Offc Action Outgoing

United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO)

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

 

 

 

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:  July 09, 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.

 

SUMMARY OF ISSUES:

• Trademark Act Section 1 and 45 Refusal –Failure to Function as to Class 41
• Trademark Act Section 1, 2, and 45 Refusal – Ornamental as to class 25
• Trademark Act Section 2(d) Refusal – Likelihood of Confusion
• Name Inquiry

 

Trademark Act Section 1, 2, 3, and 45 Refusal – Failure to function as to class 41

 

Registration is refused because the applied-for mark, as used on the specimen of record, does not function as a service mark to identify and distinguish applicant’s services from those of others and to indicate the source of applicant’s services.  Trademark Act Sections 1, 2, 3, and 45, 15 U.S.C. §§1051-1053, 1127; see In re Keep A Breast Found., 123 USPQ2d 1869, 1879-80 (TTAB 2017); In re Moody’s Investors Serv., Inc., 13 USPQ2d 2043, 2048-49 (TTAB 1989); TMEP §§904.07(b), 1301.02 et seq.

 

The applied-for mark, as shown on the specimen, does not function as a service mark because it is so engrained into the text of the specimen of use that it would not indicate a source of applicant’s services.

 

Whether a designation functions as a mark depends on the commercial impression it makes on the relevant public; that is, whether purchasers would be likely to regard it as a source-indicator for the services.  See In re Keep A Breast Found., 123 USPQ2d 1869, 1879 (TTAB 2017) (quoting In re Eagle Crest Inc., 96 USPQ2d 1227, 1229 (TTAB 2010)); TMEP §1301.02.  The specimen and any other relevant evidence of use is reviewed to determine whether an applied-for mark is being used as a service mark.  See In re Keep A Breast Found., 123 USPQ2d at 1879 (quoting In re Eagle Crest Inc., 96 USPQ2d at 1229); TMEP §1301.02. 

 

Not every designation used in the advertising or performance of services functions as a service mark, even though it may have been adopted with the intent to do so.  In re Keep A Breast Found., 123 USPQ2d at 1879 (quoting Am. Velcro, Inc. v. Charles Mayer Studios, Inc., 177 USPQ 149, 154 (TTAB 1973)); see TMEP §1301.02.  A designation can only be registered when purchasers would be likely to regard it as a source-indicator for the services.  TMEP §1301.02; see In re Moody’s Investors Serv. Inc., 13 USPQ2d 2043, 2047-49 (TTAB 1989).

 

Although applicant’s mark has been refused registration, applicant may respond to the refusal(s) by submitting evidence and arguments in support of registration.

 

Applicant should note the following additional ground for refusal.

 

Trademark Act Section 1, 2, and 45 Refusal – Ornamental as to class 25

 

Registration is refused because the applied-for mark as used on the specimen of record is merely a decorative or ornamental feature of the goods and, thus, does not function as a trademark to indicate the source of applicant’s goods and to identify and distinguish them from others.  Trademark Act Sections 1, 2, and 45, 15 U.S.C. §§1051-1052, 1127; see In re Villeroy & Boch S.A.R.L., 5 USPQ2d 1451, 1454 (TTAB 1987); TMEP §§904.07(b), 1202.03 et seq.

 

Whether a designation functions as a mark depends on the commercial impression it makes on the relevant public; that is, whether purchasers would likely regard it as a source-indicator for the goods.  See In re Keep A Breast Found., 123 USPQ2d 1869, 1879 (TTAB 2017) (quoting In re Eagle Crest Inc., 96 USPQ2d 1227, 1229 (TTAB 2010)); TMEP §1202.  The specimen and any other relevant evidence of use is reviewed to determine whether an applied-for mark is being used as a trademark.  In re Bose Corp., 546 F.2d 893, 897, 192 USPQ 213, 216 (C.C.P.A. 1976); In re Volvo Cars of N. Am., Inc., 46 USPQ2d 1455, 1459 (TTAB 1998).

 

In this case, the mark as shown on the specimen would be perceived as merely a decorative or ornamental feature of the goods because it is emblazoned across the front of the shirt.

 

In appropriate circumstances, applicant may overcome this refusal by satisfying one of the following options:

 

(1)        Submit a different specimen (a verified “substitute” specimen) that (a) was in actual use in commerce at least as early as the filing date of the application (or prior to the filing of an amendment to allege use) and (b) shows proper trademark use for each international class identified in the application or amendment to allege use.

 

(2)        Amend to the Supplemental Register, which is a second trademark register for marks not yet eligible for registration on the Principal Register, but which may become capable over time of functioning as source indicators. 

 

(3)        Claim acquired distinctiveness under Trademark Act Section 2(f) by submitting evidence that the applied-for mark has become distinctive of applicant’s goods; that is, proof that applicant’s extensive use and promotion of the mark has allowed consumers now directly to associate the mark with applicant as the source of the goods.

 

(4)        Submit evidence that the applied-for mark is an indicator of secondary source; that is, proof that the mark is already recognized as a source indicator for other goods or services that applicant sells/offers.    

 

(5)        Amend the filing basis to intent to use under Section 1(b).  This option will later necessitate additional fee(s) and filing requirements.

 

For an overview of the response options above and instructions on how to satisfy each option online using the Trademark Electronic Application System (TEAS) form, see the Ornamental Refusal webpage.

 

Although applicant’s mark has been refused registration, applicant may respond to the refusal(s) by submitting evidence and arguments in support of registration.

 

Applicant should note the following additional ground for refusal.

 

Trademark act section 2(d) Refusal – LIKELIHOOD OF CONFUSION

 

Registration of the applied-for mark is refused because of a likelihood of confusion with the marks in U.S. Registration Nos. 5398833 and 5117935.  Trademark Act Section 2(d), 15 U.S.C. §1052(d); see TMEP §§1207.01 et seq.  See the attached registrations.

 

The applied for mark is DELA for the following goods and/or services:

 

Class 25:

 

T-shirts

 

Class 41:

 

Entertainment services, namely, live performances by a drag queen

 

The registered mark is DELA for the following services:

 

Class 41:

 

Photography services; Video production services; Entertainment in the nature of live performances by a female singer; Entertainment services by a musical artist and producer, namely, musical composition for others and production of musical sound recordings; Entertainment services, namely, providing non-downloadable prerecorded music, information in the field of music, and commentary and articles about music, all on-line via a global computer network; Fashion modeling for entertainment purposes

 

The registered mark is DELÀ for the following goods:

 

Class 18:

 

Pocket wallets; hunter's game bags; document cases; suitcase handles; shoulder straps of leather; sportsman's hunting bags; leather shoulder belts; leather shoulder straps; umbrellas; canes; walking sticks

 

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.

 

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).

 

When comparing marks, “[t]he proper test is not a side-by-side comparison of the marks, but instead whether the marks are sufficiently similar in terms of their commercial impression such that [consumers] who encounter the marks would be likely to assume a connection between the parties.”  Cai v. Diamond Hong, Inc., __ F.3d __, 127 USPQ2d 1797, 1801 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (quoting Coach Servs., Inc. v. Triumph Learning LLC, 668 F.3d 1356, 1368, 101 USPQ2d 1713, 1721 (Fed. Cir. 2012)); TMEP §1207.01(b).  The proper focus is on the recollection of the average purchaser, who retains a general rather than specific impression of trademarks.  In re Inn at St. John’s, LLC, 126 USPQ2d 1742, 1746 (TTAB 2018) (citing In re St. Helena Hosp., 774 F.3d 747, 750-51, 113 USPQ2d 1082, 1085 (Fed. Cir. 2014); Geigy Chem. Corp. v. Atlas Chem. Indus., Inc., 438 F.2d 1005, 1007, 169 USPQ 39, 40 (CCPA 1971)); TMEP §1207.01(b).

 

The applied for mark and the registered marks are essentially identical as they share the wording DELA. This creates a similar sound, appearance, and meaning.

 

As such, the marks are confusingly similar.

 

Relatedness of the Goods and Services

 

The goods and/or 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).

 

The compared goods and/or services need not be identical or even competitive to find a likelihood of confusion.  See On-line Careline Inc. v. Am. Online Inc., 229 F.3d 1080, 1086, 56 USPQ2d 1471, 1475 (Fed. Cir. 2000); Recot, Inc. v. Becton, 214 F.3d 1322, 1329, 54 USPQ2d 1894, 1898 (Fed. Cir. 2000); TMEP §1207.01(a)(i).  They need only be “related in some manner and/or if the circumstances surrounding their marketing are such that they could give rise to the mistaken belief that [the goods and/or services] emanate from the same source.”  Coach Servs., Inc. v. Triumph Learning LLC, 668 F.3d 1356, 1369, 101 USPQ2d 1713, 1722 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (quoting 7-Eleven Inc. v. Wechsler, 83 USPQ2d 1715, 1724 (TTAB 2007)); TMEP §1207.01(a)(i).

 

The attached Internet evidence, consisting of screen shots from third parties, establishes that the same entity commonly provides clothing, drag queen performances, and music and markets the goods and/or services under the same mark.

 

Willam Belli

• http://shop.willambelli.com/products
• http://shop.willambelli.com/music-videos
• http://shop.willambelli.com/bookings

 

Alaskathunderfuck

• http://alaskathunderfuck.com/boutique/
• http://alaskathunderfuck.com/tour/
• http://alaskathunderfuck.com/music/
• http://alaskathunderfuck.com/bio/

 

Adore Delana

• http://adoredelano.com/about.php
• http://adoredelano.com/tours.php
• http://adoredelano.bigcartel.com/

 

 

Burberry

• http://us.burberry.com/womens-polo-shirts-t-shirts/
• http://us.burberry.com/mens-wallets/

 

Gucci

• http://www.gucci.com/us/en/ca/women/womens-ready-to-wear/womens-tops-shirts-c-women-readytowear-tops-and-shirts
• http://www.gucci.com/us/en/ca/men/mens-accessories/mens-wallets-small-accessories-c-men-accessories-wallets

 

Thus, applicant’s and registrant’s goods and/or services are considered related for likelihood of confusion purposes and registration is refused.  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).

 

Although applicant’s mark has been refused registration, applicant may respond to the refusal(s) by submitting evidence and arguments in support of registration.  However, if applicant responds to the refusal(s), applicant must also respond to the requirement(s) set forth below.

 

Name Inquiry

 

Applicant must clarify whether the name DELA in the mark identifies a particular living individual.  See 37 C.F.R. §2.61(b); TMEP §§813, 1206.03.  In this case, the application neither specifies whether the name in the mark identifies a particular living individual nor includes a written consent.  See TMEP §§813.01(a)-(b), 1206.04(a), 1206.05.

 

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 does not identify a particular living individual, applicant must submit a statement to that effect (e.g., “The name shown in the mark does not identify a particular living individual.”). 

 

However, if the name in the mark does identify 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:  “DELA identifies Benjamin Putnam, a living individual whose consent is of record.”

 

(2)        A written consent, personally signed by the named individual(s), as follows:  “I, Benjamin Putnam, consent to the use and registration of my name, DELA 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

 

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  

 

Please call or email the assigned trademark examining attorney with questions about this Office action.  Although the trademark examining attorney cannot provide legal advice or statements about applicant’s rights, the trademark examining attorney can provide applicant with additional explanation about the refusal(s) and/or requirement(s) in this Office action.  See TMEP §§705.02, 709.06.  Although the USPTO does not accept emails as responses to Office actions, emails can be used for informal communications and will be included in the application record.  See 37 C.F.R. §§2.62(c), 2.191; TMEP §§304.01-.02, 709.04-.05. 

 

 

/Grace Duffin/

Trademark Examining Attorney

Law Office 120

571-270-7069

Grace.Duffin@uspto.gov

 

 

 

RESPONSE GUIDANCE

• Missing the response deadline to this letter will cause the application to abandon.  A response or notice of appeal must be received by the USPTO before midnight Eastern Time of the last day of the response period.  TEAS and ESTTA maintenance or unforeseen circumstances could affect an applicant’s ability to timely respond.  

 

• Responses signed by an unauthorized party are not accepted and can cause the application to abandon.  If applicant does not have an attorney, the response must be signed by the individual applicant, all joint applicants, or someone with legal authority to bind a juristic applicant.  If applicant has an attorney, the response must be signed by the attorney.

 

• If needed, find contact information for the supervisor of the office or unit listed in the signature block.

 

United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO)

 

USPTO OFFICIAL NOTICE

 

Office Action (Official Letter) has issued

on July 09, 2019 for

U.S. Trademark Application Serial No. 88399223

 

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. 

 

 

/Grace Duffin/

Trademark Examining Attorney

Law Office 120

571-270-7069

Grace.Duffin@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 July 09, 2019, 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.”