Offc Action Outgoing

United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO)

Office Action (Official Letter) About Applicant’s Trademark Application

 

 

 

NONFINAL OFFICE ACTION

 

The USPTO must receive applicant’s response to this letter within six months of the issue date below or the application will be abandoned.  Respond using the Trademark Electronic Application System (TEAS).  A link to the appropriate TEAS response form appears at the end of this Office action. 

 

 

Issue date:  October 28, 2019

 

INTRODUCTION

This Office action is in response to applicant’s communication filed on September 18, 2019.

 

In a previous Office action(s) dated March 21, 2019, the trademark examining attorney refused registration of the applied-for mark based on the following:  Trademark Act Section 2(d) for a likelihood of confusion with a registered mark.

 

In applicant’s September 18, 2019 response, applicant amended the drawing.  Applicant’s response raises a new issue that must be addressed; therefore, this nonfinal Office action is being issued to address this new issue. 

 

Accordingly, applicant must respond to all refusals and/or requirements raised in this Office action and the previous March 21, 2019 Office action, within six months of the date of issuance of this Office action.  37 C.F.R. §2.62(a).  If applicant does not respond within this time limit, the application will be abandoned.  37 C.F.R. §2.65(a).

 

SUMMARY OF ISSUES:

·         NEW ISSUE: Amended Drawing is Material Alteration

·         CONTINUED AND MAINTAINED: Section 2(d) Refusal – Likelihood of Confusion

 

 

NEW ISSUE: AMENDED DRAWING IS MATERIAL ALTERATION

Applicant has requested to amend the mark in the application.  The USPTO cannot accept the proposed changes because they would materially alter the mark in the drawing filed with the original application or as previously amended.  37 C.F.R. §2.72(a)(2), (b)(2); TMEP §807.14.  Accordingly, the proposed amendment will not be entered; the previous drawing of the mark will remain operative.  See TMEP §807.17. 

                                              

The original drawing shows the mark as FOREST.  The proposed amended drawing shows the mark as FOREST TECH. 

 

The USPTO cannot accept an amendment to a mark if it will materially alter the mark in the drawing filed with the original application, or in a previously accepted amended drawing.  37 C.F.R. §2.72(a)(2), (b)(2); TMEP §807.14.  An amendment to the mark is material when the USPTO would need to republish the mark with the change in the USPTO Trademark Official Gazette to fairly present the mark to the public.  In re Thrifty, Inc., 274 F.3d 1349, 1352, 61 USPQ2d 1121, 1123-24 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (citing In re Hacot-Columbier, 105 F.3d 616, 620, 41 USPQ2d 1523, 1526 (Fed. Cir. 1997)); TMEP §807.14. 

 

That is, an amendment is material if the altered mark does not retain “the essence of the original mark” or if the new and old forms do not “create the impression of being essentially the same mark.”  In re Hacot-Columbier, 105 F.3d at 620, 41 USPQ2d at 1526 (quoting Visa Int’l Serv. Ass’n v. Life-Code Sys., Inc., 220 USPQ 740, 743-44 (TTAB 1983)); see, e.g., In re Who? Vision Sys., Inc., 57 USPQ2d 1211, 1218 (TTAB 2000) (amendment from “TACILESENSE” to “TACTILESENSE” a material alteration); In re CTB Inc., 52 USPQ2d 1471, 1475 (TTAB 1999) (amendment of TURBO with a design to just the typed word TURBO without design a material alteration). 

 

When determining materiality, the addition of any element that would require a further search of the USPTO database for conflicting marks is also relevant.  In re Guitar Straps Online LLC, 103 USPQ2d 1745, 1747 (TTAB 2012) (citing In re Pierce Foods Corp., 230 USPQ 307, 308-09 (TTAB 1986)); In re Who? Vision Sys. Inc., 57 USPQ2d at 1218-19; TMEP §807.14.

 

In the present case, applicant’s proposed amendment would materially alter the mark in the drawing filed with the original application because it includes the additional term TECH. This wording creates a commercial impression related to technology in the field of forestry.

 

To avoid the application from abandoning, applicant must respond to this issue.  TMEP §807.17.  Applicant may respond by (1) withdrawing the request to amend the drawing, or (2) arguing that the proposed amendment is not a material alteration of the mark.

 

For more information about changes to the mark in the drawing after the application filing date, please go to the Drawing webpage.

 

 

SECTION 2(d) REFUSAL – LIKELIHOOD OF CONFUSION

Registration of the applied-for mark is refused because of a likelihood of confusion with the mark in U.S. Registration No. 4894926. Trademark Act Section 2(d), 15 U.S.C. §1052(d); see TMEP §§1207.01 et seq. See the previously attached registrations.

 

Applicant’s mark is FOREST for use in:

 

Class 12: Land vehicle suspension parts, namely, coil springs; Land vehicle suspension parts, namely, leaf springs; Land vehicle suspension parts, namely, torsion/sway bars; Steering and suspension systems and parts for steering and suspension systems for vehicles, namely, upper ball joints, lower ball joints, ball joints with control arms, bushing kits, inner tie rod ends, outer tie rod ends, sleeves, idler arms, center links, stabilizer kits, inner sockets and pitman arms; Vehicle parts, namely, suspension struts; Wheel suspensions

 

Registrant’s mark is FOREST BYKE COMPANY for use in:

 

Class 12: Bicycle frames; Bicycle parts, namely, derailleurs; Bicycle parts, namely, disk wheels; Bicycle parts, namely, forks; Bicycle parts, namely, gear wheels; Bicycle pedals; Bicycle racks for vehicles; Bicycle seat posts; Bicycle seats; Bicycle water bottle cages; Bicycle wheels; Bicycle wheels, rims and structural parts therefor; Bicycles; Components for bicycles, namely, headsets which provide a rotatable interface between the bicycle fork and the bicycle frame; Frames for bicycles; Front derailleurs; Gear levers for bicycle wheels; Handlebars; Inner tubes; Inner tubes for bicycles; Patches for repairing inner tubes; Rear derailleurs; Rims for bicycle wheels; Shock absorbers for bicycles; Structural parts of bicycles; Suspension systems for bicycles; Tire repair patches; Tires; Water bottle cages for bicycles; Water bottle holders for bicycles

 

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 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. 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.

 

Similarity of the Marks

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).

 

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).

 

The wording FOREST is the dominant portion of the registration because it is the first word in the mark.  Consumers are generally more inclined to focus on the first word, prefix, or syllable in any trademark or service mark.  See Palm Bay Imps., Inc. v. Veuve Clicquot Ponsardin Maison Fondee En 1772, 396 F.3d 1369, 1372, 73 USPQ2d 1689, 1692 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (finding similarity between VEUVE ROYALE and two VEUVE CLICQUOT marks in part because “VEUVE . . . remains a ‘prominent feature’ as the first word in the mark and the first word to appear on the label”); Century 21 Real Estate Corp. v. Century Life of Am., 970 F.2d 874, 876, 23 USPQ2d 1698, 1700 (Fed Cir. 1992) (finding similarity between CENTURY 21 and CENTURY LIFE OF AMERICA in part because “consumers must first notice th[e] identical lead word”); see also In re Detroit Athletic Co., 903 F.3d 1297, 1303, 128 USPQ2d 1047, 1049 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (finding “the identity of the marks’ two initial words is particularly significant because consumers typically notice those words first”).

 

Further, the wording is the dominant portion of the registered mark.  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)).

 

Additionally, disclaimed matter that is descriptive of or generic for a party’s goods is typically less significant or less dominant when comparing marks. In re Detroit Athletic Co., 903 F.3d 1297, 1305, 128 USPQ2d 1047, 1050 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (citing In re Dixie Rests., Inc., 105 F.3d 1405, 1407, 41 USPQ2d 1531, 1533-34 (Fed. Cir. 1997)); TMEP §1207.01(b)(viii), (c)(ii). Thus, the dominant portion of registrant’s mark is “FOREST.”

 

Moreover, the applied-for mark FOREST is entirely incorporated in registrant’s mark FOREST BYKE COMPANY, thus, the marks are identical in part.  Incorporating the entirety of one mark within another 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 Wella Corp. v. Cal. Concept Corp., 558 F.2d 1019, 1022, 194 USPQ 419, 422 (C.C.P.A. 1977) (finding CALIFORNIA CONCEPT and surfer design and CONCEPT confusingly similar); 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 LANCER and design and BENGAL confusingly similar); In re Integrated Embedded, 120 USPQ2d 1504, 1513 (TTAB 2016) (finding BARR GROUP and BARR confusingly similar); In re Mr. Recipe, LLC, 118 USPQ2d 1084, 1090 (TTAB 2016) (finding JAWS DEVOUR YOUR HUNGER and JAWS confusingly similar); TMEP §1207.01(b)(iii).

 

Because applicant’s mark and registrant’s mark share common wording, the marks are sufficiently similar to find a likelihood of confusion.

 

Relatedness of the Goods

The goods are compared to determine whether they are similar, 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, 1207.01(a)(vi).

 

The compared goods 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] 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).

 

Applicant provided photo of its goods in an effort to show that applicant’s goods are “automotive products [and] are not related to any bicycle products.”  See applicant’s response.  However, determining likelihood of confusion is based on the description of the goods 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 application uses broad wording to describe various “land vehicle parts”, including suspension systems, wheel suspensions, and suspension parts. This wording presumably encompasses all goods of the type described, including registrant’s more narrow list of various bicycle parts, which include “suspension systems for bicycles”. 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). See also the previously attached dictionary evidence defining a “bicycle” as “a vehicle composed of two wheels”. Thus, applicant’s and registrant’s goods 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 goods of the parties have no restrictions as to nature, type, 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 goods are related.

 

Therefore, because there is a likelihood of confusion, the Section 2(d) refusal is CONTINUED AND MAINTAINED.

 

 

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.

 

Because of the legal technicalities and strict deadlines of the trademark application process, applicant may wish to hire a private attorney who specializes in trademark matters to assist in the process.  The assigned trademark examining attorney can provide only limited assistance explaining the content of an Office action and the application process.  USPTO staff cannot provide legal advice or statements about an applicant’s legal rights.  TMEP §§705.02, 709.06.  See Hiring a U.S.-licensed trademark attorney for more information.

 

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. 

 

 

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.  

 

 

How to respond.  Click to file a response to this nonfinal Office action  

 

 

/Laila Sabagh/

Laila Sabagh

Trademark Examining Attorney

Law Office 127

(571) 272-8230

Laila.Sabagh@uspto.gov

 

 

 

RESPONSE GUIDANCE

• Missing the response deadline to this letter will cause the application to abandon.  A response or notice of appeal must be received by the USPTO before midnight Eastern Time of the last day of the response period.  TEAS and ESTTA maintenance or unforeseen circumstances could affect an applicant’s ability to timely respond.  

 

• Responses signed by an unauthorized party are not accepted and can cause the application to abandon.  If applicant does not have an attorney, the response must be signed by the individual applicant, all joint applicants, or someone with legal authority to bind a juristic applicant.  If applicant has an attorney, the response must be signed by the attorney.

 

• If needed, find contact information for the supervisor of the office or unit listed in the signature block.

 

United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO)

 

USPTO OFFICIAL NOTICE

 

Office Action (Official Letter) has issued

on October 28, 2019 for

U.S. Trademark Application Serial No. 88245421

 

Your trademark application has been reviewed by a trademark examining attorney.  As part of that review, the assigned attorney has issued an official letter that you must respond to by the specified deadline or your application will be abandoned.  Please follow the steps below.

 

(1)  Read the official letter.

 

(2)  Direct questions about the contents of the Office action to the assigned attorney below. 

 

 

/Laila Sabagh/

Laila Sabagh

Trademark Examining Attorney

Law Office 127

(571) 272-8230

Laila.Sabagh@uspto.gov

 

 

Direct questions about navigating USPTO electronic forms, the USPTO website, the application process, the status of your application, and/or whether there are outstanding deadlines or documents related to your file to the Trademark Assistance Center (TAC).

 

(3)  Respond within 6 months (or earlier, if required in the Office action) from October 28, 2019, using the Trademark Electronic Application System (TEAS).  The response must be received by the USPTO before midnight Eastern Time of the last day of the response period.  See the Office action for more information about how to respond.

 

 

 

GENERAL GUIDANCE

·         Check the status of your application periodically in the Trademark Status & Document Retrieval (TSDR) database to avoid missing critical deadlines.

 

·         Update your correspondence email address, if needed, to ensure you receive important USPTO notices about your application.

 

·         Beware of misleading notices sent by private companies about your application.  Private companies not associated with the USPTO use public information available in trademark registrations to mail and email trademark-related offers and notices – most of which require fees.  All official USPTO correspondence will only be emailed from the domain “@uspto.gov.”