UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE (USPTO)

OFFICE ACTION (OFFICIAL LETTER) ABOUT APPLICANT’S TRADEMARK APPLICATION

 

 

 

OFFICE ACTION

 

STRICT DEADLINE TO RESPOND TO THIS LETTER

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: 5/8/2019

 

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, 2.65(a); TMEP §§711, 718.03.

 

Summary of Issues Applicant Must Address

 

(1)  Refusal under Trademark Act Section 2(d) – Likelihood of Confusion;

(2)  Requirement to Amend Mark Description;

(3)  Requirement to Submit Transliteration of Non-Latin Characters in Mark;

(4)  Requirement to Amend Translation Statement;

(5)  Requirement to Disclaim Non-Latin Characters That Transliterate to “Dai Kuan Yin Hang”; and

(6)  Requirement to Submit TEAS Plus Processing Fee

Refusal - Likelihood of Confusion

Initially, the examiner notes that the following refusal is consistent with the refusal issued in connection with applicant’s companion application to register the mark ABC subject to Application Serial No. 88069803.  See the attached printouts.  Therefore, applicant is presumably familiar with the nature of the refusal.

Registration of the applied-for mark is refused because of a likelihood of confusion with the mark in U.S. Registration No. 1721790. Trademark Act Section 2(d), 15 U.S.C. §1052(d); see TMEP §§1207.01 et seq. See the enclosed registration.

Trademark Act Section 2(d) bars registration of an applied-for mark that so resembles a registered mark that it is likely a potential consumer would be confused, mistaken, or deceived as to the source of the services of the applicant and registrant. See 15 U.S.C. §1052(d). A determination of likelihood of confusion under Section 2(d) is made on a case-by case basis and the factors set forth in In re E. I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., 476 F.2d 1357, 177 USPQ 563 (C.C.P.A. 1973) aid in this determination. Citigroup Inc. v. Capital City Bank Grp., Inc., 637 F.3d 1344, 1349, 98 USPQ2d 1253, 1256 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (citing On-Line Careline, Inc. v. Am. Online, Inc., 229 F.3d 1080, 1085, 56 USPQ2d 1471, 1474 (Fed. Cir. 2000)). Not all the du Pont factors, however, are necessarily relevant or of equal weight, and any one of the factors may control in a given case, depending upon the evidence of record. Citigroup Inc. v. Capital City Bank Grp., Inc., 637 F.3d at 1355, 98 USPQ2d at 1260; In re Majestic Distilling Co., 315 F.3d 1311, 1315, 65 USPQ2d 1201, 1204 (Fed. Cir. 2003); see In re E. I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., 476 F.2d at 1361-62, 177 USPQ at 567.

In this case, the following factors are the most relevant: similarity of the marks, similarity and nature of the services, and similarity of the trade channels of the services. 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.

A.  Comparison of Services

Applicant’s services of “financing loans for consumers and businesses” are identical and closely related to the registrant’s “banking and financial services, namely, merchant banking services, deposit taking services, services of providing syndicated loans, project financing services, financial lending services, currency option services, financial lending and loan and debt services, foreign currency and securities exchange services, discounting, drawing, negotiation, acceptance and endorsement of bills of exchange, issuance of bonds, financial guarantees, promissory notes, certificates of deposit and documentary letters of credit, funds transfer services, interest rate forwarding agreement services, swapping services for interest rates and currencies, mortgage loan services, cash management services, commodity financing services, futures trading services, options and fixed interest securities exchange services [and] consulting services in relation to the foregoing” because they are financing services, including those for consumers and businesses, likely to travel through the same channels of trade to the same class of purchasers. For example, the services are likely to be advertised together in financial service provider directories and trade publications.

Furthermore, with respect to applicant’s and registrant’s services, the question of likelihood of confusion is determined based on the description of the services stated in the application and registration at issue, not on extrinsic evidence of actual use. See, e.g., Coach Servs., Inc. v. Triumph Learning LLC, 668 F.3d 1356, 1369-70, 101 USPQ2d 1713, 1722 (Fed. Cir. 2012); Octocom Sys. Inc. v. Hous. Computers Servs. Inc., 918 F.2d 937, 942, 16 USPQ2d 1783, 1787 (Fed. Cir. 1990).

Absent restrictions in an application and/or registration, the identified services are “presumed to travel in the same channels of trade to the same class of purchasers.” In re Viterra Inc., 671 F.3d 1358, 1362, 101 USPQ2d 1905, 1908 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (quoting Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Packard Press, Inc., 281 F.3d 1261, 1268, 62 USPQ2d 1001, 1005 (Fed. Cir. 2002)). Additionally, unrestricted and broad identifications are presumed to encompass all services of the type described. See In re Jump Designs, LLC, 80 USPQ2d 1370, 1374 (TTAB 2006) (citing In re Elbaum, 211 USPQ 639, 640 (TTAB 1981)); In re Linkvest S.A., 24 USPQ2d 1716, 1716 (TTAB 1992).

In this case, the identification set forth in the application and registration has no restrictions as to channels of trade or classes of purchasers. Therefore, it is presumed that these services travel in all normal channels of trade and are available to the same class of purchasers.

Further, the registration use broad wording to describe the services and this wording is presumed to encompass all services of the type described including (1) merchant banking services in the nature of financing loans for businesses, (2) financing syndicated loans for consumers and businesses, (3) project financing of loans for consumers and businesses, (4) financial lending services in the nature of financing loans for consumers and businesses and (5) financial lending and loan services in the nature of financing loans for consumers and businesses, which are identical to the applicant’s services.

B.  Comparison of Marks

Applicant’s mark ABC is highly similar to the registered mark ABC in sound, appearance and commercial impression.

The only practical difference between the marks is the additional Chinese characters in the applied-for mark that mean “lending bank”.  However, adding this generic wording to the registered mark does not obviate the similarity between the compared marks nor does it overcome a likelihood of confusion under Section 2(d).  See Coca-Cola Bottling Co. v. Jos. E. Seagram & Sons, Inc., 526 F.2d 556, 557, 188 USPQ 105, 106 (C.C.P.A. 1975) (finding BENGAL and BENGAL LANCER and design confusingly similar); In re Toshiba Med. Sys. Corp., 91 USPQ2d 1266, 1269 (TTAB 2009) (finding TITAN and VANTAGE TITAN confusingly similar); In re El Torito Rests., Inc., 9 USPQ2d 2002, 2004 (TTAB 1988) (finding MACHO and MACHO COMBOS confusingly similar); TMEP §1207.01(b)(iii).  In the present case, the marks are identical in part.

Similarity in sound alone may be sufficient to support a finding that the marks are confusingly similar. In re White Swan Ltd., 8 USPQ2d 1534, 1535 (TTAB 1988); see In re 1st USA Realty Prof’ls, Inc., 84 USPQ2d 1581, 1586 (TTAB 2007); TMEP §1207.01(b)(iv).

Furthermore, when comparing marks, “[t]he proper test is not a side-by-side comparison of the marks, but instead whether the marks are sufficiently similar in terms of their commercial impression such that [consumers] who encounter the marks would be likely to assume a connection between the parties.”  Cai v. Diamond Hong, Inc., __ F.3d __, 127 USPQ2d 1797, 1801 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (quoting Coach Servs., Inc. v. Triumph Learning LLC, 668 F.3d 1356, 1368, 101 USPQ2d 1713, 1721 (Fed. Cir. 2012)); TMEP §1207.01(b).  The proper focus is on the recollection of the average purchaser, who retains a general rather than specific impression of trademarks.  In re Inn at St. John’s, LLC, 126 USPQ2d 1742, 1746 (TTAB 2018) (citing In re St. Helena Hosp., 774 F.3d 747, 750-51, 113 USPQ2d 1082, 1085 (Fed. Cir. 2014); Geigy Chem. Corp. v. Atlas Chem. Indus., Inc., 438 F.2d 1005, 1007, 169 USPQ 39, 40 (CCPA 1971)); TMEP §1207.01(b).  In this case, consumers will undoubtedly retain a similar recollection of the marks, namely, ABC and ABC financing and related financial services.

What’s more, where the services of an applicant and registrant are “similar in kind and/or closely related,” the degree of similarity between the marks required to support a finding of likelihood of confusion is not as great as in the case of diverse services. In re J.M. Originals Inc., 6 USPQ2d 1393, 1394 (TTAB 1987); see Shen Mfg. Co. v. Ritz Hotel Ltd., 393 F.3d 1238, 1242, 73 USPQ2d 1350, 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2004); TMEP §1207.01(b).

Finally, the overriding concern is not only to prevent buyer confusion as to the source of the services, but to protect the registrant from adverse commercial impact due to use of a similar mark by a newcomer. See In re Shell Oil Co., 992 F.2d 1204, 1208, 26 USPQ2d 1687, 1690 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Therefore, any doubt regarding a likelihood of confusion determination is resolved in favor of the registrant. TMEP §1207.01(d)(i); see Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Packard Press, Inc., 281 F.3d 1261, 1265, 62 USPQ2d 1001, 1003 (Fed. Cir. 2002); In re Hyper Shoppes (Ohio), Inc., 837 F.2d 463, 464-65, 6 USPQ2d 1025, 1025 (Fed. Cir. 1988).

Based on the foregoing remarks, because confusion as to source is likely, registration is refused under Trademark Act Section 2(d) based on a likelihood of confusion.

Although applicant’s mark has been refused registration, applicant may respond to the refusal by submitting evidence and arguments in support of registration.

If applicant responds to the refusal, applicant must also respond to the requirements set forth below.

Description of Mark

Applicant must revise the mark description of record by more accurately describing the literal elements in the proposed mark and deleting the reference to a “logo”.  37 C.F.R. §2.37; see TMEP §§808.01, 808.02.  The following is suggested, if accurate: 

The mark consists of the lettering “ABC” in stylized font above four Chinese characters.

Transliteration of Non-Latin Characters

Initially, the examiner notes that the “Transliteration” section of the application indicates the following: “The non-Latin characters in the mark transliterate to ‘finance lender’ and this means ‘finance lender’ in English.”

 

Therefore, inasmuch as applicant failed to submit a transliteration of the non-Latin characters in the mark and merely referenced duplicative inaccurate English translations, applicant must respond to the following requirement.

 

To permit proper examination of the application, applicant must submit a transliteration (a phonetic spelling of the pronunciation, in Latin characters) of the non-Latin characters in the mark, with either an English translation of the corresponding non-English transliterated wording or a statement that the transliterated term has no meaning in a foreign language.  See 37 C.F.R. §§2.32(a)(10), 2.61(b); TMEP §809. 

Upon information and belief, applicant should use the following format, if accurate:  The non-Latin characters in the mark transliterate to “Dai Kuan Yin Hang” and this means “Lending Bank” in English.  TMEP §809.03.

Translation of Foreign Wording

As noted by the attached translation evidence, the foreign wording in the mark means “Lending Bank”, not “Finance Lender” as proffered by applicant.  Therefore, applicant must revise the translation statement of record to the following: 

 

The English translation of “Dai Kuan Yin Hang” in the mark is “Lending Bank”.

 

37 C.F.R. §§2.32(a)(9), 2.61(b); see TMEP §809. 

 

Disclaimer

Applicant must disclaim the descriptive non-Latin characters that transliterate to “DAI KUAN YIN HANG” apart from the mark as shown because they merely describe a feature and/or characteristic of the identified services, namely, financing of loans for consumers and businesses rendered by a lending bank.  See the attached dictionary definitions.  15 U.S.C. §1056(a); TMEP §§1213, 1213.03(a).

Non-English wording that is merely descriptive, deceptively misdescriptive, geographically descriptive, generic, or informational in connection with the identified services, is an unregistrable component of a mark that is subject to disclaimer.  TMEP §§1213.03(a), 1213.08(d); see Bausch & Lomb Optical Co. v. Overseas Fin. & Trading Co., 112 USPQ 6, 8 (Comm'r Pats. 1956).  The disclaimer must refer to the non-Latin characters and the transliteration (a phonetic spelling of the pronunciation, in Latin characters); e.g., “the non-Latin characters that transliterate to ‘Dai Kuan Yin Hang’”.  TMEP §1213.08(d). 

A “disclaimer” is a statement in the application record that an applicant does not claim exclusive rights to an unregistrable component of the mark; a disclaimer of unregistrable matter does not affect the appearance of the mark or physically remove disclaimed matter from the mark.  See Schwarzkopf v. John H. Breck, Inc., 340 F.2d 978, 978, 144 USPQ 433, 433 (C.C.P.A. 1965); TMEP §1213.  An unregistrable component of a mark includes wording that is merely descriptive of an applicant’s services.  15 U.S.C. §1052(e); see TMEP §§1209.03(f), 1213.03 et seq.  Such words need to be freely available for other businesses to market comparable goods or services and should not become the proprietary domain of any one party.  See Dena Corp. v. Belvedere Int’l, Inc., 950 F.2d 1555, 1560, 21 USPQ2d 1047, 1051 (Fed. Cir. 1991); In re Aug. Storck KG, 218 USPQ 823, 825 (TTAB 1983). 

The following cases further explain the disclaimer requirement:  Dena Corp. v. Belvedere Int’l Inc., 950 F.2d 1555, 21 USPQ2d 1047 (Fed. Cir. 1991); In re Brown-Forman Corp., 81 USPQ2d 1284 (TTAB 2006); In re Kraft, Inc., 218 USPQ 571 (TTAB 1983).

If applicant does not provide the required disclaimer, the USPTO may refuse to register the entire mark.  See In re Stereotaxis Inc., 429 F.3d 1039, 1041, 77 USPQ2d 1087, 1089 (Fed. Cir. 2005); TMEP §1213.01(b). 

Applicant should submit the following standardized format for a disclaimer: 

No claim is made to the exclusive right to use the non-Latin characters that transliterate to “DAI KUAN YIN HANG” apart from the mark as shown. 

 TMEP §1213.08(a)(i); see In re Owatonna Tool Co., 231 USPQ 493, 494 (Comm’r Pats. 1983).

$125 Additional Fee Required—Application Requirement(s) Not Met

Applicant must submit an additional processing fee of $125 per class because the application as filed did not meet the TEAS Plus application filing requirements.  See 37 C.F.R. §§2.6(a)(1)(v), 2.22(a), (c); TMEP §§819.01 et seq., 819.04.  Specifically, applicant failed to meet the following application filing requirement: a transliteration of all non-Latin characters in the mark was not provided. 

 

The additional fee is required even if applicant later corrects these application requirements.

Response Guidelines

For this application to proceed further, applicant must explicitly address each refusal and/or requirement raised in this Office action.  If the action includes a refusal, applicant may provide arguments and/or evidence as to why the refusal should be withdrawn and the mark should register.  Applicant may also have other options specified in this Office action for responding to a refusal and should consider those options carefully.  To respond to requirements and certain refusal response options, applicant should set forth in writing the required changes or statements.  For more information and general tips on responding to USPTO Office actions, response options, and how to file a response online, see “Responding to Office Actions” on the USPTO’s website.

 

If applicant does not respond to this Office action within six months of the issue/mailing date, or responds by expressly abandoning the application, the application process will end and the trademark will fail to register.  See 15 U.S.C. §1062(b); 37 C.F.R. §§2.65(a), 2.68(a); TMEP §§718.01, 718.02.  Additionally, the USPTO will not refund the application filing fee, which is a required processing fee.  See 37 C.F.R. §§2.6(a)(1)(i)-(iv), 2.209(a); TMEP §405.04.

 

When an application has abandoned for failure to respond to an Office action, an applicant may timely file a petition to revive the application, which, if granted, would allow the application to return to active status.  See 37 C.F.R. §2.66; TMEP §1714.  The petition must be filed within two months of the date of issuance of the notice of abandonment and may be filed online via the Trademark Electronic Application System (TEAS) with a $100 fee.  See 37 C.F.R. §§2.6(a)(15)(ii), 2.66(a)(1), (b)(1).

Advisory Regarding E-mail Communications

If applicant has questions regarding this Office action, please telephone or e-mail the assigned trademark examining attorney. All relevant e-mail communications will be placed in the official application record; however, an e-mail communication will not be accepted as a response to this Office action and will not extend the deadline for filing a proper response. See 37 C.F.R. §2.191; TMEP §§709.04-.05. Further, although the trademark examining attorney may provide additional explanation pertaining to the refusal(s) and/or requirement(s) in this Office action, the trademark examining attorney may not provide legal advice or statements about applicant’s rights. See TMEP §§705.02, 709.06.

Applicant May Wish to Seek Trademark Counsel

 

Because of the legal technicalities and strict deadlines involved in the USPTO application process, applicant may wish to hire a private attorney specializing in trademark matters to represent applicant in this process and provide legal advice.  Although the undersigned trademark examining attorney is permitted to help an applicant understand the contents of an Office action as well as the application process in general, no USPTO attorney or staff is permitted to give an applicant legal advice or statements about an applicant’s legal rights.  TMEP §§705.02, 709.06. 

 

For attorney referral information, applicant may consult the American Bar Association’s Consumers’ Guide to Legal Help; an online directory of legal professionals, such as FindLaw®; or a local telephone directory.  The USPTO, however, may not assist an applicant in the selection of a private attorney.  37 C.F.R. §2.11.

Miscellaneous

If applicant has questions about its application or needs assistance in responding to this Office action, please telephone the assigned trademark examining attorney directly at the number below.

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.

 

 

/David Yontef/

Trademark Examining Attorney

Law Office 118

(571) 272-8274

david.yontef@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.

 

 

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE (USPTO)

 

 

IMPORTANT NOTICE REGARDING YOUR

U.S. TRADEMARK APPLICATION

 

USPTO OFFICE ACTION (OFFICIAL LETTER) HAS ISSUED

ON 5/8/2019 FOR U.S. APPLICATION SERIAL NO. 88310895

 

Your trademark application has been reviewed.  The trademark examining attorney assigned by the USPTO to your application has written an official letter to which you must respond.  Please follow these steps:

 

(1)  Read the LETTER by clicking on this link or going to http://tsdr.gov.uspto.report/, entering your U.S. application serial number, and clicking on “Documents.”

 

The Office action may not be immediately viewable, to allow for necessary system updates of the application, but will be available within 24 hours of this e-mail notification. 

 

(2)  Respond within 6 months (or sooner if specified in the Office action), calculated from 5/8/2019, using the Trademark Electronic Application System (TEAS) response form located at http://www.gov.uspto.report/trademarks/teas/response_forms.jsp.  A response transmitted through TEAS must be received before midnight Eastern Time of the last day of the response period.

 

Do NOT hit “Reply” to this e-mail notification, or otherwise e-mail your response because the USPTO does NOT accept e-mails as responses to Office actions. 

 

(3)  Questions about the contents of the Office action itself should be directed to the trademark examining attorney who reviewed your application, identified below. 

 

/David Yontef/

Trademark Examining Attorney

Law Office 118

(571) 272-8274

david.yontef@uspto.gov

 

WARNING

 

Failure to file the required response by the applicable response deadline will result in the ABANDONMENT of your application.  For more information regarding abandonment, see http://www.gov.uspto.report/trademarks/basics/abandon.jsp. 

 

PRIVATE COMPANY SOLICITATIONS REGARDING YOUR APPLICATION:  Private companies not associated with the USPTO are using information provided in trademark applications to mail or e-mail trademark-related solicitations.  These companies often use names that closely resemble the USPTO and their solicitations may look like an official government document.  Many solicitations require that you pay “fees.” 

 

Please carefully review all correspondence you receive regarding this application to make sure that you are responding to an official document from the USPTO rather than a private company solicitation.  All official USPTO correspondence will be mailed only from the “United States Patent and Trademark Office” in Alexandria, VA; or sent by e-mail from the domain “@uspto.gov.”  For more information on how to handle private company solicitations, see http://www.gov.uspto.report/trademarks/solicitation_warnings.jsp.