To: | Arena Football One, LLC (trademarks@vos-ip.com) |
Subject: | U.S. Trademark Application Serial No. 88250015 - GRAND RAPIDS RAMPAGE - ARE01.3049 |
Sent: | October 28, 2019 02:59:05 PM |
Sent As: | ecom126@uspto.gov |
Attachments: |
United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO)
Office Action (Official Letter) About Applicant’s Trademark Application
U.S. Application Serial No. 88250015
Mark: GRAND RAPIDS RAMPAGE
|
|
Correspondence Address: 1600 MARKET STREET, SUITE 2600
|
|
Applicant: Arena Football One, LLC
|
|
Reference/Docket No. ARE01.3049
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: October 28, 2019
This Office action is in response to applicant’s communication filed on September 30th, 2019. An Office Action was issued on April, 1, 2019 because a disclaimer statement was required, a number of confusingly similar prior registered marks were identified for class 25 and the identification of goods required amendments in Class 25.
The following requirements have been satisfied: the requirement for a disclaimer statement, the identification of goods for Class 25 amendments. 37 C.F.R. §§2.32(a)(9), 2.61(b); see TMEP §809.
The Applicant failed to address the confusingly similar prior registered marks. Therefore this issue is continued, maintained, and now made FINAL.
Summary of Issues:
SECTION 2(d) REFUSALS- LIKELIHOOD OF CONFUSION- CLASS 25:
Applicant did not submit any arguments in response to the Section 2(d) refusals, therefore, they are CONTINUED and MAINTAINED and Made FINAL.
Registration of the applied-for mark is refused because of a likelihood of confusion with the marks in U.S. Registration Nos. 0936136 RAMPAGE; 1762936 RAMPAGE; 75519556 RAMPAGE; 85911949 RAMPAGE and Trademark Act Section 2(d), 15 U.S.C. §1052(d); see TMEP §§1207.01 et seq. See the previously attached referenced applications in the Office Action issued on April 1, 2019.
Trademark Act Section 2(d) bars registration of an applied-for mark that so resembles a registered mark that it is likely a consumer would be confused, mistaken, or deceived as to the source of the goods and/or services of the applicant and registrant(s). See 15 U.S.C. §1052(d). Determining likelihood of confusion is made 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). In re i.am.symbolic, llc , 866 F.3d 1315, 1322, 123 USPQ2d 1744, 1747 (Fed. Cir. 2017). However, “[n]ot all of the [ du Pont ] factors are relevant to every case, and only factors of significance to the particular mark need be considered.” Coach Servs., Inc. v. Triumph Learning LLC , 668 F.3d 1356, 1366, 101 USPQ2d 1713, 1719 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (quoting In re Mighty Leaf Tea , 601. F.3d 1342, 1346, 94 USPQ2d 1257, 1259 (Fed. Cir 2010)). The USPTO may focus its analysis “on dispositive factors, such as similarity of the marks and relatedness of the goods [and/or services].” 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)); see TMEP §1207.01.
As stated in the previous Office Action, the registered marks and the applied-for mark create the same commercial impression and the goods are the same, thus, they are likely to be encountered together in the marketplace by the same consumers. Thus, consumers are likely to make the mistaken conclusion that the goods originate from the same source. Therefore, a likelihood of confusion exists and registration is refused under Trademark Act Section 2(d) for class 025.
Although applicant’s mark has been refused registration for class 025, applicant may respond to the refusals by submitting evidence and arguments in support of registration.
In such case, the application will then proceed only with the services in International Class 41. See 37 C.F.R. §2.65(a)-(a)(1); TMEP §718.02(a).
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)
CONTACT INFORMATION: If applicant has questions regarding this Office action, please telephone or e-mail the assigned trademark examining attorney. All relevant e-mail communications will be placed in the official application record; however, an e-mail communication will not be accepted as a response to this Office action and will not extend the deadline for filing a proper response. See 37 C.F.R. §§2.62(c), 2.191; TMEP §§304.01-.02, 709.04-.05. Further, although the trademark examining attorney may provide additional explanation pertaining to the refusal(s) and/or requirement(s) in this Office action, the trademark examining attorney may not provide legal advice or statements about applicant’s rights. See TMEP §§705.02, 709.06.
/Alexandra K. Chaffin/
Alexandra K. Chaffin
Law Office 126
(571).270.3077
Alexandra.Chaffin@USPTO.GOV
RESPONSE GUIDANCE