UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE (USPTO)
OFFICE ACTION (OFFICIAL LETTER) ABOUT APPLICANT’S TRADEMARK APPLICATION
U.S. APPLICATION SERIAL NO. 88259214
MARK: GAIA
|
|
CORRESPONDENT ADDRESS: |
CLICK HERE TO RESPOND TO THIS LETTER: http://www.gov.uspto.report/trademarks/teas/response_forms.jsp
|
APPLICANT: POPUP DESIGN, S. DE R.L. DE C.V.
|
|
CORRESPONDENT’S REFERENCE/DOCKET NO: CORRESPONDENT E-MAIL ADDRESS: |
|
OFFICE ACTION
TO AVOID ABANDONMENT OF APPLICANT’S TRADEMARK APPLICATION, THE USPTO MUST RECEIVE APPLICANT’S COMPLETE RESPONSE TO THIS LETTER WITHIN 6 MONTHS OF THE ISSUE/MAILING DATE BELOW. A RESPONSE TRANSMITTED THROUGH THE TRADEMARK ELECTRONIC APPLICATION SYSTEM (TEAS) MUST BE RECEIVED BEFORE MIDNIGHT EASTERN TIME OF THE LAST DAY OF THE RESPONSE PERIOD.
ISSUE/MAILING DATE: 3/27/2019
SEARCH OF OFFICE’S DATABASE OF MARKS
The trademark examining attorney has searched the Office’s database of registered and pending marks and has found no conflicting marks that would bar registration under Trademark Act Section 2(d). TMEP §704.02; see 15 U.S.C. §1052(d).
SUMMARY OF ISSUES
1. Section 2(d) Refusal – Likelihood of Confusion – International Class 020
2. Clarification of Entity Required
3. Amended Identification of Services Required
SECTION 2(d) REFUSAL – LIKELIHOOD OF CONFUSION – INTERNATIONAL CLASS 020
THIS PARTIAL REFUSAL APPLIES TO INTERNATIONAL CLASS 020 ONLY.
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.
Applicant’s mark is GAIA for “Furnitures, mirrors, picture frames; goods made of wood, cork, reed, cane, wicker, horn, bone, ivory, whalebone, shell, amber, mother-of-pearl, meerschaum and substitutes for all these materials or of plastic not included in other classes,” in International Class 020, in relevant part.
Registrant’s mark is GAIA CONTEMPORARY HOME for “Baskets of wicker,” in International Class 021.
Comparison 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).
Applicant’s mark, GAIA, is highly similar to the cited registration, GAIA CONTEMPORARY HOME, in sound, appearance, and commercial impression where the entirety of the applied-for mark is encompassed by the cited registration. The marks are identical in part and the only difference between the marks is the removal of the descriptive and disclaimed wording from the cited registration. 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.
As such, the marks are confusingly similar.
Comparison of the Goods
In the present case, applicant lists “Furnitures, mirrors, picture frames; goods made of wood, cork, reed, cane, wicker, horn, bone, ivory, whalebone, shell, amber, mother-of-pearl, meerschaum and substitutes for all these materials or of plastic not included in other classes,” in International Class 020, in relevant part. These goods are highly similar to the wicker baskets listed in the cited registration where entities that sell wicker baskets also often sell furniture and goods made of various materials as listed in the application under the same mark. See attached evidence from Wayfair.com (selling wicker baskets, furniture and picture frames under the MISTANA and BEACHCREST HOME marks), WorldMarket.com (selling furniture, wicker baskets, picture frames and mirrors under the WORLD MARKET mark), and PotteryBarn.com (selling wicker baskets, furniture and picture frames under the POTTERY BARN mark).
Because the marks are similar and the goods are related, it is likely that consumers would believe that the goods emanate from a common source.
Although applicant’s mark has been refused registration, applicant may respond to the refusal by submitting evidence and arguments in support of registration.
CLARIFICATION OF ENTITY REQUIRED
Alternatively, if applicant maintains that the legal entity in the application properly identifies applicant’s entity type, applicant must provide an explanation as to why the identified entity type is more similar to a “corporation” in this instance than to the legal entities listed in TMEP Appendix D. See id.
If, in response to the above request, applicant provides information indicating that it is not the owner of the mark, registration will be refused because the application was void as filed. See 37 C.F.R. §2.71(d); TMEP §§803.06, 1201.02(b). An application must be filed by the party who owns or is entitled to use the mark as of the application filing date. See 37 C.F.R. §2.71(d); TMEP §1201.02(b).
AMENDED IDENTIFICATION OF GOODS AND/OR SERVICES REQUIRED
The wording “[f]urnitures,” in the identification is indefinite and must be clarified because it fails to identify specific goods. See 37 C.F.R. §2.32(a)(6); TMEP §1402.01.
The wording “goods made of wood, cork, reed, cane, wicker, horn, bone, ivory, whalebone, shell, amber, mother-of-pearl, meerschaum and substitutes for all these materials or of plastic not included in other classes,” in the identification is indefinite and must be clarified because it fails to identify specific goods. This portion of the identification must be clarified by (1) specifying the common commercial or generic name for these goods, or (2) deleting this wording. See 37 C.F.R. §2.32(a)(6); TMEP §§1402.01, 1402.03(a). This wording is an open-ended “catch-all” word or phrase (e.g., “etc.,” “and other similar goods,” “and related goods”) that is not acceptable because it fails to identify specific goods. See TMEP §1402.03(a).
In an identification, an applicant must use the common commercial or generic name for the goods, be specific and all-inclusive, and avoid using indefinite words or phrases. TMEP§§1402.01, 1402.03(a). Further, applicant may amend the identification to list only those items that are within the scope of the goods set forth in the initial application or as acceptably amended. See 37 C.F.R. §2.71(a); TMEP §§1402.06 et seq., 1402.07. Scope is generally determined by the ordinary meaning of the wording in the identification. TMEP §1402.07(a).
The identification of services in International Class 035 requires clarification because it is indefinite and fails to identify specific services. Additionally, the identification is too broad because it could include services in more than one international class (e.g., commercial consultancy in International Class 035, commercial furniture design services in International Class 042, commercial rental of furniture in International Class 043). See 37 C.F.R. §2.32(a)(6); TMEP §1402.01.
Applicant may adopt the following wording, if accurate:
§ “Furniture, mirrors, picture frames; goods made of wood, cork, reed, cane, wicker, horn, bone, ivory, whalebone, shell, amber, mother-of-pearl, meerschaum and substitutes for all these materials or of plastic, namely, __________ {indicate specific goods in International Class 020, e.g., wood knobs, corks, screens of reed or substitutes for reed, drawer pulls of wicker, works of art made of amber},” in International Class 020.
§ “Commercial services of furniture, namely, retail store services featuring furniture,” in International Class 035.
Note that proposed changes are indicated in bold. Some items require applicant to include more complete information. Some items require applicant to include more complete information. These are designated with a blank space ______ followed by bold braces { } and italicized explanatory text. The information in the braces is suggested as an example for applicant to follow, not to merely be “cut and pasted”. Furthermore, no braces should be included in applicant’s amended identification. Applicant should also note that the above identification is merely a suggestion and applicant is responsible for providing an accurate and acceptable identification.
For assistance with identifying and classifying goods and services in trademark applications, please see the USPTO’s online searchable U.S. Acceptable Identification of Goods and Services Manual. See TMEP §1402.04.
Multiple-Class Application Requirements
(1) List the goods and/or services by their international class number in consecutive numerical order, starting with the lowest numbered class.
(2) Submit a filing fee for each international class not covered by the fees already paid (view the USPTO’s current fee schedule). The application identifies goods and/or services that are classified in at least 3 classes; however, applicant submitted fees sufficient for only 2 classes. Applicant must either submit the filing fees for the classes not covered by the submitted fees or restrict the application to the number of classes covered by the fees already paid.
See 15 U.S.C. §§1051(b), 1112, 1126(e); 37 C.F.R. §§2.32(a)(6)-(7), 2.34(a)(2)-(3), 2.86(a); TMEP §§1403.01, 1403.02(c).
See an overview of the requirements for a Sections 1(b) and 44 multiple-class application and how to satisfy the requirements online using the Trademark Electronic Application System (TEAS) form.
RESPONSE GUIDELINES
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.
/Breanna Freeman/
Examining Attorney
Law Office 114
(571) 272-7099
breanna.freeman@uspto.gov
TO RESPOND TO THIS LETTER: Go to http://www.gov.uspto.report/trademarks/teas/response_forms.jsp. Please wait 48-72 hours from the issue/mailing date before using the Trademark Electronic Application System (TEAS), to allow for necessary system updates of the application. For technical assistance with online forms, e-mail TEAS@uspto.gov. For questions about the Office action itself, please contact the assigned trademark examining attorney. E-mail communications will not be accepted as responses to Office actions; therefore, do not respond to this Office action by e-mail.
All informal e-mail communications relevant to this application will be placed in the official application record.
WHO MUST SIGN THE RESPONSE: It must be personally signed by an individual applicant or someone with legal authority to bind an applicant (i.e., a corporate officer, a general partner, all joint applicants). If an applicant is represented by an attorney, the attorney must sign the response.
PERIODICALLY CHECK THE STATUS OF THE APPLICATION: To ensure that applicant does not miss crucial deadlines or official notices, check the status of the application every three to four months using the Trademark Status and Document Retrieval (TSDR) system at http://tsdr.gov.uspto.report/. Please keep a copy of the TSDR status screen. If the status shows no change for more than six months, contact the Trademark Assistance Center by e-mail at TrademarkAssistanceCenter@uspto.gov or call 1-800-786-9199. For more information on checking status, see http://www.gov.uspto.report/trademarks/process/status/.
TO UPDATE CORRESPONDENCE/E-MAIL ADDRESS: Use the TEAS form at http://www.gov.uspto.report/trademarks/teas/correspondence.jsp.