United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO)
Office Action (Official Letter) About Applicant’s Trademark Application
|
U.S. Application Serial No. 88303788
Mark: STUDIO
|
|
|
Correspondence Address: |
|
|
Applicant: Wagner Spray Tech Corporation
|
|
|
Reference/Docket No. 417771.105
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) and/or Electronic System for Trademark Trials and Appeals (ESTTA). A link to the appropriate TEAS response form and/or to ESTTA for an appeal appears at the end of this Office action.
Issue date: November 18, 2019
INTRODUCTION
This Office action is in response to applicant’s communication filed on 10/24/2019.
In a previous Office action dated 05/02/2019, the trademark examining attorney refused registration of the applied-for mark based on the following: Trademark Act Section 2(d) for a likelihood of confusion with a registered mark.
Based on applicant’s response, the trademark examining attorney has carefully considered applicant’s arguments against the Section 2(d) refusal and has found them unpersuasive for the reasons discussed infra.
Therefore, the trademark examining attorney maintains and now makes FINAL the Section 2(d) refusal in the summary of issues below. See 37 C.F.R. §2.63(b); TMEP §714.04.
SUMMARY OF ISSUES MADE FINAL that applicant must address:
SECTION 2(d) REFUSAL – LIKELIHOOD OF CONFUSION
Standard of Analysis for Section 2(d) Refusal
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 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. 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.
Facts
Applicant has applied to register the mark STUDIO (in standard characters) for use on “Power operated paint sprayer machines, power operated staplers and power operated sanders” in International Class 07 and “Heat guns” in International Class 011.
Registrant’s mark is IWATA STUDIO SERIES (in standard characters) for “Air compressors and power operated blowers” in International Class 07.
Similarity of 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).
In this case, applicant’s proposed mark is confusingly similar to the registered mark because the marks share the word STUDIO, which may be pronounced or displayed identically, thereby creating similarities in sound, appearance, and commercial impression.
Applicant argues, however, that registrant’s mark also includes the words IWATA and SERIES. But 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.
Indeed, even if potential purchasers realize the apparent differences between the marks, they could still reasonably assume, due to the overall similarities in sound, appearance, connotation, and commercial impression in the respective marks, that applicant’s goods sold under the “STUDIO” mark constitute a new or additional product line from the same source as the goods sold under the “IWATA STUDIO SERIES” mark with which they are acquainted or familiar, and that applicant’s proposed mark is merely a variation of registrant’s mark. See, e.g., SMS, Inc. v. Byn-Mar Inc., 228 USPQ 219, 220 (TTAB 1985) (applicant’s marks ALSO ANDREA and ANDREA SPORT were “likely to evoke an association by consumers with opposer’s preexisting mark [ANDREA SIMONE] for its established line of clothing.”).
Applicant also asserts that the applied-for mark will be used with applicant’s house-mark “WAGNER”. Applicant seemingly argues that the applied-for mark is part of a family of marks and that the purchasing public’s familiarity with these marks obviates any likelihood of confusion. However, the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board has found that a family of marks argument is “not available to an applicant seeking to overcome a [likelihood of confusion] refusal.” In re Cynosure, Inc., 90 USPQ2d 1644, 1645-46 (TTAB 2009). Specifically, an applicant’s ownership of other similar marks has little relevance in this context because the focus of a likelihood of confusion analysis in an ex parte case is on the mark applicant seeks to register, rather than other marks applicant has used or registered. In re Cynosure, Inc., 90 USPQ2d at 1645-46; In re Ald, Inc., 148 USPQ 520, 521 (TTAB 1965); TMEP §1207.01(d)(xi).
Therefore, the marks are confusingly similar.
Relatedness of Goods
Applicant’s goods are closely related to registrant’s goods because the parties’ goods are commonly offered by the same source.
Applicant, however, disputes the relatedness of the parties’ goods on the ground that the respective products are distributed in different trade channels. Applicant argues that its goods are directed at “hobbyists and do-it-yourself crafters”, while the registered goods are for “artists”.
In conclusion, because the marks are similar and the goods are related, there is a likelihood of confusion as to the source of applicant’s goods. Therefore, registration is refused pursuant to Section 2(d) of the Trademark Act.
RESPONSE OPTIONS
Applicant must respond within six months of the date of issuance of this final Office action or the application will be abandoned. 15 U.S.C. §1062(b); 37 C.F.R. §2.65(a). Applicant may respond by providing one or both of the following:
(1) A request for reconsideration that fully resolves all outstanding requirements and refusals; and/or
(2) An appeal to the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board with the required filing fees.
TMEP §715.01; see 37 C.F.R. §2.63(b)(1)-(2).
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.
How to respond. Click to file a response to this final Office action and/or appeal it to the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB)
/Salima Parmar Oestreicher/
Salima Parmar Oestreicher
Examining Attorney
Law Office 108
(571) 272-6786
Salima.Oestreicher@uspto.gov
RESPONSE GUIDANCE
