To: | The Bucket List Family, LLC (b@ratellelaw.com) |
Subject: | U.S. Trademark Application Serial No. 88249336 - BUCKET LIST - N/A |
Sent: | January 21, 2020 11:30:13 AM |
Sent As: | ecom113@uspto.gov |
Attachments: |
United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO)
Office Action (Official Letter) About Applicant’s Trademark Application
U.S. Application Serial No. 88249336
Mark: BUCKET LIST
|
|
Correspondence Address: |
|
Applicant: The Bucket List Family, LLC
|
|
Reference/Docket No. N/A
Correspondence Email Address: |
|
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: January 21, 2020
This Office action is supplemental to the previous Office action issued on October 18, 2019, in connection with this application. Based on information in applicant’s December 18, 2019 response, the trademark examining attorney now issues the following new requirement: applicant must amend and properly reclassify the identification of goods. See TMEP §§706, 711.02.
Additionally, the Trademark Act Section 2(d) Refusal is maintained and continued.
Applicant must respond to all issues raised in this Office action within six (6) months of the date of issuance of this Office action. 37 C.F.R. §2.62(a); see TMEP §711.02. If applicant does not respond within this time limit, the application will be abandoned. 37 C.F.R. §2.65(a).
SECTION 2(d) LIKELIHOOD OF CONFUSION REFUSAL
This refusal is maintained and continued.
Applicant’s applied-for mark is BUCKET LIST, in Class 21, for reusable travel water bottles sold empty designed to reduce single-use plastic waste.
Registrant’s mark is MY BUCKET LIST, in Class 21, for buckets.
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).
Here, the marks are highly similar because the marks contain the identical dominant wording BUCKET LIST, which is identical in appearance, sound, and commercial impression.
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. Applicant’s mere deletion of MY from the registered mark is insufficient to obviate the overall similarities of the marks.
Additionally, the marks are confusingly similar in appearance because the same or similar phrase appears in the compared marks and create a similar overall commercial impression. See Crocker Nat’l Bank v. Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce, 228 USPQ 689, 690-91 (TTAB 1986), aff’d sub nom. Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce v. Wells Fargo Bank, Nat’l Ass’n, 811 F.2d 1490, 1495, 1 USPQ2d 1813, 1817 (Fed. Cir. 1987) (finding COMMCASH and COMMUNICASH confusingly similar); In re Corning Glass Works, 229 USPQ 65, 66 (TTAB 1985) (finding CONFIRM and CONFIRMCELLS confusingly similar); In re Pellerin Milnor Corp., 221 USPQ 558, 560 (TTAB 1983) (finding MILTRON and MILLTRONICS confusingly similar); TMEP §1207.01(b)(ii)-(iii). Here, all marks contain BUCKET LIST. A BUCKET LIST is a list of things that one has not done before but wants to do before dying. See http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/bucket%20list. When confronted with the marks, consumers will understand that the marks as conveying the idea of a list of things wanted to be done before one dies. Thus, because all marks contain the same or similar phrase that conveys the same commercial impression, the marks are confusingly similar.
Ultimately, when consumers call for the goods of applicant and registrant using marks that consist of the identical wording BUCKET LIST, they are likely to be confused as to the source of those goods due to the overall similarity between the marks. Thus, the marks are confusingly similar.
Relatedness of the Goods
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 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).
Other entities commonly use a single mark to provide and market goods that are similar to those of applicant’s and registrant’s, namely, water bottles sold empty and buckets. See previously attached evidence.
For the foregoing reasons, the marks are confusingly similar and the evidence shows that the goods are commercially related and likely to be encountered together in the marketplace by consumers. As a result, consumers are likely to be confused and mistakenly believe that the goods originate from a common source. Therefore, registration is refused under Section 2(d) of the Trademark Act.
RESPONDING TO THE SECTION 2(d)—LIKELIHOOD OF CONFUSION REFUSAL
Although the examining attorney has refused registration, applicant may respond to the refusal to register by submitting evidence and arguments in support of registration.
REQUIREMENT
If applicant responds to the refusal above, applicant must also respond to the following requirement.
AMEND AND RECLASSIFY IDENTIFICATION OF GOODS
The goods are classified incorrectly. Applicant must amend the application to classify the goods in International Class 21. See 37 C.F.R. §§2.32(a)(7), 2.85; TMEP §§1401.02(a), 1401.03(b). The following is suggested:
Class 21— Reusable travel water bottles sold empty designed to reduce single-use plastic waste.
Responding to this office action
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.
How to respond. Click to file a response to this nonfinal Office action.
/Jesse Nelman/
Jesse Nelman
Examining Attorney
Law Office 113
(571) 272-0191
jesse.nelman@uspto.gov
RESPONSE GUIDANCE