To: | WE ARE RAD LLC (sevag@demirjianlaw.com) |
Subject: | U.S. Trademark Application Serial No. 88292986 - RAD - N/A |
Sent: | November 19, 2019 06:05:49 AM |
Sent As: | ecom110@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 |
United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO)
Office Action (Official Letter) About Applicant’s Trademark Application
U.S. Application Serial No. 88292986
Mark: RAD
|
|
Correspondence Address: 5200 LANKERSHIM BLVD., SUITE 850
|
|
Applicant: WE ARE RAD LLC
|
|
Reference/Docket No. N/A
Correspondence Email Address: |
|
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). A link to the appropriate TEAS response form appears at the end of this Office action.
Issue date: November 19, 2019
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.
This Office Action is in response to applicant’s communication filed on October 27, 2019. In the foregoing communication, the applicant amended the identification of services. The amendment is accepted and has been entered into the record. The prior filed application cited in the First Office Action has matured to U.S. Registration No. 5795300. Accordingly, the examining attorney issues the following:
Refusal Section 2(d) – Likelihood of Confusion
The applicant has applied to register the mark RAD (standard characters) for “Business services, namely, assisting others in the establishment of charitable organizations; Charitable services, namely, promoting public awareness of various charitable organizations and their missions; Charitable services, namely, promoting the charitable and non-profit organization of others; Promoting awareness of specific charities and the need for philanthropy and advocacy for non-profits; Promoting public awareness of specific charities and the need for philanthropy and advocacy for non-profits; Promoting the charitable giving of others, namely, tracking and publicizing charitable donations and random acts of kindness; Charitable services, namely, coordination of non- monetary contributions to charities and non-profits; Marketing consulting services relating to long-term business strategy development for non-profit organizations; Marketing services, namely, promotional services in the field of planned-giving for non-profit and charitable organizations; Promoting the charitable services of others, namely, providing individuals with information about various charities for the purpose of making donations to charities; Promotional services, namely, promoting the charities of others; Providing business information regarding charitable or humanitarian organizations.”
The mark in U.S. Registration No. 5795300 is RAD COLLECTIVE (standard characters) for “Organizing and developing charitable projects that aim to build a bridge between the medical and fitness communities.”
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.
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).
Here, the applicant’s mark is highly similar to the mark in the cited U.S. Registration. Both marks contain the term RAD. The applicant has merely deleted the descriptive term COLLECTIVE from the registered mark. 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.
The examining attorney must resolve any doubt as to the issue of likelihood of confusion in favor of the registrant and against the applicant who has a legal duty to select a mark which is totally dissimilar to trademarks already being used. Burroughs Wellcome Co. v. Warner-Lambert Co., 203 USPQ 191 (TTAB 1979).
Comparison of the Services
The applicant’s services are “Business services, namely, assisting others in the establishment of charitable organizations; Charitable services, namely, promoting public awareness of various charitable organizations and their missions; Charitable services, namely, promoting the charitable and non-profit organization of others; Promoting awareness of specific charities and the need for philanthropy and advocacy for non-profits; Promoting public awareness of specific charities and the need for philanthropy and advocacy for non-profits; Promoting the charitable giving of others, namely, tracking and publicizing charitable donations and random acts of kindness; Charitable services, namely, coordination of non- monetary contributions to charities and non-profits; Marketing consulting services relating to long-term business strategy development for non-profit organizations; Marketing services, namely, promotional services in the field of planned-giving for non-profit and charitable organizations; Promoting the charitable services of others, namely, providing individuals with information about various charities for the purpose of making donations to charities; Promotional services, namely, promoting the charities of others; Providing business information regarding charitable or humanitarian organizations.”
The services in U.S. Registration No. 5795300 are “Organizing and developing charitable projects that aim to build a bridge between the medical and fitness communities.”
The examining attorney notes that the applicant has amended the identification of services to delete the services of organizing and developing charitable projects. The amendment does not overcome the likelihood of confusion. The amendment merely shows that the services are no longer identical, not that the services are not related.
For the foregoing reasons consumers and potential consumers would be likely to believe that applicant’s goods and/or services emanate from the same source as those provided by the registrant. Accordingly, registration is refused under Section 2(d) of the Act.
Although the trademark examining attorney has refused registration, applicant may respond to the refusal to register by submitting evidence and arguments in support of registration.
Response
Response guidelines. For this application to proceed, applicant must explicitly address each refusal and/or requirement in this Office action. For a refusal, applicant may provide written arguments and evidence against the refusal, and may have other response options if specified above. For a requirement, applicant should set forth the changes or statements. Please see “Responding to Office Actions” and the informational video “Response to Office Action” for more information and tips on responding.
How to respond. Click to file a response to this nonfinal Office action
/Ellen J.G. Perkins/
Ellen J.G. Perkins
Examining Attorney - Law Office 110
U.S. Patent & Trademark Office
571 272-9372
Ellen.Perkins@uspto.gov
RESPONSE GUIDANCE