UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE (USPTO)
OFFICE ACTION (OFFICIAL LETTER) ABOUT APPLICANT’S TRADEMARK APPLICATION
U.S. APPLICATION SERIAL NO. 88290517
MARK: LOGOS
|
|
CORRESPONDENT ADDRESS: TRADEMARK FACTORY INTERNATIONAL |
CLICK HERE TO RESPOND TO THIS LETTER: http://www.gov.uspto.report/trademarks/teas/response_forms.jsp
|
APPLICANT: Martin Dzikpor
|
|
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:
The referenced application has been reviewed by the assigned trademark examining attorney. Applicant must respond timely and completely to the issue(s) below. 15 U.S.C. §1062(b); 37 C.F.R. §§2.62(a), 2.65(a); TMEP §§711, 718.03.
In response to this Office action, applicant may present arguments in support of registration by addressing the issue of the potential conflict between applicant’s mark and the mark in the referenced application. Applicant’s election not to submit arguments at this time in no way limits applicant’s right to address this issue later if a refusal under Section 2(d) issues.
SECTION 2(d) REFUSAL – LIKELIHOOD OF CONFUSION
Registration of the applied-for mark is refused because of a likelihood of confusion with the marks in U.S. Registration Nos. 5652481, 4519203, 5032104, 1761450, and 5652482. Trademark Act Section 2(d), 15 U.S.C. §1052(d); see TMEP §§1207.01 et seq. See the attached registrations.
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 has applied for the mark “LOGOS”, for the following identification of goods and services:
International Class 018 - Bags, namely, Backpacks, book bags, sports bags, all-purpose carrying bags, cross-body bags, bum bags, wallets and
handbags; Souvenir bags
International Class 025 - Clothing for adults, children, and babies, namely, shirts, pants, jackets, sweatshirts, hooded sweatshirts, sweaters, shorts, tank tops, polo shirts, underwear; Footwear for adults, children and babies; Headwear, namely, hats, caps; Scarves; Belts
International Class 035 - Retail store services featuring clothing and accessories; On-line retail store services featuring clothing and accessories
A. Registration No. 5652481
Registrant has registered the mark “LOGO,” a composite mark consisting of words and a design, for the following relevant goods: “Backpacks; Tote bags; All purpose sport bags; All-purpose athletic bags; All-purpose carrying bags; All-purpose reusable carrying bags; Athletic bags; Drawstring bags” in International Class 018.
(1) Similarity 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).
Here, the applicant’s mark is merely the plural form of the word portion of the registrant’s mark. An applied-for mark that is the singular or plural form of a registered mark is essentially identical in sound, appearance, meaning, and commercial impression, and thus the marks are confusingly similar. Swiss Grill Ltd., v. Wolf Steel Ltd., 115 USPQ2d 2001, 2011 n.17 (TTAB 2015) (holding “it is obvious that the virtually identical marks [the singular and plural of SWISS GRILL] are confusingly similar”); Weider Publ’ns, LLC v. D & D Beauty Care Co., 109 USPQ2d 1347, 1355 (TTAB 2014) (finding the singular and plural forms of SHAPE to be essentially the same mark) (citing Wilson v. Delaunay, 245 F.2d 877, 878, 114 USPQ 339, 341 (C.C.P.A. 1957) (finding no material difference between the singular and plural forms of ZOMBIE such that the marks were considered the same mark).
As to the design portion of the registered mark, 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 dominant portion of registrant’s mark is the wording LOGO, which is simply the singular version of the applicant’s mark. Thus the marks are similar.
(2) Relatedness of the Goods and Services
In this case, several of the applicant’s goods are identical to the registrant’s goods, namely backpacks, all-purpose carrying bags, and sports/athletic bags. Therefore it is presumed that the channels of trade and class of purchasers are the same for these goods. See Cai v. Diamond Hong, Inc., __ F.3d __, 27 USPQ2d 1797, 1801 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (quoting In re Viterra Inc., 671 F.3d 1358, 1362, 101 USPQ2d 1905, 1908 (Fed. Cir. 2012)).
Regarding the remainder of the applicant’s goods, the attached Internet evidence consisting of screenshots from the websites of several manufacturers and retailers establishes that the same entity commonly manufactures/produces/provides the relevant goods and markets those goods under the same mark, and 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. Specifically:
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).
Finally, regarding applicant’s identification of services in international class 035, the use of similar marks on or in connection with both products and retail-store services has been held likely to cause confusion where the evidence showed that the retail-store services featured the same type of products. See In re Detroit Athletic Co., 903 F.3d 1297, 1307, 128 USPQ2d 1047, 1051 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (holding the use of similar marks for various clothing items, including athletic uniforms, and for retail shops featuring sports team related clothing and apparel likely to cause confusion); In re House Beer, LLC, 114 USPQ2d 1073, 1078 (TTAB 2015) (holding the use of identical marks for beer and for retail store services featuring beer likely to cause confusion); In re Thomas, 79 USPQ2d 1021, 1023 (TTAB 2006) (holding the use of similar marks for jewelry and for retail-jewelry and mineral-store services likely to cause confusion); TMEP §1207.01(a)(ii). Here, the applicant’s services include retail store services that feature registrant’s goods.
Therefore, the goods and services are related.
(3) Conclusion
Because the applicant’s mark is just the plural form of the registrant’s, and because many of the goods and services of both the applicant and registrant are related or identical, registration is refused for a likelihood of confusion.
B. Registration No. 4519203
Registrant has registered the mark “LOGO LAYERS” for “Apparel, namely, sweaters, pants, jackets, scarves, T-shirts, headwear and footwear.”
(1) Similarity of the Marks
Although marks are compared in their entireties, one feature of a mark may be more significant or dominant in creating a commercial impression. See In re Viterra Inc., 671 F.3d 1358, 1362, 101 USPQ2d 1905, 1908 (Fed. Cir. 2012); In re Nat’l Data Corp., 753 F.2d 1056, 1058, 224 USPQ 749, 751 (Fed. Cir. 1985); TMEP §1207.01(b)(viii), (c)(ii). Disclaimed matter that is descriptive of or generic for a party’s goods and/or services is typically less significant or less dominant when comparing marks. In re Detroit Athletic Co., 903 F.3d 1297, 1305, 128 USPQ2d 1047, 1050 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (citing In re Dixie Rests., Inc., 105 F.3d 1405, 1407, 41 USPQ2d 1531, 1533-34 (Fed. Cir. 1997)); TMEP §1207.01(b)(viii), (c)(ii).
Here, registrant has disclaimed the wording “LAYERS” in its mark, making it less significant when comparing it to the applicant’s mark. Therefore, applicant’s mark is merely the plural form of the dominant portion of the registrant’s mark. Thus, the marks are similar.
(2) Relatedness of the Goods and Services
In this case, as to applicant’s goods in international class 025, they are partially identical to the registrant’s. Specifically, sweaters, pants, jackets, headwear, and footwear are all included in both identifications of goods.
Additionally, based on the evidence above, applicant’s goods that are not identical to registrant’s are manufactured and produced by the same entities, and sold via retail store services by those entities. Thus, the marks are related.
(3) Conclusion
Because the dominant portion of the registrant’s mark is merely the singular form of the applicant’s mark, and because the applicant’s goods in international class 025 are identical to the registrants and the goods and services in the other classes are all related, registration is refused for a likelihood of confusion.
C. Registration Nos. 5032104 and 1761450
Registrant has registered the mark “LOGO ATHLETIC” in both registrations for “Apparel, namely, shirts; headwear, namely, caps, hats,” and “Sports apparel; namely, T-shirts, sweatshirts and sweaters.”
(1) Similarity of the Marks
In this case, the analysis is the same as the previous refusal. Registrant has disclaimed the wording “ATHLETIC” in its mark, making the applicant’s mark merely the plural form of the dominant portion of the registrant’s mark. Therefore the marks are similar.
(2) Relatedness of the Goods and Services
Here, all of registrant’s goods in both registrations are identical to the applicant’s international class 025 goods. Specifically, both applicant and registrant include “shirts,” “headwear,” “caps,” “hats,” “sweatshirts,” and “sweaters” in the identification of goods. The only exception is that applicant has applied for shirts and registrant in the 1761450 registration has registered for "T-shirts.” However, because shirts encompass T-shirts, these goods are legally identical. See, e.g., In re Solid State Design Inc., 125 USPQ2d 1409, 1412-15 (TTAB 2018); Sw. Mgmt., Inc. v. Ocinomled, Ltd., 115 USPQ2d 1007, 1025 (TTAB 2015); In re i.am.symbolic, llc, 127 USPQ2d 1627, 1629 (TTAB 2018) (citing Tuxedo Monopoly, Inc. v. Gen. Mills Fun Grp., Inc., 648 F.2d 1335, 1336, 209 USPQ 986, 988 (C.C.P.A. 1981); Inter IKEA Sys. B.V. v. Akea, LLC, 110 USPQ2d 1734, 1745 (TTAB 2014); Baseball Am. Inc. v. Powerplay Sports Ltd., 71 USPQ2d 1844, 1847 n.9 (TTAB 2004)).
In regards to the applicant’s goods in class 018 and services in class 035, the attached evidence above shows that those are all related to the registrant’s goods. Thus, the goods and services are related.
(3) Conclusion
Because the dominant portion of the registrant’s mark is merely the singular form of the applicant’s mark, and because the applicant’s goods in international class 025 are identical to the registrants and the goods and services in the other classes are all related, registration is refused for a likelihood of confusion.
D. Registration No. 5652482
Registrant has registered the mark “LOGOBRANDS” for the relevant goods “Backpacks; Tote bags; All purpose sport bags; All-purpose athletic bags; All- purpose carrying bags; All-purpose reusable carrying bags; Athletic bags; Drawstring bags.”
(1) Similarity of the marks
Here, while the registrant’s mark is a unitary word, the first two syllables of that unitary word are identical to applicant’s entire mark (taking into consideration that plural forms of words are essentially identical). Therefore, both marks are have essentially identical dominant features and thus are similar.
(2) Relatedness of the Goods
The registrant’s identification of goods is identical to that in Registration No. 5642481, as each has the same owner. Thus, the analysis is the same as above.
E. Conclusion
For the reasons above, registration is refused for a likelihood of confusion with the five registered marks. Although applicant’s mark has been refused registration, applicant may respond to the refusal(s) by submitting evidence and arguments in support of registration.
RESPONDING TO THIS OFFICE ACTION
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.
/Joseph Greene/
Joe Greene
Trademark Examining Attorney
U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, Law Office 125
(571)272-5763
joseph.greene@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.