To: | Cline, Christopher (chris@daylawfirm.com) |
Subject: | U.S. Trademark Application Serial No. 88348777 - GET NECKID - N/A |
Sent: | November 20, 2019 02:29:13 PM |
Sent As: | ecom104@uspto.gov |
Attachments: |
United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO)
Office Action (Official Letter) About Applicant’s Trademark Application
U.S. Application Serial No. 88348777
Mark: GET NECKID
|
|
Correspondence Address: |
|
Applicant: Cline, Christopher
|
|
Reference/Docket No. N/A
Correspondence Email Address: |
|
SUSPENSION NOTICE
No Response Required
Issue date: November 20, 2019
The application is suspended for the reason specified below. See 37 C.F.R. §2.67; TMEP §§716 et seq.
Applicant was previously provided information regarding pending U.S. Application Serial Nos. 77076781, 78961570, 86632817, and 86963038, which may present a bar to registration of applicant’s mark based on a likelihood of confusion under Trademark Act Section 2(d). See 15 U.S.C. §1052(d); 37 C.F.R. §2.83; TMEP §§1208 et seq. In response, applicant argued that the mark in the pending application is not likely to cause confusion with applicant’s mark. Specifically, applicant argued the marks must be examined in their entireties.
While applicant is correct, marks must be compared in their entireties and should not be dissected; however, a trademark examining attorney may weigh the individual components of a mark to determine its overall commercial impression. In re Detroit Athletic Co., 903 F.3d 1297, 1305, 128 USPQ2d 1047, 1050 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (“[Regarding the issue of confusion,] there is nothing improper in stating that . . . more or less weight has been given to a particular feature of a mark, provided the ultimate conclusion rests on consideration of the marks in their entireties.” (quoting In re Nat’l Data Corp., 753 F.2d 1056, 1058, 224 USPQ 749, 751 (Fed. Cir. 1985)).
Further, the identified goods for all of the respective marks include clothing. Where the goods 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 goods. 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).
The trademark examining attorney has found applicant’s arguments unpersuasive and still believes there may be a likelihood of confusion between applicant’s mark and the marks in the cited prior-pending applications, should they register. Thus, this application is suspended.
Refusal maintained and continued. The following refusal is maintained and continued:
See TMEP §713.02. This refusal will be made final once this application is removed from suspension, unless a new issue arises. See TMEP §716.01.
Suspension process. The USPTO will periodically check this application to determine if it should remain suspended. See TMEP §716.04. As needed, the trademark examining attorney will issue a letter to applicant to inquire about the status of the reason for the suspension. TMEP §716.05.
No response required. Applicant may file a response, but is not required to do so.
/Andrew Crowder-Schaefer/
Trademark Examining Attorney
Law Office 104
(571) 272-0087
andrew.crowderschaefer@uspto.gov