To: | Shanghai Yepai E-commerce Co., Ltd. (trademarkdocket@venable.com) |
Subject: | U.S. Trademark Application Serial No. 88419882 - BEAST - 142934502658 |
Sent: | July 22, 2019 04:49:48 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 Attachment - 16 Attachment - 17 Attachment - 18 Attachment - 19 Attachment - 20 |
United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO)
Office Action (Official Letter) About Applicant’s Trademark Application
U.S. Application Serial No. 88419882
Mark: BEAST
|
|
Correspondence Address:
|
|
Applicant: Shanghai Yepai E-commerce Co., Ltd.
|
|
Reference/Docket No. 142934502658
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 22, 2019
The referenced application has been reviewed by the assigned trademark examining attorney. Applicant must respond timely and completely to the issues 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
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.
Similarity of the Marks
Applicant’s mark is BEAST. The registered marks are BEAST, in standard characters and typed drawings. These marks are similar.
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).
In the present case, the marks are identical in part, so they convey similar overall commercial impressions. Thus, the marks are similar for likelihood of confusion purposes.
Similarity or Relatedness of the Goods and Services
Applicant’s goods and services are “Fibreglass fabrics for textile use; Wall hangings of textile; felt; Bathtowels; quilts; bed covers; pillows covers; Table cloth of textile; Unfitted fabric covers for furniture; bedspread; Linen for household purposes; Travelling rugs (lap robes); Eiderdowns (quilts); bed blankets; Tablecloths, not of paper; Placemats of textile; Towels of textile; sleeping bag; shirts; Dressing gowns; Swim wear for gentlemen and ladies; pyjamas; Baby layettes for clothing; Leotards and tights for women, men and children of nylon, cotton or other textile fibers; Women's underwear; bath sandals; bath slippers; Fashion hats; Hosiery; Gloves as clothing; Scarves; Shawls; Eyeshades as headwear; Demonstration of goods; Advertising services; shop window dressing; On-line advertising and marketing services; television home shopping services; Business management assistance; Providing business information; organization of trade fairs for commercial or advertising purposes; Import-export agency services; Sales promotion for others; Outsourcing services in the nature of arranging procurement of goods for others; Marketing services; commercial administration of the licensing of the goods and services of others; Media relations services; On-line retail gift shops; On-line retail store services containing clothing, cosmetics, quilting supplies, furniture, coffee mugs, body milk, Non-medicated liquid soap, Linen for household purposes, Jewelry and imitation jewelry, Necklaces (jewelley), Artificial flowers, Natural flowers, Beverage glassware, etc.”
The goods in Registration No. 3719344 are “Clothing, namely, shirts, tank tops, tee shirts, underclothes, boxer shorts, jockey shorts, underpants, underwear.” The goods in Registration No. 2918892 are “Athletic footwear.”
Conclusion
Given that the applied-for mark is confusingly similar to the registrants’ marks in sound and appearance and that applicant’s goods and services are related to registrants’ goods, applicant is rightly refused registration under Section 2(d) for a likelihood of confusion.
It is important to note that any doubt regarding a likelihood of confusion determination is resolved in favor of the registrant. TMEP §1207.01(d)(i); see Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Packard Press, Inc., 281 F.3d 1261, 1265, 62 USPQ2d 1001, 1003 (Fed. Cir. 2002); In re Hyper Shoppes (Ohio), Inc., 837 F.2d 463, 464-65, 6 USPQ2d 1025, 1025 (Fed. Cir. 1988). This is because the overriding concern is not only to prevent buyer confusion as to the source of the goods and services, but to protect the registrant from adverse commercial impact due to use of a similar mark by a newcomer. See In re Shell Oil Co., 992 F.2d 1204, 1208, 26 USPQ2d 1687, 1690 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
PRIOR-FILED APPLICATION
In response to this Office action, applicant may present arguments in support of registration by addressing the issue of the potential conflict between applicant’s mark and the marks in the referenced applications. Applicant’s election not to submit arguments at this time in no way limits applicant’s right to address this issue later if a refusal under Section 2(d) issues.
CLARIFICATION OF IDENTIFICATION OF GOODS AND SERVICES
Several entries in the identification of goods and services are indefinite and must be clarified as to the nature or specific type of goods and services provided, as indicated further below. See 37 C.F.R. §2.32(a)(6); TMEP §1402.01.
Therefore, applicant must remove the parentheses from the identification and incorporate any parenthetical information into the description of the goods and services.
Applicant may adopt the following identification of goods and services, if accurate:
Class 24: “Fibreglass fabrics for textile use; Wall hangings of textile; felt; Bath towels; quilts; bed covers; pillows covers; Table cloth of textile; Unfitted fabric covers for furniture; bedspread; Linen for household purposes; Travelling rugs being lap robes; Eiderdowns being quilts; bed blankets; Tablecloths, not of paper; Placemats of textile; Towels of textile; sleeping bag.”
Class 25: No Changes Required.
Class 35: “Demonstration of goods; Advertising services; shop window dressing; On-line advertising and marketing services; providing television home shopping services in the field of {indicate types of goods}; Business management assistance; Providing business information; organization of trade fairs for commercial or advertising purposes; Import-export agency services; Sales promotion for others; Outsourcing services in the nature of arranging procurement of goods for others; Marketing services; commercial administration of the licensing of the goods and services of others; Media relations services; On-line retail gift shops; On-line retail store services featuring clothing, cosmetics, quilting supplies, furniture, coffee mugs, body milk, Non-medicated liquid soap, Linen for household purposes, Jewelry and imitation jewelry, Necklaces being jewellery, Artificial flowers, Natural flowers, Beverage glassware, {indicate any other types of goods featured}.”
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.
APPLICATION SIGNATURE REQUIRED
The following statements must be verified: That applicant has a bona fide intention to use the mark in commerce and had a bona fide intention to use the mark in commerce as of the application filing date; that applicant believes applicant is entitled to use the mark in commerce on or in connection with the goods or services specified in the application; that to the best of the signatory’s knowledge and belief, no other persons, except, if applicable, concurrent users, have the right to use the mark in commerce, either in the identical form or in such near resemblance as to be likely, when used on or in connection with the goods/services of such other persons, to cause confusion or mistake, or to deceive; and that the facts set forth in the application are true. 37 C.F.R. §§2.33(b)(2), (c), 2.34(a)(2), (a)(3)(i), (a)(4)(ii). For more information about this, see the Verified statement webpage.
To provide these verified statements. After opening the correct TEAS response form, answer “yes” to wizard question #10, and follow the instructions within the form for signing. In this case, the form will require two signatures: one in the “Declaration Signature” section and one in the “Response Signature” section.
ENTITY TYPE AND CITIZENSHIP REQUIRED
If applicant’s legal entity is an individual, applicant must so specify and provide his or her national citizenship. TMEP §803.03(a).
If applicant is a corporation, association, partnership, joint venture, or the foreign equivalent, applicant must so specify and provide the U.S. state or foreign country under whose laws applicant is organized or incorporated. TMEP §803.04. For a U.S. partnership or joint venture, applicant must also list the names, legal entities and national citizenship or the U.S. state or foreign country of organization or incorporation of all the general partners or joint venturers. TMEP §803.03(b)-(c). For an association, applicant must also specify whether the association is incorporated or unincorporated. TMEP §803.03(c).
RESPONSE GUIDELINES
ASSISTANCE
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 refusals and/or requirements 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.
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
/Clare Cahill/
Examining Attorney
Law Office 120
(571) 272-5218
clare.cahill@uspto.gov
RESPONSE GUIDANCE