.  37 C.F.R. §2.11.

 

If the applicant has any questions or needs assistance in responding to this Office Action, please telephone the assigned examining attorney.

 

/KaranChhina/

Karanendra S. Chhina

Trademark Attorney

Law Office 114

(571) 272-9447

karan.chhina@uspto.gov

 

 

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.

 

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.