To: | Shen Zhen You Pin Foreign Trade Co., Ltd ETC. (2091592391@qq.com) |
Subject: | U.S. TRADEMARK APPLICATION NO. 88304990 - YP - N/A |
Sent: | 5/7/2019 11:46:40 AM |
Sent As: | ECOM113@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 |
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE (USPTO)
OFFICE ACTION (OFFICIAL LETTER) ABOUT APPLICANT’S TRADEMARK APPLICATION
U.S. APPLICATION SERIAL NO. 88304990
MARK: YP
|
|
CORRESPONDENT ADDRESS: |
CLICK HERE TO RESPOND TO THIS LETTER: http://www.gov.uspto.report/trademarks/teas/response_forms.jsp
|
APPLICANT: Shen Zhen You Pin Foreign Trade Co., Ltd ETC.
|
|
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: 5/7/2019
The referenced application has been reviewed by the assigned trademark examining attorney. Applicant must respond timely and completely to the issues below. 15 U.S.C. §1062(b); 37 C.F.R. §§2.62(a), 2.65(a); TMEP §§711, 718.03.
SUMMARY OF ISSUES:
· New Specimen Required – Mark Drawing and Specimen Do Not Match
SECTION 2(d) REFUSAL – LIKELIHOOD OF CONFUSION
Registration of the applied-for mark is refused because of a likelihood of confusion with the mark Y P in U.S. Registration No. 4064253. 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 YP (stylized word mark) used in connection with the goods “All-purpose carrying bags; Attache cases made of imitation leather; Attaché cases; Backpacks; Bags for sports; Briefcases; Canvas shopping bags; Clutches; Coin purses; Crossbody bags; Evening bags; Garment bags for travel; Handbags; Haversacks; Hobo bags; Reusable shopping bags; Shoulder bags; Suitcases; Toiletry bags sold empty; Tote bags; Travelling bags; Travelling trunks; Valises; Wallets; Wrist or ankle mounted wallets; Trunks being luggage” in International Class 018.
Registrant’s mark is Y P (combination word and design mark) used in connection with the goods “All purpose sport bags; All-purpose athletic bags; All-purpose carrying bags; Athletic bags; Baby carrying bags; Backpacks; Backpacks; Backpacks, book bags, sports bags, bum bags, wallets and handbags; Bags and holdalls for sports clothing; Bags for carrying babies' accessories; Bags for sports; Bags for umbrellas; Beach bags; Belt bags and hip bags; Book bags; Boston bags; Bum bags; Business card cases; Calling card cases; Cantle bags; Card wallets; Carry-all bags; Carry-on bags; Carrying cases; Carrying cases for documents; Cases for keys; Clutch bags; Cosmetic bags sold empty; Cosmetic carrying cases sold empty; Cosmetic cases sold empty; Credit card cases; Credit card cases and holders; Diaper bags; Document cases; Drawstring bags; Duffel bags; Duffle bags; Flight bags; Garment bags for travel; General purpose bags for carrying yoga equipment; Gym bags; Handbags, purses and wallets; Hiking bags; Key bags; Key cases; Key wallets; Leather and imitation leather bags; Leather bags and wallets; Leather bags, suitcases and wallets; Leather credit card wallets; Make-up bags sold empty; Messenger bags; Overnight bags; Overnight cases; Pocket wallets; Pouches and bags sold empty for attachment to backpacks; Pouches for holding keys; Pouches for holding make-up, keys and other personal items; Pouches of textile; Purses and wallets; Roll bags; Sack packs, namely, drawstring bags used as backpacks; School bags; School book bags; Shaving bags sold empty; Shoulder bags; Shoulder straps; Sling bags; Small bags for men; Sport bags; Straps for carryalls; Straps for carrying cases; Straps for handbags; Straps for holdalls; Straps for luggage; Toiletry cases sold empty; Tote bags; Travel bags; Travel cases; Traveling bags; Vanity cases sold empty; Waist bags; Wallets; Wallets and wallet inserts; Wheeled bags; Wheeled duffle bags; Wheeled messenger bags; Wheeled tote bags; Wrist mounted carryall bags” in International Class 018.
Trademark Act Section 2(d) bars registration of an applied-for mark that so resembles a registered mark that it is likely a consumer would be confused, mistaken, or deceived as to the source of the goods of the applicant and registrant. See 15 U.S.C. §1052(d). Determining likelihood of confusion is made 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). In re i.am.symbolic, llc, 866 F.3d 1315, 1322, 123 USPQ2d 1744, 1747 (Fed. Cir. 2017). However, “[n]ot all of the [du Pont] factors are relevant to every case, and only factors of significance to the particular mark need be considered.” Coach Servs., Inc. v. Triumph Learning LLC, 668 F.3d 1356, 1366, 101 USPQ2d 1713, 1719 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (quoting In re Mighty Leaf Tea, 601. F.3d 1342, 1346, 94 USPQ2d 1257, 1259 (Fed. Cir 2010)). The USPTO may focus its analysis “on dispositive factors, such as similarity of the marks and relatedness of the goods.” 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)); see TMEP §1207.01.
In this case, the following factors are the most relevant: similarity of the marks, similarity of the nature of the goods, and similarity of the trade channels of the goods. See In re Viterra Inc., 671 F.3d 1358, 1361-62, 101 USPQ2d 1905, 1908 (Fed. Cir. 2012); In re Dakin’s Miniatures Inc., 59 USPQ2d 1593, 1595-96 (TTAB 1999); TMEP §§1207.01 et seq.
SIMILARITY 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 Davia, 110 USPQ2d 1810, 1812 (TTAB 2014) (citing In re 1st USA Realty Prof’ls, Inc., 84 USPQ2d 1581, 1586 (TTAB 2007)); In re White Swan Ltd., 8 USPQ2d 1534, 1535 (TTAB 1988)); TMEP §1207.01(b).
Applicant’s mark YP and registrant’s mark Y P are confusingly similar.
Applicant’s mark and registrant’s mark are similar in appearance, sound, meaning and commercial impression. The marks share the letters “Y” and “P” which are nearly identical in appearance and sound. The compared marks are very similar except for a slight difference in appearance between applicant’s mark, which appears as a compound term with no space separating the letters, that is, YP; and registrant’s mark, which appears as multiple letters with space separating the letters, that is, Y P. As such, the marks are identical in sound and virtually identical in appearance, and are thus confusingly similar for the purposes of determining likelihood of confusion. See, e.g., Seaguard Corp. v. Seaward Int’l, Inc., 223 USPQ 48, 51 (TTAB 1984) (“[T]he marks ‘SEAGUARD’ and ‘SEA GUARD’ are, in contemplation of law, identical [internal citation omitted].”); In re Best W. Family Steak House, Inc., 222 USPQ 827, 827 (TTAB 1984) (“There can be little doubt that the marks [BEEFMASTER and BEEF MASTER] are practically identical”); Stock Pot, Inc., v. Stockpot Rest., Inc., 220 USPQ 52, 52 (TTAB 1983), aff’d 737 F.2d 1576, 222 USPQ 665 (Fed. Cir. 1984) (“There is no question that the marks of the parties [STOCKPOT and STOCK POT] are confusingly similar. The word marks are phonetically identical and visually almost identical.”).
Additionally, the letters Y and P together have no one particular meaning other than as letters. See attached evidence from merriam-webster.com and acronymfinder.com showing possible meanings of the letters “Y” and “P” together. Thus, these letters give the same impression of the letters Y and P in each of the marks.
Applicant’s stylization of the letters YP and registrant’s stylization and design elements do no obviate a finding of a likelihood of confusion. When evaluating a composite mark consisting of words and a design, the word portion is normally accorded greater weight because it is likely to make a greater impression upon purchasers, be remembered by them, and be used by them to refer to or request the goods. In re Aquitaine Wine USA, LLC, 126 USPQ2d 1181, 1184 (TTAB 2018) (citing In re Viterra Inc., 671 F.3d 1358, 1362, 101 USPQ2d 1905, 1908 (Fed. Cir. 2012)); TMEP §1207.01(c)(ii). Thus, although marks must be compared in their entireties, the word portion is often considered the dominant feature and is accorded greater weight in determining whether marks are confusingly similar, even where the word portion has been disclaimed. In re Viterra Inc., 671 F.3d at 1366-67, 101 USPQ2d at 1911 (citing Giant Food, Inc. v. Nation’s Foodservice, Inc., 710 F.2d 1565, 1570-71, 218 USPQ2d 390, 395 (Fed. Cir. 1983)). Here, it is unlikely that consumers would refer to applicant’s mark or registrant’s mark by the minor stylization or design elements, but instead are likely to refer to the marks by the letters YP or Y P. Thus, the letters YP and Y P are the dominant portion of the marks, respectively.
Therefore, although the applicant’s mark and registrant’s marks have minor differences, the marks are very similar and thus have the same overall commercial impression, and as a result, purchasers are likely to be confused as to the source of the applicant’s and registrant’s goods. Therefore, the marks are confusingly similar.
RELATEDNESS OF THE GOODS
The goods are compared to determine whether they are similar, commercially related, or travel in the same trade channels. See Coach Servs., Inc. v. Triumph Learning LLC, 668 F.3d 1356, 1369-71, 101 USPQ2d 1713, 1722-23 (Fed. Cir. 2012); Herbko Int’l, Inc. v. Kappa Books, Inc., 308 F.3d 1156, 1165, 64 USPQ2d 1375, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2002); TMEP §§1207.01, 1207.01(a)(vi).
Applicant’s goods “All-purpose carrying bags; Attache cases made of imitation leather; Attaché cases; Backpacks; Bags for sports; Briefcases; Canvas shopping bags; Clutches; Coin purses; Crossbody bags; Evening bags; Garment bags for travel; Handbags; Haversacks; Hobo bags; Reusable shopping bags; Shoulder bags; Suitcases; Toiletry bags sold empty; Tote bags; Travelling bags; Travelling trunks; Valises; Wallets; Wrist or ankle mounted wallets; Trunks being luggage” in International Class 018 are related to registrant’s goods “All purpose sport bags; All-purpose athletic bags; All-purpose carrying bags; Athletic bags; Baby carrying bags; Backpacks; Backpacks; Backpacks, book bags, sports bags, bum bags, wallets and handbags; Bags and holdalls for sports clothing; Bags for carrying babies' accessories; Bags for sports; Bags for umbrellas; Beach bags; Belt bags and hip bags; Book bags; Boston bags; Bum bags; Business card cases; Calling card cases; Cantle bags; Card wallets; Carry-all bags; Carry-on bags; Carrying cases; Carrying cases for documents; Cases for keys; Clutch bags; Cosmetic bags sold empty; Cosmetic carrying cases sold empty; Cosmetic cases sold empty; Credit card cases; Credit card cases and holders; Diaper bags; Document cases; Drawstring bags; Duffel bags; Duffle bags; Flight bags; Garment bags for travel; General purpose bags for carrying yoga equipment; Gym bags; Handbags, purses and wallets; Hiking bags; Key bags; Key cases; Key wallets; Leather and imitation leather bags; Leather bags and wallets; Leather bags, suitcases and wallets; Leather credit card wallets; Make-up bags sold empty; Messenger bags; Overnight bags; Overnight cases; Pocket wallets; Pouches and bags sold empty for attachment to backpacks; Pouches for holding keys; Pouches for holding make-up, keys and other personal items; Pouches of textile; Purses and wallets; Roll bags; Sack packs, namely, drawstring bags used as backpacks; School bags; School book bags; Shaving bags sold empty; Shoulder bags; Shoulder straps; Sling bags; Small bags for men; Sport bags; Straps for carryalls; Straps for carrying cases; Straps for handbags; Straps for holdalls; Straps for luggage; Toiletry cases sold empty; Tote bags; Travel bags; Travel cases; Traveling bags; Vanity cases sold empty; Waist bags; Wallets; Wallets and wallet inserts; Wheeled bags; Wheeled duffle bags; Wheeled messenger bags; Wheeled tote bags; Wrist mounted carryall bags” in International Class 018.
In this case, the goods “all-purpose carrying bags; backpacks; bags for sports; handbags; shoulder bags; suitcases; tote bags; travelling bags; wallets” in the application and registration are identical. Therefore, it is presumed that the channels of trade and class of purchasers are the same for these goods. See Cai v. Diamond Hong, Inc., __ F.3d __, 27 USPQ2d 1797, 1801 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (quoting In re Viterra Inc., 671 F.3d 1358, 1362, 101 USPQ2d 1905, 1908 (Fed. Cir. 2012)). Thus, applicant’s and registrant’s goods are related.
Because the marks are confusingly similar and the goods are related, there is a likelihood of confusion between the marks. Therefore, registration is refused pursuant to Section 2(d) of the Trademark Act.
NEW SPECIMEN REQUIRED – MARK DRAWING AND SPECIMEN DO NOT MATCH
Registration is refused because the specimen does not show the mark in the drawing in use in commerce, which is required in the application. 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 mark appearing on the specimen and in the drawing must match; that is, the mark in the drawing “must be a substantially exact representation of the mark” on the specimen. See 37 C.F.R. §2.51(a)-(b); TMEP §807.12(a).
In this case, the specimen displays the mark as Y P in a stylized form with a space between the letters. However, the drawing displays the mark as YP in a different font and stylization with no space between the letters. The mark on the specimen does not match the mark in the drawing because it appears to be in a different font or stylization from that of the mark in the mark drawing and because it shows a space between the letters. Applicant has thus failed to provide the required evidence of use of the mark in commerce. See TMEP §807.12(a).
Applicant may respond to this refusal by satisfying one of the following:
(1) Submit a new drawing of the mark that shows the mark on the specimen and, if appropriate, an amendment of the description and/or color claim that agrees with the new drawing. See 37 C.F.R. §2.72(a)-(b). Applicant may amend the mark in the drawing to match the mark on the specimen but may not make any other changes or amendments that would materially alter the drawing of the mark. See 37 C.F.R. §2.72(a)-(b); TMEP §807.14.
(2) Submit a different specimen (a verified “substitute” specimen) for each applicable international class that (a) shows the mark in the drawing in actual use in commerce for the goods in the application, and (b) was in actual use in commerce at least as early as the filing date of the application.
Examples of specimens for goods include tags, labels, instruction manuals, containers, photographs that show the mark on the actual goods or packaging, and displays associated with the actual goods at their point of sale. See TMEP §§904.03 et seq. Webpages may also be specimens for goods when they include a picture or textual description of the goods associated with the mark and the means to order the goods. TMEP §904.03(i).
For more information about drawings and instructions on how to satisfy these response options online using the Trademark Electronic Application System (TEAS) form, see the Drawing webpage.
RESPONSE GUIDELINES
For this application to proceed, applicant must explicitly address each refusal and 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.
For attorney referral information, applicant may consult the American Bar Association’s Consumers’ Guide to Legal Help or an online directory of legal professionals, such as FindLaw®. The USPTO, however, may not assist an applicant in the selection of a private attorney. 37 C.F.R. §2.11.
Please note that foreign attorneys, other than duly authorized Canadian attorneys, are not permitted to represent applicants before the USPTO. See 37 C.F.R. §§2.17(e), 11.14(c), (e); TMEP §602.03-.03(c). The only attorneys who may practice before the USPTO in trademark matters are (1) attorneys in good standing with a bar of the highest court of any U.S. state, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and other U.S. commonwealths/territories; and (2) duly authorized Canadian agents/attorneys. See 37 C.F.R. §§2.17(e), 11.14(a), (c); TMEP §602.
U.S. COUNSEL RULES CHANGES ADVISORY:
In spring 2019, the USPTO is likely to issue proposed changes to the federal trademark regulations to require trademark applicants, registrants, and parties to Trademark Trial and Appeal Board proceedings who are foreign-domiciled (have a permanent legal residence or a principal place of business outside of the United States), including Canadian filers, to have an attorney who is licensed to practice law in the United States represent them at the USPTO. In addition, U.S.-licensed attorneys representing a trademark applicant, registrant, or party will generally be required to provide their bar membership information, a statement attesting to their good standing in that bar, and their postal/email addresses in trademark-related submissions. All U.S.-licensed attorneys who practice before the USPTO are subject to the rules in 37 C.F.R. Part 11 governing representation of others, including the USPTO’s Rules of Professional Conduct.
These changes are being made to increase customer compliance with federal trademark law, improve the accuracy of trademark submissions to the USPTO, and safeguard the integrity of the U.S. trademark register. See the U.S. Counsel Rule change webpage for more information.
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.
/Rebecca D. Coughlan/
Rebecca D. Coughlan
Examining Attorney
Law Office 113
(571)272-4975
rebecca.coughlan@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.