United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO)
Office Action (Official Letter) About Applicant’s Trademark Application
|
U.S. Application Serial No. 88405261
Mark: MARSHELL
|
|
|
Correspondence Address: SHENZHEN ELETUN TEC; SHENZHEN ELETUN TEC |
|
|
Applicant: Shenzhen ELETUN Technology Co.,Ltd
|
|
|
Reference/Docket No. N/A
Correspondence Email Address: |
|
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 17, 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.
· Additional Information Required
· Additional Specimens Required
SECTION 2(d) REFUSAL – LIKELIHOOD OF CONFUSION: Registration of the applied-for mark is refused because of a likelihood of confusion with the mark in U.S. Registration No. 1474027, 4594820, 4966775, and 4985748. Trademark Act Section 2(d), 15 U.S.C. §1052(d); see TMEP §§1207.01 et seq. See the attached registration.
Applicant seeks to register the mark “MARSHELL” for use with "Accent lights for indoor use; Apparatus for cooking, namely, cooktops; Aquarium lights; Automotive headlamps; Backup lights for land vehicles; Bicycle lamps; Book lights; Candle lamps; Ceiling fans with integrated lights; Electric bulbs; Electric holiday lights; Electric lighting fixtures, namely, power failure backup safety lighting; Electric pressure cookers; Flood lights; Floor lamps; Fluorescent lamps; Infrared lamps; Lamps for festive decoration; Lampshade holders; LED flashlights; Light Emitting Diode (LED) plant grow light; Microwave ovens for household purposes; Nail lamps; Overhead lamps; Plumbing fittings, namely, faucet filters; Portable refrigerators; Portable stoves; Reading lights; Taillights for vehicles; Ultraviolet gel manicure lights; Wrist lights for illumination purposes" in International Class 011. The cited registration is:
· U.S. Registration No. 1474027, “MARSHALL BRASS”, registered for use with “PLUMBING FITTINGS, NAMELY, VALVES, ADAPTERS, COUPLINGS, AND PIGTAILS" in International Class 011.
· U.S. Registration No. 4594820, “MARSHALL”, registered for use with “Refrigerators; freezers; parts and fittings for the aforesaid goods" in International Class 011.
· U.S. Registration No. 4966775, “MARSHALLS”, registered for use with "Lamps, electric luminaires, LED luminaires, light post luminaires; luminaires using LEDs as a light source for street or roadway lighting; lamp parts, namely, columns and brackets; street lamps; * none of the aforesaid goods being for cable management, power distribution or wiring products and solutions, or any electrical and electronic apparatus and instruments relating thereto, including but not limited to trunking, conduits, ducting, power units, power poles, switches or sockets, guttering, soil and sanitary waste pipeworks and/or systems, underground systems for moving waste water and foul discharge from above ground systems, rainwater systems, drainage systems other than linear and block drainage channels, manholes or sluices for paving solutions" in International Class 011.
· U.S. Registration No. 4985748, “MARSHALLS”, registered for use with "Lamps, electric luminaires, LED luminaires, light post luminaires; luminaires using LEDs as a light source for street or roadway lighting; lamp parts, namely, columns and brackets; street lamps " in International Class 011.
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 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: Applicant seeks to register the mark “MARSHELL”. Registrants use the marks “MARSHALL”, “MARSHALL BRASS”, and “MARSHALLS”. 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 Davia, 110 USPQ2d 1810, 1812 (TTAB 2014) (citing In re White Swan Ltd., 8 USPQ2d 1534, 1535 (TTAB 1988); In re 1st USA Realty Prof’ls, Inc., 84 USPQ2d 1581, 1586 (TTAB 2007)); 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).
Comparing the mark of applicant to the marks of registrant, the marks are essentially phonetic equivalents and thus sound similar. Similarity in sound alone may be sufficient to support a finding that the marks are confusingly similar. In re White Swan Ltd., 8 USPQ2d 1534, 1535 (TTAB 1988); see In re 1st USA Realty Prof’ls, Inc., 84 USPQ2d 1581, 1586 (TTAB 2007); TMEP §1207.01(b)(iv). Additionally, slight differences in the sound of similar marks will not avoid a likelihood of confusion. In re Energy Telecomm. & Elec. Ass’n, 222 USPQ 350, 351 (TTAB 1983); see In re Viterra Inc., 671 F.3d 1358, 1367, 101 USPQ2d 1905, 1912 (Fed. Cir. 2012). Thus, the addition or deletion of the “s” in applicant’s mark does not create a separate and distinguishable commercial impression apart from the marks of registrant. Accordingly, applicant's mark and registrants’ marks are confusingly similar for purposes of Section 2(d).
Relatedness of the Goods: Applicant seeks to register its mark for "Accent lights for indoor use; Apparatus for cooking, namely, cooktops; Aquarium lights; Automotive headlamps; Backup lights for land vehicles; Bicycle lamps; Book lights; Candle lamps; Ceiling fans with integrated lights; Electric bulbs; Electric holiday lights; Electric lighting fixtures, namely, power failure backup safety lighting; Electric pressure cookers; Flood lights; Floor lamps; Fluorescent lamps; Infrared lamps; Lamps for festive decoration; Lampshade holders; LED flashlights; Light Emitting Diode (LED) plant grow light; Microwave ovens for household purposes; Nail lamps; Overhead lamps; Plumbing fittings, namely, faucet filters; Portable refrigerators; Portable stoves; Reading lights; Taillights for vehicles; Ultraviolet gel manicure lights; Wrist lights for illumination purposes" in International Class 011.
Registrants use their respective marks for the following goods:
· U.S. Registration No. 1474027, “MARSHALL BRASS”, registered for use with “PLUMBING FITTINGS, NAMELY, VALVES, ADAPTERS, COUPLINGS, AND PIGTAILS" in International Class 011.
· U.S. Registration No. 4594820, “MARSHALL”, registered for use with “Refrigerators; freezers; parts and fittings for the aforesaid goods" in International Class 011.
· U.S. Registration No. 4966775, “MARSHALLS”, registered for use with "Lamps, electric luminaires, LED luminaires, light post luminaires; luminaires using LEDs as a light source for street or roadway lighting; lamp parts, namely, columns and brackets; street lamps; * none of the aforesaid goods being for cable management, power distribution or wiring products and solutions, or any electrical and electronic apparatus and instruments relating thereto, including but not limited to trunking, conduits, ducting, power units, power poles, switches or sockets, guttering, soil and sanitary waste pipeworks and/or systems, underground systems for moving waste water and foul discharge from above ground systems, rainwater systems, drainage systems other than linear and block drainage channels, manholes or sluices for paving solutions" in International Class 011.
· U.S. Registration No. 4985748, “MARSHALLS”, registered for use with "Lamps, electric luminaires, LED luminaires, light post luminaires; luminaires using LEDs as a light source for street or roadway lighting; lamp parts, namely, columns and brackets; street lamps " in International Class 011.
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).
In this case, the identification set forth in the application and registration(s) has no restrictions as to nature, type, channels of trade, or classes of purchasers. Therefore, it is presumed that these goods travel in all normal channels of trade, and are available to the same class of purchasers. Further, Reg. No. 4985748 identifies multiple lighting goods, and these goods are broad enough to include the lighting goods in applicant’s identification of goods.
Further, Registrant in Reg. No. 4594820 provides refrigerators and freezers, and this wording is broad enough to include applicant’s portable refrigerators. Additionally, the attached evidence from the internet demonstrates that manufacturers of refrigerators or freezers and microwaves, stoves, and cooktops commonly offer the goods under the same mark.
Finally, Reg. No. 1474027 and applicant both feature plumbing fittings. Therefore, applicant’s and registrants’ goods 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).
Accordingly, when considering the similarity of applicant's mark and registrants’ marks in coordination with the relatedness of applicant's and registrants’ respective goods, a likelihood of confusion exists whereby consumers encountering applicant's and registrant's goods are likely to believe they emanate from a common source. Accordingly, applicant's registration must be refused under §2(d).
(1) Deleting the goods to which the refusal pertains; or
(2) Filing a request to divide out the goods that have not been refused registration, so that the mark may proceed toward publication for opposition for those goods or 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).
An image of a product or packaging that has been digitally created or otherwise altered to include the mark does not show actual use of the mark in commerce. See 15 U.S.C. §1127; TMEP §§904.04(a), 904.07(a); cf. In re Chica, Inc., 84 USPQ2d 1845, 1848 (TTAB 2007) (holding that “a mere drawing of the goods with an illustration of how the mark may be displayed” was not an acceptable specimen because it did not show actual use in commerce); In re The Signal Cos., 228 USPQ 956, 957-58 n.4 (TTAB 1986) (noting that a printer’s proof of an advertisement would not be an acceptable specimen because it does not show actual use in commerce). In addition, a photo of the mark on a label, tag, or piece of paper that appears on applicant’s or a third party’s goods or packaging is generally not acceptable to show applicant’s use of the applied-for mark in commerce. See 15 U.S.C. §1127; TMEP §§904.03(a), 904.07(a). Applicant must show the mark on applicant’s own goods or packaging as it is seen by the purchasing public, with goods that have actually been sold or transported in commerce. See TMEP §904.07(a).
In this case, the specimen consists of three images from differing angles of a lightbulb. The mark appears on the good in pixelated text. Additionally, a search of multiple internet sources for the goods showing the mark being available in the market place reveals negative results. Finally, the appearance of the mark on the good is not in the usual customary fashion for goods of this nature.
An application based on Trademark Act Section 1(a) must include a specimen showing the applied-for mark in use in commerce for each international class of goods and/or services identified in the application or amendment to allege use. 15 U.S.C. §1051(a)(1); 37 C.F.R. §§2.34(a)(1)(iv), 2.56(a); TMEP §§904, 904.07(a). “Use in commerce” means (1) a bona fide use of the applied-for mark in the ordinary course of trade (and not merely to reserve a right in the mark), (2) the mark is placed in any manner on the goods, packaging, tags or labels, or displays of the goods, and (3) the goods are actually sold or transported in commerce. See 15 U.S.C. §1127.
In addition to the examples of specimens in (2) in the above paragraph, examples of specimens for goods also include instruction manuals, containers, and webpages that include a picture or textual description of the goods associated with the mark and the means to order the goods. See TMEP §§904.03 et seq.
Applicant may respond to this refusal by satisfying one of the following for each applicable international class:
(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 the mark in actual use in commerce for the goods and/or services identified in the application or amendment to allege use. A “verified substitute specimen” is a specimen that is accompanied by the following statement made in a signed affidavit or supported by a declaration under 37 C.F.R. §2.20: “The substitute (or new, or originally submitted, if appropriate) specimen(s) was/were in use in commerce at least as early as the filing date of the application or prior to the filing of the amendment to allege use.” The substitute specimen cannot be accepted without this statement.
(2) Amend the filing basis to intent to use under Section 1(b), for which no specimen is required. This option will later necessitate additional fee(s) and filing requirements such as providing a specimen.
For an overview of both response options referenced above and instructions on how to satisfy either option online using the Trademark Electronic Application System (TEAS) form, see the Specimen webpage.
Accordingly, applicant must respond to the following questions and requests for documentation to satisfy this request for information:
(1) How are applicant’s goods sold? Specify the retail, wholesale, or other sales environment in which the goods are sold.
(2) Please provide copies of invoices, bills of sale, or other documentation of sales of the goods.
(3) Was the specimen created for submission with this application?
(4) Does the specimen show applicant’s product as it is currently being sold to consumers?
(5) How do applicant’s goods appear in the actual sales environment? If sold in stores, provide photos showing the goods for sale in the stores. If sold online, identify the websites and provide copies of the webpages showing the goods for sale. And if sold in another type of sales environment, provide photos and/or documentation showing the goods for sale in that environment.
(6) If the information in question (5) about how the goods appear in the actual sales environment is not available to applicant, then please describe how applicant’s goods are transported for sale and provide photos and other documentation showing how applicant’s mark appears on the goods and/or its packaging when the goods are being transported for sale.
See 37 C.F.R. §2.61(b); TMEP §814.
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. Merely stating that information is available on applicant’s website is an insufficient response and will not make the relevant information of record. See In re Planalytics, Inc., 70 USPQ2d 1453, 1457-58 (TTAB 2004).
RULE 2.61(B) REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL SPECIMEN SUBMISSIONS: Given the wide variety and range of unrelated goods that applicant has listed in the application, applicant must submit additional specimens to allow for a complete and accurate examination of the application and assessment of the registrability of the subject mark, in accordance with Rule 2.61(b). 37 C.F.R. §2.61(b); see TMEP §904.01(a).
Applicant should submit specimens demonstrating use of the mark on all of the following goods:
1. Agricultural irrigation units;
2. Air-conditioning apparatus;
3. Portable refrigerators;
4. Dehumidifiers; and
5. Flushometers
6. Pool skimmer diverter
If applicant is unable to provide specimens to support use of these items, applicant must delete these entries, or amend the filing basis for those goods that were not in proper use as of the application filing date to an intent to use basis under Section 1(b). This option will later necessitate additional fees and filing requirements such as providing a specimen for these goods at a subsequent date.
Failure to comply with a requirement to furnish additional specimens is grounds for refusing registration. In re Harley, 119 USPQ2d 1755, 1757-58 (TTAB 2016); TMEP §814. Merely stating that evidence is available on applicant’s or a third party website or providing a hyperlink of such a website is an insufficient response and will not make the additional specimens of record. See In re Planalytics, Inc., 70 USPQ2d 1453, 1457-58 (TTAB 2004).
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.
U.S. Counsel Rules Changes (Advisory): On August 3, 2019, changes to the federal trademark regulations will become effective that require trademark applicants, registrants, and parties to Trademark Trial and Appeal Board proceedings who are foreign-domiciled (have a permanent legal residence or a principal place of business outside of the United States), including Canadian filers, to have an attorney who is licensed to practice law in the United States represent them at the USPTO. In addition, U.S.-licensed attorneys representing a trademark applicant, registrant, or party will generally be required to provide their bar membership information, a statement attesting to their good standing in that bar, and their postal/email addresses in trademark-related submissions. All U.S.-licensed attorneys who practice before the USPTO are subject to the rules in 37 C.F.R. Part 11 governing representation of others, including the USPTO’s Rules of Professional Conduct.
These changes are being made to increase customer compliance with federal trademark law, improve the accuracy of trademark submissions to the USPTO, and safeguard the integrity of the U.S. trademark register. See the U.S. Counsel Rule change webpage for more information.
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
/Lee B. Hunt/
Trademark Examining Attorney
Law Office 115
Lee.Hunt@USPTO.GOV
Direct Dial: (571) 272-8129
Direct Fax: (571) 273-8129
RESPONSE GUIDANCE
