Reconsideration Letter

United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO)

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

 

 

 

REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION

AFTER FINAL ACTION

DENIED

 

 

Issue date:  October 13, 2020

 

Applicant’s request for reconsideration is denied.  See 37 C.F.R. §2.63(b)(3).  The trademark examining attorney has carefully reviewed applicant’s request and determined the request did not:  (1) raise a new issue, (2) resolve all the outstanding issue(s), (3) provide any new or compelling evidence with regard to the outstanding issue(s), or (4) present analysis and arguments that were persuasive or shed new light on the outstanding issue(s).  TMEP §§715.03(a)(ii)(B), 715.04(a). 

 

In its Request for reconsideration submitted on September 10, 2020, applicant indicates “The registrant is the owner of the previously registered trade mark number 3694762, 5941158 and 5626264. The registrant has already registered some other products in the same class as the current registration.”  It is unclear from this statement whether applicant is attempting to claim ownership of U.S. Registration No. 5941158, because of applicant’s use of the term “registrant.”  Moreover, this statement has not been submitted with an affidavit or signed declaration.  The materials submitted in the Request for reconsideration also do not constitute appropriate documents evidencing the chain of title that has been supported by an affidavit or signed declaration.  If the mark in the cited registration is owned by applicant, applicant may provide evidence of ownership of the mark by satisfying one of the following:

 

(1)        Record the assignment with the USPTO’s Assignment Recordation Branch (ownership transfer documents such as assignments can be filed online at http://etas.uspto.gov) and promptly notify the trademark examining attorney that the assignment has been duly recorded;

 

(2)        Submit copies of documents evidencing the chain of title; or

 

(3)        Submit the following statement, verified with an affidavit or signed declaration under 37 C.F.R. §2.20:  “Applicant is the owner of U.S. Registration No. 5941158.”  To provide this statement using the Trademark Electronic Application System (TEAS), use the “Response to Office Action” form; answer “yes” to wizard questions #3 and #9; then, continuing on to the next portion of the form, in the “Additional Statement(s)” section, find “Active Prior Registration(s)” and insert the U.S. registration numbers in the data fields; and follow the instructions within the form for signing.  The form must be signed twice; a signature is required both in the “Declaration Signature” section and in the “Response Signature” section.

 

TMEP §812.01; see 15 U.S.C. §1060; 37 C.F.R. §§2.193(e)(1), 3.25, 3.73(a)-(b); TMEP §502.02(a).

 

Recording a document with the Assignment Recordation Branch does not constitute a response to an Office action.  TMEP §503.01(d).

 

Since it is unclear whether applicant owns U.S. Registration No. 5941158, the Section 2(d) refusal as to this cited registration is continued and maintained.  As discussed in previous Office actions, the marks are identical except for the presence of design and stylization elements in the registered mark.  The applicant’s mark is in standard characters, which 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”).  Additionally, the goods identified as “electric coffee makers” are identical in the application and cited registration.

 

As to the likelihood of confusion with U.S. Registration No. 4238770, this cited mark and the applied-for mark are identical in appearance, sound, meaning, and overall connotation because they are both IVIEW in standard characters.  Additionally, applicant’s goods identified as “light bulbs” are closely related to registrant’s “Light emitting diode light strip,” as demonstrated by the third-party evidence attached to the previous Office actions.  Moreover, insofar as applicant may be arguing that applicant owns a prior registration in the same class, (here, International Class 11), this argument is unpersuasive.  The fact that the Office classifies goods in different or same classes does not establish that the goods and services are related or unrelated under Trademark Act Section 2(d).  See TMEP §1207.01(d)(v).  The determination concerning the proper classification of goods or services is a purely administrative determination unrelated to the determination of likelihood of confusion.  In re Detroit Athletic Co., 903 F.3d 1297, 1307, 128 USPQ2d 1047, 1051 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (citing Jean Patou, Inc. v. Theon, Inc., 9 F.3d 971, 975, 29 USPQ2d 1771, 1774 (Fed. Cir. 1993)).  Moreover, where the marks of the respective parties are identical or virtually identical, as in this case, the degree of similarity or relatedness between the goods and/or services needed to support a finding of likelihood of confusion declines.  See In re i.am.symbolic, llc, 116 USPQ2d 1406, 1411 (TTAB 2015) (citing In re Shell Oil Co., 992 F.2d 1204, 1207, 26 USPQ2d 1687, 1689 (Fed. Cir. 1993)), aff’d, 866 F.3d 1315, 123 USPQ2d 1744 (Fed. Cir. 2017); TMEP §1207.01(a).

 

Accordingly, the Section 2(d) refusal as it relates to U.S. Registration Nos. 5941158 and 4238770 made final in the Office action dated August 17, 2020 are maintained and continued.  See TMEP §§715.03(a)(ii)(B), 715.04(a). 

 

Upon further consideration, the Section 2(d) refusal as it relates to U.S. Registration No. 4154856 made final in the August 17, 2020 Office action is withdrawn.  See TMEP §§715.03(a)(ii)(B), 715.04(a).

 

PARTIAL ABANDONMENT

If applicant does not timely file another request for reconsideration that overcomes the outstanding refusals and/or does not timely file an appeal within six months of the issue date of the August 17, 2020 final Office action, the following class to which the final refusal applies will be deleted from the application by Examiner’s Amendment:  International Class 11.  37 C.F.R. §2.65(a); see 15 U.S.C. §1062(b).

 

In such case, the application will proceed for the following class only:  International Class 9. 

 

If applicant has already filed an appeal with the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board, the Board will be notified to resume the appeal.  See TMEP §715.04(a).

 

If applicant has not filed an appeal and time remains in the six-month response period, applicant has the remainder of that time to (1) file another request for reconsideration that complies with and/or overcomes any outstanding final requirement(s) and/or refusal(s), and/or (2) file a notice of appeal to the Board.  TMEP §715.03(a)(ii)(B).  Filing a request for reconsideration does not stay or extend the time for filing an appeal.  37 C.F.R. §2.63(b)(3); see TMEP §715.03(c). 

 

 

Young Wolfe

/Young Wolfe/

Trademark Examining Attorney

Law Office 122

571-272-5579

young.wolfe@uspto.gov

 

 

 

United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO)

 

USPTO OFFICIAL NOTICE

 

Office Action (Official Letter) has issued

on October 13, 2020 for

U.S. Trademark Application Serial No. 88250506

 

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. 

 

 

Young Wolfe

/Young Wolfe/

Trademark Examining Attorney

Law Office 122

571-272-5579

young.wolfe@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 13, 2020, 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.”