To: | Logistick, Inc. (trademarks-ch@btlaw.com) |
Subject: | U.S. Trademark Application Serial No. 88248783 - SECURE - 11605 |
Sent: | July 15, 2019 04:05:37 PM |
Sent As: | ecom127@uspto.gov |
Attachments: | Attachment - 1 |
United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO)
Office Action (Official Letter) About Applicant’s Trademark Application
U.S. Application Serial No. 88248783
Mark: SECURE
|
|
Correspondence Address:
|
|
Applicant: Logistick, Inc.
|
|
Reference/Docket No. 11605
Correspondence Email Address: |
|
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) and/or Electronic System for Trademark Trials and Appeals (ESTTA). A link to the appropriate TEAS response form and/or to ESTTA for an appeal appears at the end of this Office action.
Issue date: July 15, 2019
This Office action is in response to applicant’s communication filed on June 23, 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 addition, applicant was required to satisfy the following requirement(s): Amend the identification of goods.
Based on applicant’s response, the trademark examining attorney notes that the following requirement(s) have been satisfied: Amendment of the identification of goods. See TMEP §§713.02, 714.04.
The trademark examining attorney maintains and now makes FINAL the refusal(s) and/or requirement(s) in the summary of issues below. See 37 C.F.R. §2.63(b); TMEP §714.04.
All arguments and evidence from the March 21, 2019 Office Action are incorporated herein by reference.
SUMMARY OF ISSUES MADE FINAL that applicant must address:
SECTION 2(d) REFUSAL – LIKELIHOOD OF CONFUSION
Here, applicant’s mark is SECURE for “Non-metal cargo braces for the retention of cargo during shipping” in International Class 20.
The registrants’ marks are SECURE SLING & STRAP for “All-purpose nylon straps; All-purpose nylon straps featuring hook and loop fasteners; All-purpose straps comprised of synthetic textile materials; All-purpose tarpaulins of plastic; Anchoring ropes; Arrays of resilient plastic straps that may be arranged in prescribed angular orientations relative to each other to accommodate objects of different sizes, shapes and configurations in any one of a multiplicity of different arrangements; Belts, not of metal, for handling loads; Canvas tarpaulins; Car towing ropes; Cargo and carrier equipment for vehicles comprised of synthetic textile materials, excluding artificial leather, namely, tow ropes, tow straps, ratchet tie-down straps, quick release tie down straps, lashing straps, and tarp straps; Cargo slings of rope or fabric; Chemical fiber nettings; Cotton bags for industrial use; Disposable bulk container liners; Elastic bands for binding; Fabric and polyester mesh net used for storing toys and other household items; Heavy-duty bags for disposal of building materials and refuse; Heavy-duty bags for recycling and disposal of building materials; Heavy-duty bags for recycling and disposal of building materials, roofing shingles, bricks; Horticultural bags and sacks made of woven synthetic or natural fibers or plastics materials, all for use in growing any type of plant, shrub or tree; Industrial packaging containers of textile; Mesh bags for storage; Mountaineering ropes; Natural fibers for use as reinforcements and fillers in composite materials used in the manufacture of a variety of industrial and consumer goods; Non-metal bands for wrapping or binding; Non-metal net wrapping for pallets; Non-metal rigging chains; Non-metal slings for loading; Non-woven polymeric fibers for conversion into a variety of industrial and consumer goods; Nylon fibers for textile use; Nylon strapping or tie downs; Nylon straps for handling loads; Nylon support straps for holding planted trees in an upward position; Nylon tie down straps; Nylon towing straps; Nylon weed trimmer line; Outdoor blinds of textile; Packaging bags of textile material; Packing rope; Polyester fibers; Polyester plastic netting for packaging goods; Polyethylene adhesive patches for repair of torn or damaged high-density polyethylene plastic bags for the storage of construction materials like rocks, bricks, roofing shingles; Polypropylene bags used for the storage of construction materials like bricks, roofing shingles; Polypropylene straps for securing bundles; Protective unfitted liners for the cargo area of vehicles; Ropes; Ropes and synthetic ropes; Ropes for marine use; Ropes, not of metal; Rubber cable ties and straps for fastening and securing objects such as bundles of wire together; Sacks or bags for the transportation or storage of materials in bulk; Sheets of polypropylene netting used for decorating floral and gift arrangements and craft purposes; Synthetic fibers; Synthetic fibers and filaments for use in the manufacture of fabrics, textiles, yarns, and carpets; Synthetic fibres for textile use; Synthetic rope and webbing; Tarpaulins; Tarpaulins; Tarpaulins; Tarpaulins; Tarpaulins made from plastics coated materials; Tents; Tents; Tents comprised primarily of tensile fabric membrane; Tents for mountaineering or camping; Textile bags for merchandise packaging; Textile fibers; Textile fibres; Textile filaments; Tow; Tow ropes for automobiles; True hemp fiber; Twine; Twine for nets; Twine made of paper; Twines; Unfitted covers for boats and marine vehicles; Unfitted liners for the cargo area of vehicles; Unfitted vehicle covers; Vehicle covers, not fitted; Vehicle rescue apparatus, rope cables used to affix between vehicles to pull a jammed or stuck door of one of the vehicles; Wrapping or binding bands, not of metal; Yarn fibers; Slings, not of metal, for handling loads; Cables, not of metal; Glass fiber netting; Hemp; Hemp fibers; Hemp fibres; Hemp nettings; High-density polyethylene plastic bags for the storage of household items; Horticultural bags and sacks, bags and sacks made of woven synthetic or natural fibers or plastics materials, all for use in growing any type of plant, shrub or tree; Jute bags for industrial use; Jute fiber; Shock cords not of metal; Tow ropes for automobiles; True hemp fiber; Twine; Twine for nets; Twine made of paper; Twines” in International Class 22, and SECURE LOOPS for “Tie down straps” in International Class 22.
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).
Here, applicant’s mark, SECURE, is incorporated in its entirety in each of the registrants’ marks, SECURE SLING & STRAP and SECURE LOOPS. Although applicant’s mark does not contain the entirety of the registered mark, applicant’s mark is likely to appear to prospective purchasers as a shortened form of registrant’s mark. See In re Mighty Leaf Tea, 601 F.3d 1342, 1348, 94 USPQ2d 1257, 1260 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (quoting United States Shoe Corp., 229 USPQ 707, 709 (TTAB 1985)). Thus, merely omitting some of the wording from a registered mark may not overcome a likelihood of confusion. See In re Mighty Leaf Tea, 601 F.3d 1342, 94 USPQ2d 1257; In re Optica Int’l, 196 USPQ 775, 778 (TTAB 1977); TMEP §1207.01(b)(ii)-(iii). In this case, applicant’s mark does not create a distinct commercial impression from the registered mark because it contains some of the wording in the registered mark and does not add any wording that would distinguish it from that mark.
For the foregoing reasons, the marks are confusingly similar.
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 “non-metal cargo braces for the retention of cargo during shipping,” which presumably encompasses all goods of the type described, including the registrants’ “Cargo and carrier equipment for vehicles comprised of synthetic textile materials, excluding artificial leather, namely, tow ropes, tow straps, ratchet tie-down straps, quick release tie down straps, lashing straps, and tarp straps; Cargo slings of rope or fabric” and “tie down straps.” 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). Thus, applicant’s and the registrants’ 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 the registrants’ goods are related.
Based on the analysis above, the applicant’s and the registrants’ goods are related.
Because applicant’s and the registrants’ marks are similar and the goods are related, there is a likelihood of confusion and applicant’s applied-for mark must be refused under Section 2(d) of the Lanham Act.
RESPONSE TO ARGUMENTS
Applicant’s arguments have been considered and found unpersuasive for the reasons set forth below.
Applicant’s response contains several arguments in opposition to the finding of a likelihood of confusion with the cited registration. Specifically, applicant first argues that the relevant public is exposed to several third-party marks containing the word “SECURE”, and thus it is significantly diluted. Applicant claims that the term “SECURE” is so commonly used and registered in connection with goods in International Classes 20 and 22 for braces and straps for cargo and related goods that no one trademark owner can claim broad rights to such a highly diluted term.
Furthermore, 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 Viterra Inc., 671 F.3d 1358, 1362, 101 USPQ2d 1905, 1908 (Fed. Cir. 2012); In re Nat’l Data Corp., 753 F.2d 1056, 1058, 224 USPQ 749, 751 (Fed. Cir. 1985); TMEP §1207.01(b)(viii), (c)(ii). Disclaimed matter that is descriptive of or generic for a party’s goods and/or services 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).
In this case, the registrant for the mark SECURE SLING & STRAP disclaimed the wording “SLING & STRAP”. Furthermore, the attached evidence from Webster’s Dictionary shows the term “LOOPS” in the registered mark SECURE LOOPS means “a ring or curved piece used to form a fastening, handle, or catch.” Thus, the term “LOOPS” is merely descriptive of the registrant’s goods, namely, tie-down straps used to form a fastening. Accordingly, the term “SECURE” is the dominant term in both marks, which is identical to the applied-for mark. Though applicant argues that the term “SECURE” is weak, it is still dominant in creating the commercial impressions, and therefore the marks are confusingly similar.
Next, the applicant argues that the marks are not similar when considered in their entireties. Applicant argues that the applied-for mark consists of a unique design element, which evokes feelings of being locked and safe or protected. 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)). Further, with regard to the registered mark SECURE LOOPS, 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”).
Thus, because applicant’s arguments are not persuasive, the Section 2(d) refusal due to a likelihood of confusion with the cited registrations is maintained and made FINAL.
PROPER RESPONSE TO A FINAL ACTION
(1) a response filed using the Trademark Electronic Application System (TEAS) that fully satisfies all outstanding requirements and/or resolves all outstanding refusals; and/or
(2) an appeal to the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board filed using the Electronic System for Trademark Trials and Appeals (ESTTA) with the required filing fee of $200 per class.
37 C.F.R. §2.63(b)(1)-(2); TMEP §714.04; see 37 C.F.R. §2.6(a)(18); TBMP ch. 1200.
In certain rare circumstances, an applicant may respond by filing a petition to the Director pursuant to 37 C.F.R. §2.63(b)(2) to review procedural issues. TMEP §714.04; see 37 C.F.R. §2.146(b); TBMP §1201.05; TMEP §1704 (explaining petitionable matters). There is a fee required for filing a petition. 37 C.F.R. §2.6(a)(15).
ASSISTANCE
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 final Office action and/or appeal it to the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB).
Mischler, Megan
/Megan Mischler/
Trademark Examining Attorney
Law Office 127
(571) 272-9997
megan.mischler@uspto.gov
RESPONSE GUIDANCE