To: | Vagabond Coffee Company, Inc. (Aedgecombe@jimersoncobb.com) |
Subject: | U.S. TRADEMARK APPLICATION NO. 88290532 - VAGABOND - N/A |
Sent: | 5/13/2019 11:22:28 AM |
Sent As: | ECOM107@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 Attachment - 33 Attachment - 34 Attachment - 35 Attachment - 36 Attachment - 37 Attachment - 38 Attachment - 39 Attachment - 40 Attachment - 41 Attachment - 42 Attachment - 43 Attachment - 44 Attachment - 45 |
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE (USPTO)
OFFICE ACTION (OFFICIAL LETTER) ABOUT APPLICANT’S TRADEMARK APPLICATION
U.S. APPLICATION SERIAL NO. 88290532
MARK: VAGABOND
|
|
CORRESPONDENT ADDRESS: |
CLICK HERE TO RESPOND TO THIS LETTER: http://www.gov.uspto.report/trademarks/teas/response_forms.jsp
|
APPLICANT: Vagabond Coffee Company, Inc.
|
|
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: 5/13/2019
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.
Summary of Issues
· Section 2(d) Refusal – Likelihood of Confusion
· Specimen Refusal
Section 2(d) Refusal – Likelihood of Confusion – Limited to Specific Services
The following refusal is limited to the identification of “retail apparel stores” ONLY.
Registration of the applied-for mark is refused because of a likelihood of confusion with the mark in U.S. Registration Nos. 1936532, 5319504, 4853106 and 2763535. 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 to register the mark “VAGABOND” in standard characters for use in connection with “retail apparel stores” in International Class 35.
Registrant’s marks “VAGABOND” in standard characters or typed drawing in Registration No. 5319504, 1936532, and 2763535. The mark is used in connection with the following goods in Class 25: “footwear” in Registration No. 1936532 and “Clothing, namely, suits, dresses, jackets, skirts, overcoats, trousers, shorts, sweaters, cardigans, overalls, shirts, scarves, gloves, and jeanswear, namely, pants, shirts and jackets made of denim; footwear; head wear” in Registration No. 5319504. The mark is used in connection with the following goods in Class 18 “Bags, namely, textile shopping bags and school-bags” in Registration No. 2763535 and “Carry-all bags; attache cases; backpacks; calling card cases; hand bags; hunting bags; briefcases; reusable shopping bags; purses; beach bags; school bags; saddlery, namely, straps of leather; travelling bags; suitcases; trunks; umbrellas, parasols and walking sticks; leather and leather imitations; saddlery” in Registration No. 4853106.
Comparison of the Marks
In the present case, applicant’s mark is “VAGABOND” in standard character, and the mark in U.S. Registration Nos. 1936532, 5319504, and 2763535 is “VAGABOND” in standard character or typed drawing. These marks are identical in appearance, sound, and meaning, “and have the potential to be used . . . in exactly the same manner.” In re i.am.symbolic, llc, 116 USPQ2d 1406, 1411 (TTAB 2015), aff’d, 866 F.3d 1315, 123 USPQ2d 1744 (Fed. Cir. 2017). Additionally, because they are identical, these marks are likely to engender the same connotation and overall commercial impression when considered in connection with applicant’s and registrant’s respective goods and services. Id.
While the mark in U.S. Registration No. 4853106 contains the additional term “SHOEMAKERS”, this wording is a generic designation for the registrant, and as such does little, if anything, to differentiate the marks in the marketplace. Disclaimed matter that is descriptive of or generic for a party’s goods 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). Moreover, the shared term, VAGABOND, is presented in larger bolded font such that it dominates the impression of the registered mark. As such, consumers are likely to call for the goods of the registrant and the services of the applicant by the same name, VAGABOND.
Because the marks in this case look and sound identical and create the same commercial impression, the marks are considered similar for likelihood of confusion purposes.
Comparison of the Goods and Services
The applicant’s relevant services include “retail apparel stores” in International Class 35.
The registrant’s relevant goods include “Clothing, namely, suits, dresses, jackets, skirts, overcoats, trousers, shorts, sweaters, cardigans, overalls, shirts, scarves, gloves, and jeanswear, namely, pants, shirts and jackets made of denim; footwear; head wear” in International Class 25 for the mark in The registrant’s relevant goods in International Class 25 include “footwear,” in U.S. Registration No. 1936532, “clothing, namely, shirts, t-shirts, scarves, shawls, pants, shorts; footwear; and headgear, namely, hats, caps”, in U.S. Registration No. 4853106, and “clothing, namely, suits, dresses, jackets, skirts, overcoats, trousers, shorts, sweaters, cardigans, overalls, shirts, scarves, gloves, and jeanswear, namely, pants, shirts and jackets made of denim; footwear; head wear” in U.S. Registration No. 5319504, as well as goods in International Class 18, including “Bags, namely, attache-cases, hunting bags, briefcases, leather shopping bags and school bags; travelling bags; suitcases; trunks; umbrellas, parasols and walking sticks; leather and leather imitations; saddlery”, in U.S. Registration No. 5319504, “carry-all bags; attache cases; backpacks; calling card cases; hand bags; hunting bags; briefcases; reusable shopping bags; purses; beach bags; school bags; saddlery, namely, straps of leather; travelling bags; suitcases; trunks; umbrellas, parasols and walking sticks; leather and leather imitations; saddlery,” in U.S. Registration No. 4853106, and “bags, namely, textile shopping bags and school-bags” in U.S. Registration No. 2763535.
Consumers are likely to be confused by the use of similar marks on or in connection with goods and with services featuring or related to those goods. TMEP §1207.01(a)(ii); see In re Detroit Athletic Co., 903 F.3d 1297, 1307, 128 USPQ2d 1047, 1051 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (finding retail shops featuring sports team related clothing and apparel related to various clothing items, including athletic uniforms); In re Hyper Shoppes (Ohio), Inc., 837 F.2d 463, 6 USPQ2d 1025 (Fed. Cir. 1988) (finding retail grocery and general merchandise store services related to furniture); In re United Serv. Distribs., Inc., 229 USPQ 237 (TTAB 1986) (finding distributorship services in the field of health and beauty aids related to skin cream); In re Phillips-Van Heusen Corp., 228 USPQ 949 (TTAB 1986) (finding various items of men’s, boys’, girls’ and women’s clothing related to restaurant services and towels); Steelcase Inc. v. Steelcare Inc., 219 USPQ 433 (TTAB 1983) (finding refinishing of furniture, office furniture, and machinery related to office furniture and accessories); Mack Trucks, Inc. v. Huskie Freightways, Inc., 177 USPQ 32 (TTAB 1972) (finding trucking services related to motor trucks and buses).
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).
The attached Internet evidence, consisting of screenshots of Ae.com, Jcrew.com, and Victoriassecret.com, establishes that the same entity commonly provides the relevant goods and services and markets the goods and services under the same mark. Thus, applicant’s services 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). In this case, applicant’s “retail apparel stores” are likely to carry registrant’s “clothing, namely, suits, dresses, jackets, skirts, overcoats, trousers, shorts, sweaters, cardigans, overalls, shirts, scarves, gloves, and jeanswear, namely, pants, shirts and jackets made of denim; footwear; head wear” as well as registrant’s “bags, namely, textile shopping bags and school-bags, parasols and walking sticks; saddlery.”
Because the marks are identical, and/or highly similar, and the goods and services are related, there is a likelihood of confusion as to the source of applicant’s services. Therefore, applicant’s mark is not entitled to registration. As mentioned above, the above refusal is limited to the “retail apparel store” services identified in the application.
Although applicant’s mark has been refused registration, applicant may respond to the refusal by submitting evidence and arguments in support of registration. However, if applicant responds to the refusal, applicant must also respond to the additional refusal set forth below.
Specimen Refusal
Registration is refused because the specimen does not show the applied-for mark in use in commerce in International Class 35. Trademark Act Sections 1 and 45, 15 U.S.C. §§1051, 1127; 37 C.F.R. §§2.34(a)(1)(iv), 2.56(a); TMEP §§904, 904.07(a), 1301.04(g)(i). The specimen does not show the mark in connection with the applied for retail store services, nor does it make any reference to the provision of said services.
An application based on Trademark Act Section 1(a) must include a specimen showing the applied-for mark in use in commerce for each international class of services identified in the application or amendment to allege use. 15 U.S.C. §1051(a)(1); 37 C.F.R. §§2.34(a)(1)(iv), 2.56(a); TMEP §§904, 904.07(a).
Examples of specimens for services include advertising and marketing materials, brochures, photographs of business signage and billboards, and webpages that show the mark used in the actual sale, rendering, or advertising of the services. See TMEP §1301.04(a), (h)(iv)(C). Specimens comprising advertising and promotional materials must show a direct association between the mark and the services. TMEP §1301.04(f)(ii).
Applicant may respond to this refusal by satisfying one of the following for each applicable international class:
(1) Submit a different specimen (a verified “substitute” specimen) that (a) was in actual use in commerce at least as early as the filing date of the application or prior to the filing of an amendment to allege use and (b) shows the mark in actual use in commerce for the services identified in the application or amendment to allege use. A “verified substitute specimen” is a specimen that is accompanied by the following statement made in a signed affidavit or supported by a declaration under 37 C.F.R. §2.20: “The substitute (or new, or originally submitted, if appropriate) specimen(s) was/were in use in commerce at least as early as the filing date of the application or prior to the filing of the amendment to allege use.” The substitute specimen cannot be accepted without this statement.
(2) Amend the filing basis to intent to use under Section 1(b), for which no specimen is required. This option will later necessitate additional fee(s) and filing requirements such as providing a specimen.
For an overview of both response options referenced above and instructions on how to satisfy either option online using the Trademark Electronic Application System (TEAS) form, please go to http://www.gov.uspto.report/trademarks/law/specimen.jsp.
Comments
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.
/Max Faucette/
Law Office 107
(571)270-5655
max.faucette@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.