To: | Big Fish Games, Inc. (ip@bigfishgames.com) |
Subject: | U.S. Trademark Application Serial No. 88407125 - STARRING YOU - USTM-196 |
Sent: | January 06, 2020 04:11:07 PM |
Sent As: | ecom127@uspto.gov |
Attachments: | Attachment - 1 Attachment - 2 Attachment - 3 Attachment - 4 Attachment - 5 Attachment - 6 Attachment - 7 Attachment - 8 |
United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO)
Office Action (Official Letter) About Applicant’s Trademark Application
U.S. Application Serial No. 88407125
Mark: STARRING YOU
|
|
Correspondence Address:
|
|
Applicant: Big Fish Games, Inc.
|
|
Reference/Docket No. USTM-196
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 06, 2020
This Office action is supplemental to and supersedes the previous Office action issued on June 6, 2019 in connection with this application. The assigned trademark examining attorney inadvertently omitted a refusal of registration relevant to the mark in the subject application. See TMEP §§706, 711.02. Specifically, registration is now refused due to a Trademark Act Section 2(d) likelihood of confusion.
The trademark examining attorney apologizes for any inconvenience caused by the delay in raising this issue.
Applicant must address all issues raised in this Office action, in addition to the issues raised in the Office action dated June 6, 2019. The issue raised in the previous June 6, 2019 Office action is continued and maintained: Trademark Act Section 1, 2 and 45 Refusal for failure to function as a trademark.
The following is a SUMMARY OF ISSUES that applicant must address:
• NEW ISSUE: Section 2(d) Refusal – Likelihood of Confusion
• Trademark Act Sections 1, 2, 3 and 45 Refusal – Failure to Function as a Trademark
Applicant must respond to all issues raised in this Office action and any issues in the previous June 6, 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).
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. 3429912. Trademark Act Section 2(d), 15 U.S.C. §1052(d); see TMEP §§1207.01 et seq. See the attached registration.
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 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 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.
Comparison of the Marks
The applied-for mark is STARRING YOU in standard characters. The registered mark is STARRING YOU in standard characters.
In the present case, applicant’s mark is STARRING YOU and registrant’s mark is STARRING YOU. These marks are identical in appearance, sound, and meaning, “and have the potential to be used . . . in exactly the same manner.” In re i.am.symbolic, llc, 116 USPQ2d 1406, 1411 (TTAB 2015), aff’d, 866 F.3d 1315, 123 USPQ2d 1744 (Fed. Cir. 2017). Additionally, because they are identical, these marks are likely to engender the same connotation and overall commercial impression when considered in connection with applicant’s and registrant’s respective goods and services. Id.
Therefore, the marks are confusingly similar.
Comparison of the Goods and Services
The applied-for goods are identified as “Downloadable computer game software for use on mobile and cellular phones; Downloadable electronic game programs; Downloadable electronic game software for use on mobile devices, portable media players, handheld computers, handheld digital electronic devices, and social networking applications; Downloadable interactive game programs; Downloadable video and computer game programs; Downloadable virtual goods, namely, computer programs featuring game currency and consumables in the nature of extra time and other play enhancing features for use in online virtual worlds; Video recordings featuring computer and video games and video instruction and tutorials” in International Class 9.
The registered goods include “Digital materials, namely, customized downloadable multimedia files, video files, and image files featuring audio and visual elements inserted by users onto selected audio-visual templates” in International Class 9 and “Entertainment services, namely, an online activity where you create your own customized comedy-oriented videos by inserting audio and visual elements onto a selection of audio and visual templates” in International Class 41.
Upon encountering the applicant’s goods and the registrant’s goods and services in commerce, consumers are likely to believe the goods and services emanate from a common source. Because there is a likelihood of confusion as to the source of the goods, registration is therefore refused under Section 2(d) of the Trademark Act.
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.
/Katherine M. Eissenstat/
Trademark Examining Attorney
Law Office 127
Tel: (571) 272-5886
Email: Katherine.Eissenstat@uspto.gov
RESPONSE GUIDANCE