To: | PocketWatch, Inc. (vic@brandidentitylawyer.com) |
Subject: | U.S. Trademark Application Serial No. 88365006 - CHALLENGEVERSE - PW-chlngvrs |
Sent: | January 03, 2020 06:40:34 PM |
Sent As: | ecom120@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 |
United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO)
Office Action (Official Letter) About Applicant’s Trademark Application
U.S. Application Serial No. 88365006
Mark: CHALLENGEVERSE
|
|
Correspondence Address:
|
|
Applicant: PocketWatch, Inc.
|
|
Reference/Docket No. PW-chlngvrs
Correspondence Email Address: |
|
NONFINAL OFFICE ACTION
The USPTO must receive applicant’s response to this letter within six months of the issue date below or the application will be abandoned. Respond using the Trademark Electronic Application System (TEAS). A link to the appropriate TEAS response form appears at the end of this Office action.
Issue date: January 03, 2020
This Office action is supplemental to and supersedes the previous Office action issued on 06/12/2019 in connection with this application. The assigned trademark examining attorney inadvertently omitted a requirement relevant to the mark in the subject application. See TMEP §§706, 711.02. Specifically, an identification in the application is indefinite.
The trademark examining attorney apologizes for any inconvenience caused by the delay in raising this issue(s).
Applicant must address all issue(s) raised in this Office action, in addition to the issues raised in the Office action dated 06/12/2019. The issue(s) raised in the previous 06/12/2019 Office action is/are as follow and is/are maintained:
The following is a SUMMARY OF ISSUES that applicant must address:
Applicant must respond to all issues raised in this Office action and the previous 06/12/2019 Office action, within six (6) months of the date of issuance of this Office action. 37 C.F.R. §2.62(a); see TMEP §711.02. If applicant does not respond within this time limit, the application will be abandoned. 37 C.F.R. §2.65(a).
PARTIAL SECTION 2(d) REFUSAL – LIKELIHOOD OF CONFUSION
The stated refusal refers to the following services and does not bar registration for the other services:
Entertainment services, namely, production and distribution of an ongoing television series; production and distribution of ongoing segments in a variety television series; producing multimedia entertainment;
Registration of the applied-for mark remains refused because of a likelihood of confusion with the mark in U.S. Registration No. 4868509. Trademark Act Section 2(d), 15 U.S.C. §1052(d); see TMEP §§1207.01 et seq. See the previously attached registration.
Trademark Act Section 2(d) bars registration of an applied-for mark that so resembles a registered mark that it is likely a consumer would be confused, mistaken, or deceived as to the source of the goods and services of the applicant and registrant. See 15 U.S.C. §1052(d). Determining likelihood of confusion is made 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). In re i.am.symbolic, llc, 866 F.3d 1315, 1322, 123 USPQ2d 1744, 1747 (Fed. Cir. 2017). However, “[n]ot all of the [du Pont] factors are relevant to every case, and only factors of significance to the particular mark need be considered.” Coach Servs., Inc. v. Triumph Learning LLC, 668 F.3d 1356, 1366, 101 USPQ2d 1713, 1719 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (quoting In re Mighty Leaf Tea, 601. F.3d 1342, 1346, 94 USPQ2d 1257, 1259 (Fed. Cir 2010)). The USPTO may focus its analysis “on dispositive factors, such as similarity of the marks and relatedness of the goods [and/or services].” 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)); see TMEP §1207.01.
Applicant’s mark is “CHALLENGEVERSE” with the identification of, inter alia, “Entertainment services, namely, production and distribution of an ongoing television series; production and distribution of ongoing segments in a variety television series; producing multimedia entertainment” in Class 041.
The cited registrations is “VERSE” (Reg. No. 4868509) for, inter alia, “Publication of on-line user-generated videos, films, and editorial content on a wide variety of topics and subjects” in Class 041.
Comparison of 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).
Applying the above analysis, the marks are substantially similar. The applicant’s mark incorporates the entirety of the registrant’s mark by merely adding an additional word to the beginning of the registrant’s mark. Adding a term to a registered mark generally does not obviate the similarity between the compared marks, as in the present case, nor does it overcome a likelihood of confusion under Section 2(d). See Coca-Cola Bottling Co. v. Jos. E. Seagram & Sons, Inc., 526 F.2d 556, 557, 188 USPQ 105, 106 (C.C.P.A. 1975) (finding BENGAL and BENGAL LANCER and design confusingly similar); In re Toshiba Med. Sys. Corp., 91 USPQ2d 1266, 1269 (TTAB 2009) (finding TITAN and VANTAGE TITAN confusingly similar); In re El Torito Rests., Inc., 9 USPQ2d 2002, 2004 (TTAB 1988) (finding MACHO and MACHO COMBOS confusingly similar); TMEP §1207.01(b)(iii). In the present case, the marks are identical in part.
Therefore, when viewed as a whole, applicant’s mark is substantially similar in sound, appearance, connotation and commercial impression to the registered mark.
Comparison of the Services
Applying the second half of the test, the services are closely related. Determining likelihood of confusion is based on the description of the 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)).
In this case, the application uses broad wording to “Entertainment services, namely, production and distribution of an ongoing television series; production and distribution of ongoing segments in a variety television series; producing multimedia entertainment,” which presumably encompasses all services of the type described, including registrant’s more narrow “Publication of on-line user-generated videos, films, and editorial content on a wide variety of topics and subjects.” 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 services 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 services 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 services are related.
Because the marks are confusingly similar, and the services are identical, overlapping, or otherwise related, a likelihood of confusion exists and registration is refused under Trademark Act Section 2(d).
RESPONSE TO APPLICANT’S ARGUMENTS
Applicant argues that the registered marks are not similar in appearance, sound, connotation, and commercial impression to applicant’s mark. Additionally, the applicant argues that the applicant’s and registrant’s services are not similar. Applicant’s arguments do not obviate the likelihood of confusion and are unpersuasive.
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)). Thus, although the registrants’ and applicant’s marks have different components that differentiate the marks, the overall commercial impression of the marks is the same because specific components of the marks that carry more weight when determining their commercial impressions are confusingly similar.
Specifically, the wording VERSE is similar in both marks. Although the applicant’s mark includes the wording CHALLENGE before the word VERSE, this addition would not obviate a likelihood of confusion because the applicant’s mark incorporates the entirety of the registrant’s mark. Adding a term to a registered mark generally does not obviate the similarity between the compared marks, as in the present case, nor does it overcome a likelihood of confusion under Section 2(d). See Coca-Cola Bottling Co. v. Jos. E. Seagram & Sons, Inc., 526 F.2d 556, 557, 188 USPQ 105, 106 (C.C.P.A. 1975) (finding BENGAL and BENGAL LANCER and design confusingly similar); In re Toshiba Med. Sys. Corp., 91 USPQ2d 1266, 1269 (TTAB 2009) (finding TITAN and VANTAGE TITAN confusingly similar); In re El Torito Rests., Inc., 9 USPQ2d 2002, 2004 (TTAB 1988) (finding MACHO and MACHO COMBOS confusingly similar); TMEP §1207.01(b)(iii). Hence the commercial impression of the applicant’s mark is CHALLENGE-“registrant’s mark.” In the present case, the marks are identical in part.
Similarity of Services
Concerning the relatedness of the services, the applicant argues that the registrant’s identification of “Publication of on-line user-generated videos, films, and editorial content on a wide variety of topics and subjects” is not related to the applicant’s identification of “Entertainment services, namely, production and distribution of an ongoing television series; production and distribution of ongoing segments in a variety television series; producing multimedia entertainment” because how the services are used beyond the applicant’s and registrant’s identification; namely that the applicant produces a children’s show and the registrant provides a production services. This argument is unpersuasive because applicant’s identification indicates they provide the registrant’s services due to services that encompasses the of registrant’s identification in Class 041. 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 services 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)). When analyzing an applicant’s and registrant’s services for similarity and relatedness, that determination is based on the description of the services 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)). “‘[A] showing of actual confusion is not necessary to establish a likelihood of confusion.’” In re i.am.symbolic, llc, 866 F.3d 1315, 1322, 123 USPQ2d 1744, 1747 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (quoting Herbko Int’l, Inc. v. Kappa Books, Inc., 308F.3d 1156, 1164-65, 64 USPQ2d 1375, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2002)); TMEP §1207.01(d)(ii). “[T]he relevant test is likelihood of confusion, not actual confusion.” In re Detroit Athletic Co., 903 F.3d 1297, 1309, 128 USPQ2d 1047, 1053 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (emphasis in original). Thus, the applicant’s statement of how the registrant uses the mark is immaterial to whether the services are related. Hence, when looking to the registration and application for whether the services are related, the services are legally identical. Thus the services are related.
The applicant further argues that the customers and the trade channels of the applicant differ from the customers and trade channels of the registrant. The services 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 services are related. Therefore, the applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
Furthermore, the attached Internet evidence, consisting http://www.nbc.com/shows/all/popular, http://abc.com/shows, and http://www.fox.com/entertainment/, establishes that the same entity commonly provides the relevant services and markets services under the same mark and is provided through the same trade channels and used by the same classes of consumers in the same fields of use. Specifically, shows and other multimedia can be online or otherwise from the same production company. Hence, companies that make multimedia are expected to make all forms of multimedia. Therefore consumers expect these services to emanate from the same source. Thus, applicant’s and registrant’s goods and/or services 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).
Thus the applicant’s arguments are not persuasive and the refusal is maintained.
REFUSAL LIMITED TO SPECIFIC SERVICES
Applicant may respond to the stated refusal by submitting evidence and arguments against the refusal. In addition, applicant may respond by doing one of the following:
(1) Deleting the services to which the refusal pertains; or
(2) Filing a request to divide out the services that have not been refused registration, so that the mark may proceed toward publication for opposition for those services to which the refusal does not pertain. See 37 C.F.R. §2.87. See generally TMEP §§1110 et seq. (regarding the requirements for filing a request to divide). If applicant files a request to divide, then to avoid abandonment, applicant must also file a timely response to all outstanding issues in this Office action, including the refusal. 37 C.F.R. §2.87(e).
IDENTIFICATION REQUIREMENT
Applicant may adopt the following wording, with suggestions in bold, if accurate:
Class 041
Entertainment services, namely, the production and distribution of an ongoing television series; production and distribution of ongoing segments in a variety television series; fan club services; arranging and conducting entertainment exhibitions in the nature of wine festivals; producing video games, namely, production of video game software; production and distribution of online virtual reality game services and augmented reality game services
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.
THIS PARTIAL REFUSAL APPLIES ONLY TO THE SERVICES SPECIFIED THEREIN
The application will then proceed with the following goods and/or services in International Class 041 only: Entertainment services, namely, the production and distribution of an ongoing television series; production and distribution of ongoing segments in a variety television series; fan club services. See 37 C.F.R. §2.65(a)-(a)(1); TMEP §718.02(a).
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.
If applicant has questions regarding this Office action, please telephone or e-mail the assigned trademark examining attorney. All relevant e-mail communications will be placed in the official application record; however, an e-mail communication will not be accepted as a response to this Office action and will not extend the deadline for filing a proper response. See 37 C.F.R. §§2.62(c), 2.191; TMEP §§304.01-.02, 709.04-.05. Further, although the trademark examining attorney may provide additional explanation pertaining to the refusal(s) and/or requirement(s) in this Office action, the trademark examining attorney may not provide legal advice or statements about applicant’s rights. See TMEP §§705.02, 709.06.
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.
How to respond. Click to file a response to this nonfinal Office action.
/Jules Dean/
Trademark Attorney
United States Patent and Trademark Office
Law Office 120
Phone: (571) 272-5322
Jules.Dean@uspto.gov
RESPONSE GUIDANCE