To: | BROWN MOVEMENT LLC (edorsch@kozlaw.com) |
Subject: | U.S. TRADEMARK APPLICATION NO. 88320083 - BROWN - N/A |
Sent: | 5/10/2019 1:26:35 PM |
Sent As: | ECOM118@USPTO.GOV |
Attachments: | Attachment - 1 Attachment - 2 Attachment - 3 Attachment - 4 Attachment - 5 Attachment - 6 Attachment - 7 Attachment - 8 Attachment - 9 |
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE (USPTO)
OFFICE ACTION (OFFICIAL LETTER) ABOUT APPLICANT’S TRADEMARK APPLICATION
U.S. APPLICATION SERIAL NO. 88320083
MARK: BROWN
|
|
CORRESPONDENT ADDRESS: |
CLICK HERE TO RESPOND TO THIS LETTER: http://www.gov.uspto.report/trademarks/teas/response_forms.jsp
|
APPLICANT: BROWN MOVEMENT 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: 5/10/2019
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.
The mark in prior-filed pending application may present a bar to registration of applicant’s mark.
The filing date of pending U.S. Application Serial No. 88001188 precedes applicant’s filing date. See attached referenced application. If the mark in the referenced application registers, applicant’s mark may be refused registration under Trademark Act Section 2(d) because of a likelihood of confusion between the two marks. See 15 U.S.C. §1052(d); 37 C.F.R. §2.83; TMEP §§1208 et seq. Therefore, upon receipt of applicant’s response to this Office action, action on this application may be suspended pending final disposition of the earlier-filed referenced 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.
LIKELIHOOD OF CONFUSION
Registration of the proposed mark is refused because of a likelihood of confusion with the marks in U.S. Registration Nos. 3668335 and 3774278. Trademark Act Section 2(d), 15 U.S.C. §1052(d); see TMEP §§1207.01 et seq. See the enclosed registrations.
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(s). 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 [and/or services].” 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 and 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.
Comparing 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 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).
Applicant has applied to register the mark “BROWN”. The registered marks are “BROWN”. The marks are identical in terms of appearance and sound. In addition, the connotation and commercial impression of the marks do not differ when considered in connection with applicant’s and registrant’s respective goods. Therefore, the marks are confusingly similar.
Where the marks of the respective parties are identical or virtually identical, the relationship between the relevant goods need not be as close to support a finding of likelihood of confusion. See In re Shell Oil Co., 992 F.2d 1204, 1207, 26 USPQ2d 1687, 1689 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re House Beer, LLC, 114 USPQ2d 1073, 1077 (TTAB 2015); In re Davey Prods. Pty Ltd., 92 USPQ2d 1198, 1202 (TTAB 2009); TMEP §1207.01(a).
Comparing the Goods
The goods of the parties need not be identical or even competitive to find a likelihood of confusion. See On-line Careline Inc. v. Am. Online Inc., 229 F.3d 1080, 1086, 56 USPQ2d 1471, 1475 (Fed. Cir. 2000); Recot, Inc. v. Becton, 214 F.3d 1322, 1329, 54 USPQ2d 1894, 1898 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (“[E]ven if the goods in question are different from, and thus not related to, one another in kind, the same goods can be related in the mind of the consuming public as to the origin of the goods.”); TMEP §1207.01(a)(i).
The respective goods need only be “related in some manner and/or if the circumstances surrounding their marketing [be] such that they could give rise to the mistaken belief that [the goods and/or services] emanate from the same source.” Coach Servs., Inc. v. Triumph Learning LLC, 668 F.3d 1356, 1369, 101 USPQ2d 1713, 1722 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (quoting 7-Eleven Inc. v. Wechsler, 83 USPQ2d 1715, 1724 (TTAB 2007)); Gen. Mills Inc. v. Fage Dairy Processing Indus. SA, 100 USPQ2d 1584, 1597 (TTAB 2011); TMEP §1207.01(a)(i).
The applicant’s goods are identified as “Belts for clothing; Boots; Ear muffs; Jerseys; Shoes; Thermal underwear; Ties as clothing; Ankle socks; Anklets; Anti-perspirant socks; Athletic apparel, namely, shirts, pants, jackets, footwear, hats and caps, athletic uniforms; Bandanas; Baseball caps; Bathing costumes for women; Bathing suits; Bathing suits for men; Bathing trunks; Bathrobes; Beach coverups; Beach footwear; Beachwear; Blazers; Blouses; Blue jeans; Body stockings; Bonnets; Boxer briefs; Boxer shorts; Bralettes; Briefs; Capri pants; Caps being headwear; Caps with visors; Cardigans; Cargo pants; Coats of denim; Coveralls; Crew necks; Denim jackets; Denim jeans; Denim pants; Denims; Down jackets; Dress suits; Dresses; Dungarees; Dust coats; Fishermen's jackets; Fleece jackets; Fleece shorts; Fleece vests; Flight suits; Flip flops; Footwear; Footwear not for sports; Gaberdines; Gloves; Gloves as clothing; Golf shirts; Gowns; Greatcoats; Gym pants; Hats; Head scarves; Head sweatbands; Head wear; Headbands; Headbands against sweating; Headwear; Heavy coats; Heavy jackets; Hooded pullovers; Hooded sweat shirts; Hooded sweatshirts; Hoodies; Hosiery; Housecoats; Jackets; Jeans; Jogging outfits; Jogging pants; Jogging suits; Jumpers; Knit shirts; Knitted caps; Leather pants; Light-reflecting coats; Light-reflecting jackets; Lingerie; Long jackets; Long sleeve pullovers; Long sleeved vests; Long underwear; Long-sleeved shirts; Men's dress socks; Men's socks; Men's suits; Mocknecks; Moisture-wicking sports bras; Moisture-wicking sports pants; Moisture-wicking sports shirts; Morning coats; Muscle tops; Neck bands; Neck scarves; Neckties; Neckwear; Night gowns; Night shirts; Open-necked shirts; Outdoor gloves; Outer jackets; Over shirts; Over-trousers; Overalls; Overcoats; Padding jackets; Pajama bottoms; Pajamas; Pants; Pantyhose; Parkas; Perspiration absorbent underwear clothing; Polo shirts; Pullovers; Rain boots; Rain coats; Rain hats; Rain jackets; Rain slickers; Rain suits; Rain trousers; Rain wear; Raincoats; Rainproof jackets; Rainwear; Reversible jackets; Robes; Rugby shirts; Rugby shorts; Rugby tops; Running suits; Scarves; Shell jackets; Shirts; Shirts and short-sleeved shirts; Shirts for suits; Short sets; Short trousers; Short-sleeved or long-sleeved t-shirts; Short-sleeved shirts; Shorts; Ski masks; Ski pants; Ski suits; Ski trousers; Ski wear; Slacks; Sleep shirts; Sleepwear; Sleeved or sleeveless jackets; Sneakers; Snow suits; Socks; Socks and stockings; Sport shirts; Sports bra; Sports pants; Stockings; Stretch pants; Suits; Sundresses; Sunsuits; Sweat bands; Sweat jackets; Sweat pants; Sweat shirts; Sweat shorts; Sweat suits; Sweatbands; Sweaters; Sweatpants; Sweatpants for men, women, children; Sweatshirts; Sweatsocks; Sweatsuits; Swim trunks; Swim wear; Swimming caps; Swimsuits; T-shirts; Tank tops; Tank-tops; Tee shirts; Thermal socks; Tights; Top coats; Topcoats; Track jackets; Track pants; Track suits; Tracksuits; Training suits; Travel clothing contained in a package comprising reversible jackets, pants, skirts, tops and a belt or scarf; Trench coats; Trousers; Tunics; Turtle neck shirts; Turtleneck sweaters; Turtlenecks; Underclothes; Undergarments; Underpants; Undershirts; Underwear; V-neck sweaters; Vests; Warm up outfits; Warm up suits; Warm-up suits; Waterproof jackets and pants; Wind coats; Wind pants; Wind resistant jackets; Wind shirts; Wind vests; Wind-jackets; Windbreakers; Windcheaters; Windshirts; Women's clothing, namely, shirts, dresses, skirts, blouses; Yoga pants; Yoga shirts.”
The goods named in U.S. Registration No. 3668335 comprise “Headgear, namely, baseball hats and caps, and visors; Shirts; all used in connection with promoting or providing transportation and delivery services.” The goods named in U.S. Registration No. 3774278 comprise “Clothing, namely, hats, caps, visors, scarves, gloves, T-shirts, jerseys, jackets, sweat shirts, hooded sweat shirts, shorts, sweat pants, socks, booties, [overalls,] bibs, ties, boxers, all used in connection with promoting and providing educational services and athletic events.” The marks are used to identify clothing.
In this case, the application use broad wording to describe clothing, which presumably encompasses all goods of the type described, including registrants’ more narrow clothing goods. See, e.g., In re Solid State Design Inc., 125 USPQ2d 1409, 1412-15 (TTAB 2018); Sw. Mgmt., Inc. v. Ocinomled, Ltd., 115 USPQ2d 1007, 1025 (TTAB 2015). Thus, applicant’s and registrant’s goods are legally identical. See, e.g., In re i.am.symbolic, llc, 127 USPQ2d 1627, 1629 (TTAB 2018) (citing Tuxedo Monopoly, Inc. v.Gen. Mills Fun Grp., Inc., 648 F.2d 1335, 1336, 209 USPQ 986, 988 (C.C.P.A. 1981); Inter IKEA Sys. B.V. v. Akea, LLC, 110 USPQ2d 1734, 1745 (TTAB 2014); Baseball Am. Inc. v. Powerplay Sports Ltd., 71 USPQ2d 1844, 1847 n.9 (TTAB 2004)).
The same consumers will be exposed to the goods identified with both marks. The similarities among the marks and the goods of the parties are so great as to create a likelihood of confusion.
The fact that the goods of the parties differ is not controlling in determining likelihood of confusion. The issue is not likelihood of confusion between particular goods, but likelihood of confusion as to the source or sponsorship of those goods. In re Majestic Distilling Co., 315 F.3d 1311, 1316, 65 USPQ2d 1201, 1205 (Fed. Cir. 2003); In re Shell Oil Co., 992 F.2d 1204, 1208, 26 USPQ2d 1687, 1689 (Fed. Cir. 1993); TMEP §1207.01.
Conclusion
The overriding concern is not only to prevent buyer confusion as to the source of the goods, 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, 1026 (Fed. Cir. 1988).
Accordingly, in view of the highly similar nature of the goods of the parties and the strong similarity of the marks and their commercial impressions, confusion as to the source of the goods is likely under Section 2(d) of the Trademark Act.
Response
Although the trademark examining attorney has refused registration, applicant may respond to the refusal to register by submitting evidence and arguments in support of registration.
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.
/Gretta Yao/
Attorney
United States Patent & Trademark Office
Law Office 118
571.272.9313
gretta.yao@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.