To: | Fashion Industries LLC (david@fahamlaw.com) |
Subject: | U.S. TRADEMARK APPLICATION NO. 88355199 - MR. SLEEP - N/A |
Sent: | 6/5/2019 9:24:57 PM |
Sent As: | ECOM115@USPTO.GOV |
Attachments: | Attachment - 1 Attachment - 2 Attachment - 3 Attachment - 4 Attachment - 5 Attachment - 6 Attachment - 7 Attachment - 8 Attachment - 9 Attachment - 10 Attachment - 11 Attachment - 12 Attachment - 13 Attachment - 14 Attachment - 15 Attachment - 16 Attachment - 17 Attachment - 18 Attachment - 19 Attachment - 20 Attachment - 21 Attachment - 22 Attachment - 23 Attachment - 24 Attachment - 25 Attachment - 26 |
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE (USPTO)
OFFICE ACTION (OFFICIAL LETTER) ABOUT APPLICANT’S TRADEMARK APPLICATION
U.S. APPLICATION SERIAL NO. 88355199
MARK: MR. SLEEP
|
|
CORRESPONDENT ADDRESS: |
CLICK HERE TO RESPOND TO THIS LETTER: http://www.gov.uspto.report/trademarks/teas/response_forms.jsp
|
APPLICANT: Fashion Industries 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: 6/5/2019
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.
SECTION 2(d) REFUSAL – LIKELIHOOD OF CONFUSION: Registration of the applied-for mark is refused because of a likelihood of confusion with the mark(s) in U.S. Registration No. 5448561. Trademark Act Section 2(d), 15 U.S.C. §1052(d); see TMEP §§1207.01 et seq. See the attached registration(s).
Applicant seeks to register the mark “MR. SLEEP” in standard character form, for use with “Babydoll chemises and pajamas, Bermuda Shorts, Bodysuits, Boxers, Bra, Bralette, Briefs, Bustiers, Capris, Cardigans, Chemise, Corsets, Crop Top, Hats, Joggers, Kimono, Leggings, Molded Cup Bras, Negligee, Nightgown, union suits, Pajama Pant, Pajama Short, Pajamas, Palazzo Pants, Pants, Panty, Robe, Romper, Scarves, Shorts, Sleepshirt, Slippers, Socks, Sportsbras, Sweatpant, Sweatshirt, T Shirt, Tank Top, Teddys, Thermals, Thong, Trunks, Underwear” in International Class 025. The cited registration is:
· U.S. Registration No. 5448561, “MR.SLEEP” in standard character form, registered for use with “Bath gloves; Bath towels; Bed blankets; Bed covers; Bed linen and table linen; Bed skirts; Bed and table linen, wall hangings of textile; Children's bed sheets, pillow cases, and blankets; Curtains; Cushion covers; Dish cloths; Furnishing and upholstery fabrics; Mosquito nets; Pet blankets; Pillow cases; Quilt covers; Quilts; Shower curtains; Towels; Plastic handkerchiefs; Textile handkerchiefs” in International Class 024.
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: Applicant seeks to register the mark “MR. SLEEP” in standard characters, while registrant has registered the mark “MR.SLEEP” in standard characters.
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, “MR.SLEEP”, and applicant’s mark, which appears as multiple words with space separating the words, that is, “MR. SLEEP”. 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.”).
Relatedness of the Goods: Applicant seeks to register its mark for “Babydoll chemises and pajamas, Bermuda Shorts, Bodysuits, Boxers, Bra, Bralette, Briefs, Bustiers, Capris, Cardigans, Chemise, Corsets, Crop Top, Hats, Joggers, Kimono, Leggings, Molded Cup Bras, Negligee, Nightgown, union suits, Pajama Pant, Pajama Short, Pajamas, Palazzo Pants, Pants, Panty, Robe, Romper, Scarves, Shorts, Sleepshirt, Slippers, Socks, Sportsbras, Sweatpant, Sweatshirt, T Shirt, Tank Top, Teddys, Thermals, Thong, Trunks, Underwear” in International Class 025.
Registrant has registered its mark for “Bath gloves; Bath towels; Bed blankets; Bed covers; Bed linen and table linen; Bed skirts; Bed and table linen, wall hangings of textile; Children's bed sheets, pillow cases, and blankets; Curtains; Cushion covers; Dish cloths; Furnishing and upholstery fabrics; Mosquito nets; Pet blankets; Pillow cases; Quilt covers; Quilts; Shower curtains; Towels; Plastic handkerchiefs; Textile handkerchiefs.” in International Class 024.
With respect to applicant’s and registrant’s goods, the question of likelihood of confusion is determined 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 Stone Lion Capital Partners, LP v. Lion Capital LLP, 746 F.3d 1317, 1323, 110 USPQ2d 1157, 1162 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (quoting Octocom Sys. Inc. v. Hous. Computers Servs. Inc., 918 F.2d 937, 942, 16 USPQ2d 1783, 1787 (Fed. Cir. 1990)).
Absent restrictions in an application and/or registration, the identified goods and/or services 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)). Additionally, unrestricted and broad identifications are presumed to encompass all goods and/or services of the type described. See In re Jump Designs, LLC, 80 USPQ2d 1370, 1374 (TTAB 2006) (citing In re Elbaum, 211 USPQ 639, 640 (TTAB 1981)); In re Linkvest S.A., 24 USPQ2d 1716, 1716 (TTAB 1992).
Further, the trademark examining attorney has attached evidence from the USPTO’s X-Search database consisting of a number of third-party marks registered for use in connection with the same or similar goods and/or services as those of both applicant and registrant in this case. This evidence shows that the goods and/or services listed therein, namely clothing and bedding, are of a kind that may emanate from a single source under a single mark. See In re I-Coat Co., 126 USPQ2d 1730, 1737 (TTAB 2018) (citing In re Infinity Broad. Corp., 60 USPQ2d 1214, 1217-18 (TTAB 2001); In re Albert Trostel & Sons Co.,29 USPQ2d 1783, 1785-86 (TTAB 1993); In re Mucky Duck Mustard Co., 6 USPQ2d 1467, 1470 n.6 (TTAB 1988)); TMEP §1207.01(d)(iii).
Finally, upon consideration of the similarity of applicant’s mark to the mark(s) of registrant(s) and the relatedness of applicant’s and registrant’s respective goods, a likelihood of confusion exists whereby consumers encountering applicant’s and registrant’s goods are likely to presume they emanate from a common or related source. Accordingly, applicant’s mark must be refused under Section 2(d). TMEP § 1207.01.
Though applicant’s mark has been refused registration, applicant may respond to this refusal by presenting arguments and/or evidence in favor and support of registration; however, if applicant determines to respond to this refusal, applicant must also address the following requirement(s).
IDENTIFICATION OF GOODS AMENDMENT REQUIRED: Applicant's identification of goods is unacceptable as written and must be amended because portions of the identification are overly broad, indefinite, or misclassified. See TMEP §1402.01. The identification of goods must be specific, definite, clear, accurate, and concise. See In re Societe Generale des Eaux Minerales de Vittel S.A., 1 USPQ2d 1296 (TTAB 1986), rev’d on other grounds, 824 F.2d 957, 3 USPQ2d 1450 (Fed. Cir. 1987); The Procter & Gamble Co. v. Economics Laboratory, Inc., 175 USPQ 505 (TTAB 1972), modified without opinion, 498 F.2d 1406, 181 USPQ 722 (C.C.P.A. 1974); In re Cardinal Laboratories, Inc., 149 USPQ 709 (TTAB 1966); California Spray-Chemical Corp. v. Osmose Wood Preserving Co. of America, Inc., 102 USPQ 321 (Comm’r Pats. 1954); Ex parte The A.C. Gilbert Co., 99 USPQ 344 (Comm’r Pats. 1953); TMEP §1402.01. Applicant must amend this wording to specify the common commercial or generic name for applicant's goods. If there is no common commercial or generic name for the goods, then applicant must describe the nature of the goods as well as their main purpose, channels of trade, and the intended consumer(s).
Specifically, applicant’s identification of goods in International Class 025 states, “Babydoll chemises and pajamas, Bermuda Shorts, Bodysuits, Boxers, Bra, Bralette, Briefs, Bustiers, Capris, Cardigans, Chemise, Corsets, Crop Top, Hats, Joggers, Kimono, Leggings, Molded Cup Bras, Negligee, Nightgown, union suits, Pajama Pant, Pajama Short, Pajamas, Palazzo Pants, Pants, Panty, Robe, Romper, Scarves, Shorts, Sleepshirt, Slippers, Socks, Sportsbras, Sweatpant, Sweatshirt, T Shirt, Tank Top, Teddys, Thermals, Thong, Trunks, Underwear.”
The following entries are indefinite and must be amended:
Corsets must be amended to state whether they are corsets as clothing (in International Class 025) or corsets for medical purposes (International Class 010).
Joggers is indefinite and must be amended to state the type of articles intended.
Thermals is indefinite and must be amended to state the type of articles intended.
The Office has included the following suggested language, which applicant may adopt, if accurate:
International Class 010: Corsets for medical purposes.
International Class 025: Babydoll chemises and pajamas, Bermuda Shorts, Bodysuits, Boxers, Bra, Bralette, Briefs, Bustiers, Capris, Cardigans, Chemise, Corsets as clothing, Crop Top, Hats, Joggers in the nature of jogging suits, jogging pants, and jogging jackets, Kimono, Leggings, Molded Cup Bras, Negligee, Nightgown, union suits, Pajama Pant, Pajama Short, Pajamas, Palazzo Pants, Pants, Panties, Robe, Romper, Scarves, Shorts, Sleepshirt, Slippers, Socks, Sportsbras, Sweatpant, Sweatshirt, T Shirt, Tank Top, Teddys, Thermals in the nature of thermal pants and socks, Thong, Trunks, Underwear
For assistance with identifying and classifying goods and services in trademark applications, please see the USPTO’s online searchable U.S. Acceptable Identification of Goods and Services Manual. See TMEP §1402.04.
MULTI-CLASS APPLICATIONS (Advisory): The application identifies goods and/or services that are classified in at least two classes; however, applicant submitted a fee sufficient for only one class. In a multiple-class application, a fee for each class is required. 37 C.F.R. §2.86(a)(2), (b)(2); TMEP §§810.01, 1403.01.
Therefore, applicant must either (1) restrict the application to the number of classes covered by the fees already paid, or (2) submit the fees for each additional class.
The application identifies goods and/or services in more than one international class; therefore, applicant must satisfy all the requirements below for each international class based on Trademark Act Section 1(b):
(1) List the goods and/or services by their international class number in consecutive numerical order, starting with the lowest numbered class.
(2) Submit a filing fee for each international class not covered by the fee(s) already paid (view the USPTO’s current fee schedule). The application identifies goods and/or services that are classified in at least two classes; however, applicant submitted a fee(s) sufficient for only one class. Applicant must either submit the filing fees for the classes not covered by the submitted fees or restrict the application to the number of classes covered by the fees already paid.
See 15 U.S.C. §§1051(b), 1112, 1126(e); 37 C.F.R. §§2.32(a)(6)-(7), 2.34(a)(2)-(3), 2.86(a); TMEP §§1403.01, 1403.02(c).
See an overview of the requirements for a Section 1(b) multiple-class application and how to satisfy the requirements online using the Trademark Electronic Application System (TEAS) form.
RESPONSE REQUIRED: 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.
/Lee B. Hunt/
Trademark Examining Attorney
Law Office 115
Lee.Hunt@USPTO.GOV
Direct Dial: (571) 272-8129
Direct Fax: (571) 273-8129
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.