UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE (USPTO)
OFFICE ACTION (OFFICIAL LETTER) ABOUT APPLICANT’S TRADEMARK APPLICATION
|
U.S. APPLICATION SERIAL NO. 88321004
MARK: GUS
|
|
|
CORRESPONDENT ADDRESS: JACOBSON, RUSSELL, SALTZ, NASSIM & DE LA |
CLICK HERE TO RESPOND TO THIS LETTER: http://www.gov.uspto.report/trademarks/teas/response_forms.jsp
|
|
APPLICANT: REMKA, INC.
|
|
|
CORRESPONDENT’S REFERENCE/DOCKET NO: CORRESPONDENT E-MAIL ADDRESS: |
|
EXAMINER’S AMENDMENT/PRIORITY 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: 4/18/2019
DATABASE SEARCH: The trademark examining attorney has searched the USPTO’s database of registered and pending marks and has found no conflicting marks that would bar registration under Trademark Act Section 2(d). TMEP §704.02; see 15 U.S.C. §1052(d).
ISSUES APPLICANT MUST ADDRESS: On April 15, 2019, the trademark examining attorney and Ms. Sunny S. Nassim discussed the issues below. Applicant must timely respond to these issues. See 15 U.S.C. §1062(b); 37 C.F.R. §2.62(a); TMEP §§708, 711.
The referenced application has been reviewed by the assigned trademark examining attorney. Applicant must respond timely and completely to the issue below. 15 U.S.C. §1062(b); 37 C.F.R. §§2.62(a), 2.65(a); TMEP §§711, 718.03.
SECTION 2(d) REFUSAL – LIKELIHOOD OF CONFUSION
Applicant has applied for the mark GUS, in design form, for use in connection with the following relevant goods:
Class 20: Cushions; Furniture for babies; Furniture for children; Benches; Dressers; Furniture; Furniture adapted for use outdoors; Furniture being convertible into beds; Furniture cabinets; Furniture fittings, not of metal; Furniture for domestic use; Furniture for the bathroom; Furniture for the bedroom; Racks being furniture, namely, towel racks, storage racks, pot racks, shoe racks, display racks, and coat racks; Screens being furniture; Wood storage boxes; Plastic boxes for storage purposes; Containers, not of metal, for storage, transport; Storage baskets in the nature of bakers' bread baskets; Storage baskets and organization systems comprising of shelves, drawers, cupboards, baskets and clothing rods sold as a unit; Plastic storage boxes for footwear; Storage cabinets being furniture; Wood and plastic storage cases for toys and clothing; Storage chests made of plastic; Storage drawers of plastic; Bookcases; Cabinets; Mirrors; Frames for photographs; Bedding, namely, beds, bed pillows and bumper guards; Bedding for cots other than bed linens, namely, bumper guards for cots; Beds; Bed bases; Bed headboards; Children's beds; Sofa beds; Coffee tables; Tables; Dressing tables; Table and chair sets; Bedside cabinets; Chairs; Chairs for babies; Chairs for children; Tables for children; Stools; Desks; Sideboards; Ottomans; Wardrobes; Mattresses; Mattress bases, namely, box springs; Pillows; Blinds, indoor; Figurines of plastic; Parts and fittings for the aforesaid goods included in this class
Registrant owns a registration for the mark GUS, in standard character form, for use in connection with the following goods:
Class 20: Furniture for house, office and garden
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.
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).
In this case, the marks are confusingly similar because they both contain the same word “GUS”.
Although marks are compared in their entireties, one feature of a mark may be more significant or dominant in creating a commercial impression. See In re Detroit Athletic Co., 903 F.3d 1297, 1305, 128 USPQ2d 1047, 1050 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (citing In re Dixie Rests., 105 F.3d 1405, 1407, 41 USPQ2d 1531, 1533-34 (Fed. Cir. 1997)); TMEP §1207.01(b)(viii), (c)(ii). Greater weight is often given to this dominant feature when determining whether marks are confusingly similar. See In re Detroit Athletic Co., 903 F.3d at 1305, 128 USPQ2d at 1050 (citing In re Dixie Rests., 105 F.3d at 1407, 41 USPQ2d at 1533-34).
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, the term “GUS” in the applied-for mark appears prominently on the center of the shirt of the image of an alligator. As such, consumers are likely to perceive the word “GUS” as identifying the name of the depicted alligator and refer to this term when requesting the goods.
Accordingly, applicant’s and registrant’s marks are similar in sound, appearance, connotation, and commercial impression. As such, the marks are confusingly similar for likelihood of confusion purposes.
Relatedness of the Goods
In this case, the registration uses broad wording to describe its “furniture for house, office and garden,” and the application uses broad wording to describe its “furniture,” which presumably encompasses all goods of the type described, including applicant’s more narrow furniture goods, such as cabinets, tables, chairs, etc. 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)).
Additionally, the goods of the parties have no restrictions as to nature, type, channels of trade, or classes of purchasers and 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)). Thus, applicant’s and registrant’s goods are related.
In addition, the applied-for pillows, mattresses, and blinds are highly related to the registered furniture because they are commonly offered under the same brand name. The attached Internet evidence, consisting of screenshots of webpages from entities offering the applied-for pillows, mattresses, and blinds, and the registered furniture, establishes that the same entity commonly provides the relevant goods and markets the goods under the same mark. Please see http://www.mybobs.com/, http://www.raymourflanigan.com/, and http://www.westelm.com/?cm_type=gnav&cm_sp=GlobalLinks-_-Topnav-_-WestElmLogo.
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).
Conclusion
The similarity between applicant and registrant’s marks and goods is likely to cause consumers to be confused, mistaken, or deceived as to the source of the goods. Accordingly, applicant’s mark must be refused registration under Section 2(d) of the Trademark Act.
APPLICATION HAS BEEN AMENDED: In accordance with the authorization granted by the individual identified in the Priority Action section above, the trademark examining attorney has amended the application as indicated below. Please advise the undersigned immediately of any objections. TMEP §707. Any amendments to the identification of goods may clarify or limit the goods, but may not add to or broaden the scope of the goods. 37 C.F.R. §2.71(a); see TMEP §§1402.06 et seq.
AMENDMENT OF IDENTIFICATION OF GOODS
The identification of goods is amended to read as follows:
Class 20: Cushions; Furniture for babies; Furniture for children; Benches; Dressers; Furniture; Furniture adapted for use outdoors; Furniture being convertible into beds; Furniture cabinets; Furniture fittings, not of metal; Furniture for domestic use; Furniture for the bathroom; Furniture for the bedroom; Racks being furniture, namely, towel racks, storage racks, pot racks, shoe racks, display racks, and coat racks; Screens being furniture; Wood storage boxes; Plastic boxes for storage purposes; Containers, not of metal, for storage, transport; Storage baskets in the nature of bakers' bread baskets; Storage baskets and organization systems comprising of shelves, drawers, cupboards, baskets and clothing rods sold as a unit; Plastic storage boxes for footwear; Storage cabinets being furniture; Wood and plastic storage cases for toys and clothing; Storage chests made of plastic; Storage drawers of plastic; Bookcases; Cabinets; Mirrors; Frames for photographs; Bedding, namely, beds, bed pillows and bumper guards; Bedding for cots other than bed linens, namely, bumper guards for cots; Beds; Bed bases; Bed headboards; Children's beds; Sofa beds; Coffee tables; Tables; Dressing tables; Table and chair sets; Bedside cabinets; Chairs; Chairs for babies; Chairs for children; Tables for children; Stools; Desks; Sideboards; Ottomans; Wardrobes; Mattresses; Mattress bases, namely, box springs; Pillows; Blinds, indoor; Figurines of plastic; Parts and fittings for the aforesaid goods included in this class
See TMEP §§1402.01, 1402.01(e).
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. 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.
/Elizabeth A. O'Brien/
Examining Attorney
Law Office 105
(571) 272-0046
Elizabeth.OBrien@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.
