To: | Still Free Entertainment LLC (asoler@solerlegal.com) |
Subject: | U.S. TRADEMARK APPLICATION NO. 88328611 - MICHAEL ANGELO - N/A |
Sent: | 4/16/2019 2:30:19 PM |
Sent As: | ECOM123@USPTO.GOV |
Attachments: | Attachment - 1 Attachment - 2 Attachment - 3 Attachment - 4 Attachment - 5 |
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE (USPTO)
OFFICE ACTION (OFFICIAL LETTER) ABOUT APPLICANT’S TRADEMARK APPLICATION
U.S. APPLICATION SERIAL NO. 88328611
MARK: MICHAEL ANGELO
|
|
CORRESPONDENT ADDRESS: |
CLICK HERE TO RESPOND TO THIS LETTER: http://www.gov.uspto.report/trademarks/teas/response_forms.jsp
|
APPLICANT: Still Free Entertainment 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: 4/16/2019
SECTION 2(d) REFUSAL – LIKELIHOOD OF CONFUSION
Registration of the applied-for mark is refused because of a likelihood of confusion with the mark in U.S. Registration Nos. 1764236 and 4312062. Trademark Act Section 2(d), 15 U.S.C. §1052(d); see TMEP §§1207.01 et seq. See the attached registrations.
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 and/or services 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 and/or services. 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 MICHAEL ANGELO (standard characters) for use on the following goods and services:
Class 9: Compact discs featuring music; Musical recordings; Musical video recordings; Downloadable musical sound recordings;
Class 41: Entertainment services in the nature of live musical performances; Entertainment services in the nature of live musical performances by a musical artist; Music video production; Production of sound and music video recordings; Production of sound recordings; Entertainment services by a musical artist and producer, namely, musical composition for others and production of musical sound recordings; Entertainment, namely, live music concerts.
U.S. Registration No. 1764236 for the mark THE MICHELANGELO COMPANY and design is used in connection with “phonograph records, audio cassettes and compact discs featuring music” in International Class 9.
U.S. Registration No. 4312062 for the mark MICHAELANGELO (standard characters) is used in connection with “Entertainment in the nature of live performances by musical performer; Entertainment in the nature of live musical performances; Entertainment services in the nature of live musical performances; Entertainment services in the nature of live musical performances; Entertainment services, namely, providing a web site featuring non-downloadable musical performances, musical videos, related film clips, photographs, and other multimedia materials featuring a musical group or a musical performer; Providing a website featuring entertainment information; Providing a website for entertainment purposes featuring photos and videos of musical performances, sound and video recordings, related film clips, information, all about public appearances, photographs, concerts and biography of a musical group” in International Class 41.
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 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).
As to U.S. Registration No. 4312062, the compared marks are identical except for a slight difference in appearance between registrant’s mark, which appears as a compound word with no space separating the words, that is, MICHAELANGELO; and applicant’s mark, which appears as multiple words with space separating the words, that is, MICHAEL ANGELO. 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.”).
As to U.S. Registration No. 1764236 for the mark THE MICHELANGELO COMPANY and design, this mark is confusingly similar to applicant’s mark because the marks share the wording “MICHEL ANGELO”. The slight difference in spelling does not distinguish the marks because the overall commercial impressions of the marks are the same despite the spelling difference. Marks may be confusingly similar in appearance where similar terms or phrases or similar parts of terms or phrases appear in the compared marks and create a similar overall commercial impression. See Crocker Nat’l Bank v. Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce, 228 USPQ 689, 690-91 (TTAB 1986), aff’d sub nom. Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce v. Wells Fargo Bank, Nat’l Ass’n, 811 F.2d 1490, 1495, 1 USPQ2d 1813, 1817 (Fed. Cir. 1987) (finding COMMCASH and COMMUNICASH confusingly similar); In re Corning Glass Works, 229 USPQ 65, 66 (TTAB 1985) (finding CONFIRM and CONFIRMCELLS confusingly similar); In re Pellerin Milnor Corp., 221 USPQ 558, 560 (TTAB 1983) (finding MILTRON and MILLTRONICS confusingly similar); TMEP §1207.01(b)(ii)-(iii). Therefore, the slight difference in spelling cannot distinguish the marks.
The additional wording COMPANY in the cited mark also cannot distinguish the marks because it is merely descriptive wording. 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). Matter that is descriptive of or generic for a party’s goods and/or services is typically less significant or less dominant in relation to other wording in a mark. See Anheuser-Busch, LLC v. Innvopak Sys. Pty Ltd., 115 USPQ2d 1816, 1824-25 (TTAB 2015) (citing In re Chatam Int’l Inc., 380 F.3d 1340, 1342-43, 71 USPQ2d 1944, 1946 (Fed. Cir. 2004)). The wording COMPANY describes applicant’s entity type, and therefore it is a weaker element of the mark and cannot distinguish the marks.
Ultimately, applicant’s mark is likely to cause confusion with registrants’ marks because the similarities in sound, appearance, and connotation create the same overall commercial impression in the minds of consumers. Thus, applicant’s mark is confusingly similar to each of the cited marks.
Relatedness of Goods and Services
The application identifies the following goods and services:
Class 9: Compact discs featuring music; Musical recordings; Musical video recordings; Downloadable musical sound recordings;
Class 41: Entertainment services in the nature of live musical performances; Entertainment services in the nature of live musical performances by a musical artist; Music video production; Production of sound and music video recordings; Production of sound recordings; Entertainment services by a musical artist and producer, namely, musical composition for others and production of musical sound recordings; Entertainment, namely, live music concerts.
U.S. Registration No. 1764236 for the mark THE MICHELANGELO COMPANY and design is used in connection with “phonograph records, audio cassettes and compact discs featuring music” in International Class 9.
U.S. Registration No. 4312062 for the mark MICHAELANGELO (standard characters) is used in connection with “Entertainment in the nature of live performances by musical performer; Entertainment in the nature of live musical performances; Entertainment services in the nature of live musical performances; Entertainment services in the nature of live musical performances; Entertainment services, namely, providing a web site featuring non-downloadable musical performances, musical videos, related film clips, photographs, and other multimedia materials featuring a musical group or a musical performer; Providing a website featuring entertainment information; Providing a website for entertainment purposes featuring photos and videos of musical performances, sound and video recordings, related film clips, information, all about public appearances, photographs, concerts and biography of a musical group” in International Class 41.
Determining likelihood of confusion is based on the description of the goods and/or services stated in the application and registration at issue, not on extrinsic evidence of actual use. See In re Detroit Athletic Co., 903 F.3d 1297, 1307, 128 USPQ2d 1047, 1052 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (citing In re i.am.symbolic, llc, 866 F.3d 1315, 1325, 123 USPQ2d 1744, 1749 (Fed. Cir. 2017)).
As to the goods in U.S. Registration No. 1764236, these goods are related to the goods in the application because the goods in the application encompass the goods in the cited registration. The application uses the broad wording “Compact discs featuring music, Musical recordings, Musical video recordings, Downloadable musical sound recordings” to describe the goods, and these goods presumably encompasses all goods of the type described, including registrant’s more narrowly described 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 goods in U.S. Registration No. 1764236 are also related to the services in the application because the same entities that provide recorded music also commonly provide the musical entertainment services listed in the application. Indeed, applicant itself provides both recorded music and entertainment services featuring music.
As to the services in U.S. Registration No. 4312062, these services are related to both the goods and services in the application because the same entities that provide the services in this registration also commonly provide the goods and services in the application. The registration includes “Entertainment in the nature of live performances by musical performer”. This service is commonly provided by the same entities that provide applicant’s goods and services. Indeed, applicant itself provides live performances by a musical performer. 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, registrant’s services are related applicant’s goods and services are related.
Therefore, because the marks are confusingly similar and the goods and services are closely related, purchasers encountering these goods and services are likely to believe, mistakenly, that they emanate from a common source. Accordingly, there is a likelihood of confusion and registration is refused pursuant to Section 2(d) of the Trademark Act.
Response to Section 2(d) Likelihood of Confusion Refusal
Although applicant’s mark has been refused registration, applicant may respond to the refusal by submitting evidence and arguments in support of registration. However, if applicant responds to the refusal(s), applicant must also respond to the requirement set forth below.
NAME CONSENT STATEMENT AND WRITTEN NAME CONSENT MUST BE AMENDED
Applicant must amend the name consent statement and written name consent to conform to the required format. See 37 C.F.R. §2.61(b); TMEP §§813, 1206.03.
To register a mark that consists of or comprises the name of a particular living individual, including a first name, pseudonym, stage name, or nickname, an applicant must provide a written consent personally signed by the named individual. 15 U.S.C. §1052(c); TMEP §§813, 1206.04(a).
Accordingly, if the name in the mark identifies a particular living individual, applicant must submit both of the following:
(1) The following statement: “The name(s) shown in the mark identifies a living individual(s) whose consent(s) to register is made of record.” If the name is a pseudonym, stage name, or nickname, applicant must provide the following statement: “MICHAEL ANGELO identifies {specify actual name}, a living individual whose consent is of record.”
(2) A written consent, personally signed by the named individual(s), as follows: “I, {specify actual name}, consent to the use and registration of my stage name, MICHAEL ANGELO, as a trademark and/or service mark with the USPTO.”
For an overview of the requirements pertaining to names appearing in marks, and instructions on how to satisfy this requirement online using the Trademark Electronic Application System (TEAS) response form, please go to http://www.gov.uspto.report/trademarks/law/consent.jsp.
Failure to comply with a request for information is grounds for refusing registration. In re Harley, 119 USPQ2d 1755, 1757-58 (TTAB 2016); TMEP §814.
Response guidelines. For this application to proceed, applicant must explicitly address each refusal and/or 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.
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.
Ankhi Lindemyer
/Ankhi Lindemyer/
Trademark Examining Attorney
Law Office 123
(571) 270-0254
ankhi.lindemyer@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.