Reconsideration Letter

United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO)

Office Action (Official Letter) About Applicant’s Trademark Application

 

 

 

REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION

AFTER FINAL ACTION

DENIED

 

 

Issue date:  January 30, 2020

 

 

Applicant’s request for reconsideration is denied.  See 37 C.F.R. §2.63(b)(3).  The trademark examining attorney has carefully reviewed applicant’s request and determined the request did not:  (1) raise a new issue, (2) resolve the outstanding issue, (3) provide any new or compelling evidence with regard to the outstanding issue, or (4) present analysis and arguments that were persuasive or shed new light on the outstanding issue.  TMEP §§715.03(a)(ii)(B), 715.04(a). 

 

Specifically, in its December 5, 2019 Request for Reconsideration, the applicant argues that because U.S. Registration No. 5007926 was permitted to co-exist with U.S. Registration No. 3246221 that the applicant’s mark is entitled to co-exist as well; however, the mark “C.O.D.E.” in U.S. Registration No. 5007926 is distinguishable in this case because it contains periods after each letter, altering the commercial impression of the mark to that of an acronym. Similarly, the mark “ART COPY & CODE” in U.S. Registration No. 4396300 also creates a different commercial impression from the applied-for mark and cited registered mark because of the additional wording “ART COPY &”. In fact, applicant’s arguments that the word “CODE” is weak for Class 35 business and advertising services supports the claim that marks such as “C.O.D.E.” and “ART COPY & CODE” can co-exist with the registrant’s mark “CODE” in this case because “CODE” is diluted on the register. In this case, the applicant’s mark is identical to the cited registered mark, and thus while the word “CODE” is arguably weak or diluted, it does not entitle the applicant to register an identical mark. In re i.am.symbolic, llc, 116 USPQ2d 1406, 1411 (TTAB 2015), aff’d, 866 F.3d 1315, 123 USPQ2d 1744 (Fed. Cir. 2017). 

 

Additionally, the applicant argues that the services of the applicant and registrant do not overlap; however, it is not necessary that the services overlap to find a likelihood of confusion. The services 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).

 

Moreover, where the marks of the respective parties are identical or virtually identical, as in this case, the degree of similarity or relatedness between the services needed to support a finding of likelihood of confusion declines.  See In re i.am.symbolic, llc, 116 USPQ2d 1406, 1411 (TTAB 2015) (citing In re Shell Oil Co., 992 F.2d 1204, 1207, 26 USPQ2d 1687, 1689 (Fed. Cir. 1993)), aff’d, 866 F.3d 1315, 123 USPQ2d 1744 (Fed. Cir. 2017); TMEP §1207.01(a).

 

Accordingly, the following refusal made final in the Office action dated July 12, 2019 is maintained and continued:  Refusal under Section 2(d) of the Trademark Act- Likelihood of Confusion. See TMEP §§715.03(a)(ii)(B), 715.04(a). 

 

Applicant has already filed an appeal with the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board, and thus the Board will be notified to resume the appeal.  See TMEP §715.04(a).

 

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 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.  

 

 

 

/Deborah L. Meiners/

Attorney Advisor

Law Office 110

(571) 272-8993

Deborah.Meiners@USPTO.gov

 

 

 

 

United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO)

 

USPTO OFFICIAL NOTICE

 

Office Action (Official Letter) has issued

on January 30, 2020 for

U.S. Trademark Application Serial No. 88339512

 

Your trademark application has been reviewed by a trademark examining attorney.  As part of that review, the assigned attorney has issued an official letter that you must respond to by the specified deadline or your application will be abandoned.  Please follow the steps below.

 

(1)  Read the official letter.

 

(2)  Direct questions about the contents of the Office action to the assigned attorney below. 

 

 

/Deborah L. Meiners/

Attorney Advisor

Law Office 110

(571) 272-8993

Deborah.Meiners@USPTO.gov

 

 

Direct questions about navigating USPTO electronic forms, the USPTO website, the application process, the status of your application, and/or whether there are outstanding deadlines or documents related to your file to the Trademark Assistance Center (TAC).

 

(3)  Respond within 6 months (or earlier, if required in the Office action) from January 30, 2020, using the Trademark Electronic Application System (TEAS).  The response must be received by the USPTO before midnight Eastern Time of the last day of the response period.  See the Office action for more information about how to respond

 

 

 

GENERAL GUIDANCE

·         Check the status of your application periodically in the Trademark Status & Document Retrieval (TSDR) database to avoid missing critical deadlines.

 

·         Update your correspondence email address, if needed, to ensure you receive important USPTO notices about your application.

 

·         Beware of misleading notices sent by private companies about your application.  Private companies not associated with the USPTO use public information available in trademark registrations to mail and email trademark-related offers and notices – most of which require fees.  All official USPTO correspondence will only be emailed from the domain “@uspto.gov.”