To: | Rashawn Harrison, LLC (rh@rashawnharrisonllc.com) |
Subject: | U.S. TRADEMARK APPLICATION NO. 88303237 - RH - N/A |
Sent: | 5/15/2019 5:40:41 PM |
Sent As: | ECOM102@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 Attachment - 46 Attachment - 47 |
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE (USPTO)
OFFICE ACTION (OFFICIAL LETTER) ABOUT APPLICANT’S TRADEMARK APPLICATION
U.S. APPLICATION SERIAL NO. 88303237
MARK: RH
|
|
CORRESPONDENT ADDRESS: |
CLICK HERE TO RESPOND TO THIS LETTER: http://www.gov.uspto.report/trademarks/teas/response_forms.jsp
|
APPLICANT: Rashawn Harrison, LLC
|
|
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: 5/15/2019
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 that Applicant Must Address
1. REFUSAL UNDER SECTION 2(D): LIKELIHOOD OF CONFUSION
Registration of the applied-for mark is refused because of a likelihood of confusion with the mark in U.S. Registration Nos. 4704357. Trademark Act Section 2(d), 15 U.S.C. §1052(d); see TMEP §§1207.01 et seq. See the attached registration.
Applicant’s mark is described, in part, as “styled characters or initials RH” for various types of clothing in International Class 25, including, among other items, jackets, pants, dresses and t-shirts. The drawing of the mark shows the letters RH in what appears to be the Palace Script MT font from Microsoft Word, in red color.
U.S. Registration No. 4704357 has a mark for the letters RH in standard character mark for various types of clothing in International Class 25, including, among other items, jackets, pants dresses and t-shirts.
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.
Similarity of the Marks
In this case, all three marks consist of the letters RH, with the difference being that registrant’s mark and the prior applicant’s mark are both in standard characters whereas applicant’s mark is described in the application as being “styled characters.” Using stylized characters and/or a specific font does not distinguish applicant’s mark from the registered mark. That is because a mark in typed or standard characters (as is registrant’s mark) may be displayed in any lettering style; the rights reside in the wording or other literal element and not in any particular display or rendition. See In re Viterra Inc., 671 F.3d 1358, 1363, 101 USPQ2d 1905, 1909 (Fed. Cir. 2012); In re Mighty Leaf Tea, 601 F.3d 1342, 1348, 94 USPQ2d 1257, 1260 (Fed. Cir. 2010); 37 C.F.R. §2.52(a); TMEP §1207.01(c)(iii). Thus, a mark presented in stylized characters (as is applicant’s mark) and/or with a design element generally will not avoid likelihood of confusion with a mark in typed or standard characters because the word portion could be presented in the same manner of display. See, e.g., In re Viterra Inc., 671 F.3d at 1363, 101 USPQ2d at 1909; Squirtco v. Tomy Corp., 697 F.2d 1038, 1041, 216 USPQ 937, 939 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (stating that “the argument concerning a difference in type style is not viable where one party asserts rights in no particular display”). Therefore, because registrant registered its RH mark in typed or standard characters, it can be presented the same as applicant’s mark.
Relatedness of the Goods
Where the marks of the respective parties are virtually identical, as in this case, the degree of similarity or relatedness between the goods and/or services needed to support a finding of likelihood of confusion declines. See In re i.am.symbolic, llc, 116 USPQ2d 1406, 1411 (TTAB 2015) (citing In re Shell Oil Co., 992 F.2d 1204, 1207, 26 USPQ2d 1687, 1689 (Fed. Cir. 1993)), aff’d, 866 F.3d 1315, 123 USPQ2d 1744 (Fed. Cir. 2017); TMEP §1207.01(a).
In this case, applicant’s goods clothing in International Class 25. The application includes jackets, pants, dresses and t-shirts among its clothing. Registrant’s goods also clothing in International Class 25, and the registration lists jackets, pants, dresses and t-shirts among its clothing. Therefore, there is relatedness of the goods in this instance as applicant and registrant both sell clothing, including multiple identical types of clothing. The attached Internet evidence, consisting of printouts of webpages from various clothing companies, establishes that the same entity commonly sells jackets, pants, dresses and t-shirts under the same mark. 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).
Because the marks include the same letters and the goods are in part identical and in part very closely related, registration of the applied-for mark is refused because of a likelihood of confusion with the mark in U.S. Registration No. 4704357.
2. ADVISORY: PRIOR-FILED APPLICATION
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.
3. INDEFINITE COLOR CLAIM AND DESCRIPTION OF MARK MUST BE AMENDED
Where the color claim and/or description of the mark and drawing are inconsistent with one another, generally the USPTO looks to the drawing to determine what the mark is. TMEP §807.07(a)(i)-(a)(ii), (c). Additionally, the colors in the drawing, color claim, and description must match. See 37 C.F.R. §2.52(b)(1); TMEP §§807.07 et seq.
An applicant may seek registration of only one mark in a single application. 37 C.F.R. §2.52; TMEP §807.01; see 15 U.S.C. §1051; In re Int’l Flavors & Fragrances Inc., 183 F.3d 1361, 1366, 51 USPQ2d 1513, 1516-17 (Fed. Cir. 1999); In re Hayes, 62 USPQ2d 1443, 1445-46 (TTAB 2002). A mark with a changeable or “phantom” element such as varying or changing colors is generally considered to be more than one mark. See In re Hayes, 62 USPQ2d at 1445. In addition to the requirement to select one mark, the colors in the drawing of the mark, color claim, and description must match. See 37 C.F.R. §2.52(b)(1); TMEP §§807.07 et seq.
Applicant may clarify whether color is a feature of the mark by satisfying one of the following:
(1) If applicant is not limiting the application to particular colors, applicant must submit a (a) new drawing of the mark in black and white only, with no other colors, (b) statement authorizing deletion of any color claim, if appropriate, and (c) description of the literal and design elements in the mark that omits any reference to color. A registration for a mark with a black-and-white drawing covers depictions of the mark in all possible color combinations and is not limited to any particular color scheme. See In re Data Packaging Corp., 453 F.2d 1300, 1302, 172 USPQ 396, 397 (C.C.P.A. 1972); TMEP §807.14(e)(i). In this case, amending the mark to delete color would not be considered a material alteration; however, any other amendments to the drawing will not be accepted if they would materially alter the mark. 37 C.F.R. §2.72; see TMEP §§807.07(c), 807.14 et seq.
The following description is suggested, if accurate:
“The mark consists of the letters “RH” in a stylized font”
(2) If applicant is limiting the application to particular colors, applicant must submit a (a) new drawing showing the mark in the specific colors for which registration is sought, or confirm that the original drawing shows the mark for which registration is sought, (b) an amended color claim and description of the mark that deletes the reference changeable or varying colors and restricts the color claim and description to only those colors in the new or original drawing, as appropriate. Generic color names must be used to describe the colors in the mark, e.g., red, yellow, blue. TMEP §807.07(a)(i)-(ii). If black, white, and/or gray represent background, outlining, shading, and/or transparent areas and are not part of the mark, applicant must so specify in the description. See TMEP §807.07(d).
The following color claim and description are suggested, if accurate:
Color claim: “The color red is claimed as a feature of the mark.”
Description: “The mark consists of the letters “RH” in a red stylized font.”
See TMEP §807.07(a)(i)-(ii).
For more information about drawings and instructions on how to submit a color claim and/or description online using the Trademark Electronic Application System (TEAS) form, see the Drawing webpage.
4. INDEFINITE IDENTIFICATION OF GOODS MUST BE ADDRESSED
Applicant’s identification of goods includes four indefinite descriptions because they do not indicate specific type of clothing items that fall into those categories. Therefore, those identifications of goods must be clarified because they do not make clear what the goods are. See 37 C.F.R. §2.32(a)(6); TMEP §1402.01. Suggestions of wording for the amendment of the identification of goods are as follows:
Embroidered clothing, namely, Men, Women, Children, Juniors, Adults {indicate specific item, e.g., shirts, jackets, pants, etc.}
Knitwear, namely, Men, Women, Children, Juniors, Adults {indicate specific knitted clothing items, e.g., shirts, dresses, sweaters, etc.}
Outerwear, namely, Men, Women, Children, Juniors, Adults {indicate specific clothing items, e.g., coats, hats, gloves, etc.}
For assistance with identifying and classifying goods and services in trademark applications, please see the USPTO’s online searchable U.S. Acceptable Identification of Goods and Services Manual. See TMEP §1402.04.
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.
Please call or email the assigned trademark examining attorney with questions about this Office action. Although the trademark examining attorney cannot provide legal advice or statements about applicant’s rights, the trademark examining attorney can provide applicant with additional explanation about the refusal(s) and/or requirement(s) in this Office action. See TMEP §§705.02, 709.06. Although the USPTO does not accept emails as responses to Office actions, emails can be used for informal communications and will be included in the application record. See 37 C.F.R. §§2.62(c), 2.191; TMEP §§304.01-.02, 709.04-.05.
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.
/Edward J. Germick/
Examing Attorney
Law Office 102
(571) 272-5862
edward.germick@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.