To: | Michael Todd Beauty LP (dradack@eckertseamans.com) |
Subject: | U.S. Trademark Application Serial No. 88271379 - CLARO - 305276-00115 |
Sent: | May 19, 2020 10:07:52 AM |
Sent As: | ecom120@uspto.gov |
Attachments: | Attachment - 1 Attachment - 2 Attachment - 3 Attachment - 4 Attachment - 5 Attachment - 6 Attachment - 7 Attachment - 8 Attachment - 9 Attachment - 10 Attachment - 11 Attachment - 12 Attachment - 13 Attachment - 14 Attachment - 15 Attachment - 16 Attachment - 17 Attachment - 18 Attachment - 19 Attachment - 20 Attachment - 21 Attachment - 22 Attachment - 23 Attachment - 24 Attachment - 25 Attachment - 26 Attachment - 27 Attachment - 28 Attachment - 29 Attachment - 30 Attachment - 31 Attachment - 32 |
United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO)
Office Action (Official Letter) About Applicant’s Trademark Application
U.S. Application Serial No. 88271379
Mark: CLARO
|
|
Correspondence Address: ECKERT SEAMANS CHERIN & MELLOTT, LLC
|
|
Applicant: Michael Todd Beauty LP
|
|
Reference/Docket No. 305276-00115
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: May 19, 2020
This Office action is in response to applicant’s communication filed on September 12, 2019.
In a previous Office action dated March 15, 2019, the trademark examining attorney refused registration of the applied-for mark based on the following: refusal Trademark Act Section 2(d) for a likelihood of confusion with a registered marks.
Furthermore, prior-filed U.S. Application Serial No. 87334598 (CLAROGEL) has abandoned and is no longer a potential bar towards the registration of the applied-for mark.
The trademark examining attorney maintains and now makes FINAL the refusal below. See 37 C.F.R. §2.63(b); TMEP §714.04.
SECTION 2(d) REFUSAL – LIKELIHOOD OF CONFUSION
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.
Comparing 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)), aff’d per curiam, 777 F. App’x 516, 2019 BL 343921 (Fed. Cir. 2019); TMEP §1207.01(b).
In this case, the marks are confusingly similar in appearance, sound, and commercial impression because they appear to be formatives of the same word. Applicant’s mark is “CLARO” and the registered marks are “CLAROR” and “ACLARO”.
Applicant argues that its “mark CLARO has a different pronunciation, commercial impression and meaning than the marks in the cited registrations” 5221043 (CLAROR) and 3003490 (ACLARO).
Applicant’s argument is unpersuasive because there is only one letter that differentiates applicant’s mark from the registered marks. As such, there is only a slight difference in sounds between the marks. However, slight differences in the sound of similar marks will not avoid a likelihood of confusion. In re Energy Telecomm. & Elec. Ass’n, 222 USPQ 350, 351 (TTAB 1983); see In re Viterra Inc., 671 F.3d 1358, 1367, 101 USPQ2d 1905, 1912 (Fed. Cir. 2012). In light of the closely related goods, the does not outweigh the similarities between the marks. Where the goods of an applicant and registrant are “similar in kind and/or closely related,” the degree of similarity between the marks required to support a finding of likelihood of confusion is not as great as in the case of diverse goods. In re J.M. Originals Inc., 6 USPQ2d 1393, 1394 (TTAB 1987); see Shen Mfg. Co. v. Ritz Hotel Ltd., 393 F.3d 1238, 1242, 73 USPQ2d 1350, 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2004); TMEP §1207.01(b).
Furthermore, marks may be confusingly similar in appearance where similar terms or phrases or similar parts of terms or phrases appear 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). In this case, the fanciful term “CLARO” represents applicant’s entire mark and is totally incorporated into the registered marks. As such, the marks look similar and create similar commercial impressions of a fanciful word composed from the term “CLARO”.
Comparing the Goods
In this case, applicant’s goods are “light-emitting device, namely, chargeable LED phototherapy device for the treatment of acne” in International Class 10.
The goods in Reg. No. 5221043 (CLAROR) are “medicated skin care preparations; preparations for the treatment of acne” in International Class 5.
The goods in Reg. No. 3003490 (ACLARO) are “medicated skin care preparations” in International Class 5.
Applicant points out that “Applicant’s mark is used for a light emitting device (in Class 10) whereas the marks in the cited registration are used for skin care preparations in Class 5.”
This information is unpersuasive because 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).
The attached and previously attached Internet evidence consists of third-party entities that produce LED phototherapy devices for treatment of the skin and also medicated skin care preparations. See attached and previously attached webpage screenshots featuring goods from Neutrogena, Tria, Skin Inc Supplement Bar, Trophy Skin, Revive, Quasar MD, LightStim, Foreo, The Light Salon, and Dr. Dennis Gross. This evidence establishes that the same entity commonly produces the relevant goods and markets the goods under the same mark. This evidence also shows that the relevant goods are sold or provided through the same trade channels and used by the same classes of consumers in the same fields of use. Thus, applicant’s and registrant’s goods are considered related for likelihood of confusion purposes. See, e.g., In re Davey Prods. Pty Ltd., 92 USPQ2d 1198, 1202-04 (TTAB 2009); In re Toshiba Med. Sys. Corp., 91 USPQ2d 1266, 1268-69, 1271-72 (TTAB 2009).
Conclusion
Applicant’s and registrants’ marks are confusingly similar and their goods are related. Accordingly, the applied-for mark, “CLARO”, is refused for likelihood of confusion under Trademark Act Section 2(d). This refusal is hereby made final.
RESPONSE GUIDELINES FOR FINAL OFFICE ACTION
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).
Additional Response guidance
If applicant has questions regarding this final 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. §2.191; TMEP §§709.04-.05. Further, although the trademark examining attorney may provide additional explanation pertaining to the refusal in this final Office action, the trademark examining attorney may not provide legal advice or statements about applicant’s rights. See TMEP §§705.02, 709.06.
/Marco Wright/
Trademark Examining Attorney
Law Office 120
(571) 272-4918
marco.wright@uspto.gov