Suspension Letter

United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO)

Office Action (Official Letter) About Applicant’s Trademark Application

 

 

 

SUSPENSION NOTICE

No Response Required

 

 

Issue date:  October 04, 2019

 

 

Prior-Filed Application

 

Action on this application is SUSPENDED pending the disposition of the previously referenced potentially-conflicting pending application. 37 C.F.R. §2.83(c); TMEP §§716.02(c), 1208.02(c).

 

Applicant was previously provided information regarding pending U.S. Application Serial No. 87887767, which may present a bar to registration of applicant’s mark based on a likelihood of confusion under Trademark Act Section 2(d). See 15 U.S.C. §1052(d); 37 C.F.R. §2.83; TMEP §§1208 et seq. Applicant has chosen not to argue against the suspension at this time. As the trademark examining attorney still believes there may be a likelihood of confusion between applicant’s mark and the mark in the cited prior-pending application, should they register, this application is suspended.

 

Refusal Continued and Maintained

 

Applicant’s arguments concerning the Section 2(d) refusal for a likelihood of confusion with Reg. No. 4861583 have been considered and found unpersuasive. Applicant argues that the registered mark, ALTITUDE – THE HEIGHT OF FITNESS contains additional wording that distinguishes it from the applied-for mark, ALTITUDE. 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.

 

Applicant also argues that the publication of application Serial No. 87887767 for ALTITUDE for fitness services, without a Section 2(d) refusal as to Reg. No. 4861583, is evidence that the instant applied-for mark and the registered mark can coexist without confusion. However, third-party applications are evidence only that the applications were filed; they are not evidence of use of the mark. In re Mr. Recipe, LLC, 118 USPQ2d 1084, 1089 (TTAB 2016); see In re Toshiba Med. Sys. Corp., 91 USPQ2d 1266, 1270 n.8 (TTAB 2009); TBMP §1208.02; TMEP §710.03. Additionally, prior decisions and actions of other trademark examining attorneys in registering other marks have little evidentiary value and are not binding upon the USPTO or the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board. TMEP §1207.01(d)(vi); see In re USA Warriors Ice Hockey Program, Inc., 122 USPQ2d 1790, 1793 n.10 (TTAB 2017). Each case is decided on its own facts, and each mark stands on its own merits. In re USA Warriors Ice Hockey Program, Inc., 122 USPQ2d at 1793 n.10 (quoting In re Boulevard Entm’t, 334 F.3d 1336, 1343, 67 USPQ2d 1475, 1480 (Fed. Cir. 2003)).

 

Therefore the Section 2(d) refusal is continued and maintained. See TMEP §713.02. This refusal will be made final once this application is removed from suspension, unless a new issue arises. See TMEP §716.01.

 

Suspension Process

 

The USPTO will periodically check this application to determine if it should remain suspended. See TMEP §716.04. As needed, the trademark examining attorney will issue a letter to applicant to inquire about the status of the reason for the suspension. TMEP §716.05.

 

Applicant may file a response, but is not required to do so.

 

 

 

/Sara Anne Helmers/

Sara Helmers

Trademark Examining Attorney

Law Office 126

571-270-3639

Sara.Helmers@uspto.gov

 

 

 

United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO)

 

USPTO OFFICIAL NOTICE

 

Office Action (Official Letter) has issued

on October 04, 2019 for

U.S. Trademark Application Serial No. 88300420

 

Your trademark application has been reviewed by a trademark examining attorney.  As part of that review, the assigned attorney has issued an official letter.  Please follow the steps below.

 

(1)  Read the official letter.  No response is necessary.

 

(2)  Direct questions about the contents of the Office action to the assigned attorney below. 

 

/Sara Anne Helmers/

Sara Helmers

Trademark Examining Attorney

Law Office 126

571-270-3639

Sara.Helmers@uspto.gov

 

Direct questions about navigating USPTO electronic forms, the USPTO website, the application process, the status of your application, and/or whether there are outstanding deadlines or documents related to your file to the Trademark Assistance Center (TAC).

 

 

 

GENERAL GUIDANCE

·       Check the status of your application periodically in the Trademark Status & Document Retrieval (TSDR) database to avoid missing critical deadlines.

 

·       Update your correspondence email address, if needed, to ensure you receive important USPTO notices about your application.

 

·       Beware of misleading notices sent by private companies about your application.  Private companies not associated with the USPTO use public information available in trademark registrations to mail and email trademark-related offers and notices – most of which require fees.  All official USPTO correspondence will only be emailed from the domain “@uspto.gov.”