To: | Love 4 Life Apparel Inc. (jrpugh42@gmail.com) |
Subject: | U.S. Trademark Application Serial No. 88261860 - L4L - 1103440 |
Sent: | April 14, 2020 05:59:22 PM |
Sent As: | ecom100@uspto.gov |
Attachments: |
United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO)
Office Action (Official Letter) About Applicant’s Trademark Application
U.S. Application Serial No. 88261860
Mark: L4L
|
|
Correspondence Address:
|
|
Applicant: Love 4 Life Apparel Inc.
|
|
Reference/Docket No. 1103440
Correspondence Email Address: |
|
FINAL 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) 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: April 14, 2020
This Office action is in response to applicant’s communication filed on July 31, 2019.
In a previous Office action dated February 24, 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 and Trademark Act Sections 1 and 45 for failure to show the mark in the drawing in use in commerce.
The following refusal have also been obviated: Trademark Act Sections 1 and 45 by submitting an acceptable specimen showing use of the mark in the drawing in commerce. See TMEP §§713.02, 714.04.
SECTION 2(d) REFUSAL – LIKELIHOOD OF CONFUSION
Applicant applied to register the design mark “L4L” as shown below for use in connection with “wearable garments and clothing, namely, shirts.”
The cited registered mark is L4L in standard characters for “Hooded sweatshirts; Shirts; Shorts; Sweatpants; Sweatshirts.”
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.
Similarity of the Marks
Applicant’s mark is L4L in a design format. The registered mark is L4L in standard character form.
Applicant argues that applicant’s mark is a design, which is unlike the registered mark that merely consists of three letters.
Furthermore, the literal or word element of both marks, “L4L” are identical. 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)).
The marks share the identical literal element and registrant has rights as a standard character mark allowing the mark to be used in any stylized format. Thus, the marks are confusingly similar.
Relatedness of the Goods
In this case, the goods in the application are identical to one of the goods in the registration. Therefore, it is presumed that the channels of trade and class(es) of purchasers are the same for these goods and/or services. See Cai v. Diamond Hong, Inc., 901 F.3d 1367, 1372, 127 USPQ2d 1797, 1801 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (quoting In re Viterra Inc., 671 F.3d 1358, 1362, 101 USPQ2d 1905, 1908 (Fed. Cir. 2012)).
Additionally, registrant’s other goods are other clothing items which are highly related to the applicant’s clothing item. Thus, applicant’s and registrant’s goods are related.
A likelihood of confusion exists because the marks create a confusingly similar commercial impression and the goods are closely related.
How to respond. Click to file a request for reconsideration of this final Office action that fully resolves all outstanding requirements and refusals and/or click to file a timely appeal to the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB) with the required filing fee(s).
/Tashia Bunch/
Staff Attorney
Law Office 100
(571) 272-3941
tashia.bunch@uspto.gov
RESPONSE GUIDANCE