To: | Marcus Allen (ctesq.consulting@gmail.com) |
Subject: | U.S. Trademark Application Serial No. 88425597 - .VIBES.VIBES.VIBES. - N/A |
Sent: | July 10, 2019 05:48:07 PM |
Sent As: | ecom105@uspto.gov |
Attachments: | Attachment - 1 Attachment - 2 Attachment - 3 Attachment - 4 Attachment - 5 |
United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO)
Office Action (Official Letter) About Applicant’s Trademark Application
U.S. Application Serial No. 88425597
Mark: .VIBES.VIBES.VIBES.
|
|
Correspondence Address: |
|
Applicant: Marcus Allen
|
|
Reference/Docket No. N/A
Correspondence Email Address: |
|
COMBINED EXAMINER’S AMENDMENT/PRIORITY ACTION 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 10, 2019
USPTO database searched; no conflicting marks found. The trademark examining attorney searched the USPTO database of registered and pending marks and found no conflicting marks that would bar registration under Trademark Act Section 2(d). 15 U.S.C. §1052(d); TMEP §704.02.
Applicant must address issues shown below. On July 9, 2019, the examining attorney and CARLTON LP TALBOT, ESQ discussed the issues below. Applicant must timely respond to these issues. See 15 U.S.C. §1062(b); 37 C.F.R. §2.62(a); TMEP §708.05.
SECTION 2(d) LIKELIHOOD OF CONFUSION REFUSAL
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.
The applicant is applying to register the design of a skeleton of a hand making the peace sign with the index and middle finger pointing up while the other fingers are folded down for use with “clothing, namely, base layers; Hoods; Jackets; Knitwear, namely, sweaters; Outerwear, namely, sweaters; Wearable garments and clothing, namely, shirts.”
The cited mark in Registration No. 4566396 is the illustration of a skeleton of a hand making the peace sign with the index finger and middle finger pointing up while the other fingers are folded down, followed by the words "PEACE OUT" in connection with “t-shirts.”
The cited mark in Registration No. 5250362 is VIBES in standard characters in connection with “shirts, t-shirts, tops, shorts, dresses, pants, jeans, jackets, sweaters, jumpsuits, and coats.”
Registration No. 4566396
Comparison of the Marks
In this case, the applicant and registrant’s mark depicts a virtually identical design element of skeleton hand design reflecting the peace sign with the index and middle finger with the other fingers folded down. When comparing the design elements in marks, the focus is on the overall commercial impression conveyed by such marks, not on specific differences. See Grandpa Pidgeon’s of Mo., Inc. v. Borgsmiller, 477 F.2d at 587, 177 USPQ at 574; In re Triple R Mfg. Corp., 168 USPQ 447, 448 (TTAB 1970); TMEP §1207.01(c). Here, the design elements of the skeleton hand reflecting the peace sign with the other fingers folded down is strikingly similar and creates the same commercial impression irrespective of the additional wording in the marks.
Thus, the marks are confusingly similar.
Comparison of the Goods
In addition to the marks being virtually identical in part, the goods are the same. Where the goods and/or services of an applicant and registrant are identical or virtually identical, the degree of similarity between the marks required to support a finding that confusion is likely declines. See Cai v. Diamond Hong, Inc., __ F.3d __, 127 USPQ2d 1797, 1801 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (quoting In re Viterra Inc., 671 F.3d 1358, 1363, 101 USPQ2d 1905, 1908 (Fed. Cir. 2012)); TMEP §1207.01(b).
Applicant’s goods are “clothing, namely, base layers; Hoods; Jackets; Knitwear, namely, sweaters; Outerwear, namely, sweaters; Wearable garments and clothing, namely, shirts.” Registrant’s goods are “t-shirts.” The goods between the parties are in part identical, and otherwise highly related. Both applicant and registrant include goods in the nature of shirts. As for base layers, hoods, jackets and sweaters in applicant’s mark, the examining attorney notes that decisions regarding likelihood of confusion in the clothing field have found many different types of apparel to be related goods. Cambridge Rubber Co. v. Cluett, Peabody & Co., 286 F.2d 623, 624, 128 USPQ 549, 550 (C.C.P.A. 1961) (women’s boots related to men’s and boys’ underwear); Jockey Int’l, Inc. v. Mallory & Church Corp., 25 USPQ2d 1233, 1236 (TTAB 1992) (underwear related to neckties); In re Melville Corp., 18 USPQ2d 1386, 1388 (TTAB 1991) (women’s pants, blouses, shorts and jackets related to women’s shoes); In re Pix of Am., Inc., 225 USPQ 691, 691-92 (TTAB 1985) (women’s shoes related to outer shirts); In re Mercedes Slacks, Ltd., 213 USPQ 397, 398-99 (TTAB 1982) (hosiery related to trousers); In re Cook United, Inc., 185 USPQ 444, 445 (TTAB 1975) (men’s suits, coats, and trousers related to ladies’ pantyhose and hosiery); Esquire Sportswear Mfg. Co. v. Genesco Inc., 141 USPQ 400, 404 (TTAB 1964) (brassieres and girdles related to slacks for men and young men).
Registration No. 5250362
Comparison of the Marks
In the present case, the word portion of the applicant’s mark is VIBES and registrant’s mark is VIBES. Therefore, the word portion of the marks are identical in sound, and meaning. Additionally, 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/or services. Id. The word portions of the marks are identical in sound, connotation, and commercial impression; therefore, the addition of a design elements do not obviate the similarity of the marks in this case. See In re Shell Oil Co., 992 F.2d 1204, 1206, 26 USPQ2d 1687, 1688 (Fed. Cir. 1993); TMEP §1207.01(c)(ii).
Therefore, the marks are confusingly similar.
Comparison of the Goods
In addition to the marks sharing the same word VIBES, the goods are the same as well as highly related. Applicant’s goods are “clothing, namely, base layers; Hoods; Jackets; Knitwear, namely, sweaters; Outerwear, namely, sweaters; Wearable garments and clothing, namely, shirts.” Registrant’s goods are “shirts, t-shirts, tops, shorts, dresses, pants, jeans, jackets, sweaters, jumpsuits, and coats.” The goods between the parties are in part identical, and otherwise highly related. Both applicant and registrant include goods in the nature of shirts, tops and sweaters. As for base layers, hoods, jackets in applicant’s mark, the examining attorney notes that decisions regarding likelihood of confusion in the clothing field have found many different types of apparel to be related goods. Cambridge Rubber Co. v. Cluett, Peabody & Co., 286 F.2d 623, 624, 128 USPQ 549, 550 (C.C.P.A. 1961) (women’s boots related to men’s and boys’ underwear); Jockey Int’l, Inc. v. Mallory & Church Corp., 25 USPQ2d 1233, 1236 (TTAB 1992) (underwear related to neckties); In re Melville Corp., 18 USPQ2d 1386, 1388 (TTAB 1991) (women’s pants, blouses, shorts and jackets related to women’s shoes); In re Pix of Am., Inc., 225 USPQ 691, 691-92 (TTAB 1985) (women’s shoes related to outer shirts); In re Mercedes Slacks, Ltd., 213 USPQ 397, 398-99 (TTAB 1982) (hosiery related to trousers); In re Cook United, Inc., 185 USPQ 444, 445 (TTAB 1975) (men’s suits, coats, and trousers related to ladies’ pantyhose and hosiery); Esquire Sportswear Mfg. Co. v. Genesco Inc., 141 USPQ 400, 404 (TTAB 1964) (brassieres and girdles related to slacks for men and young men).
Therefore, given the similarity of the marks and the identical as well as related nature of the goods, consumers are likely to reach the conclusion that the goods are related and originate from a common source. As such, registration must be refused under Section 2(d) of the Trademark Act.
Mark Differs on Drawing and Specimen
Registration is refused because the specimen does not show the mark in the drawing in use in commerce in International Class 025, which is required in the application or amendment to allege use. Trademark Act Sections 1 and 45, 15 U.S.C. §§1051, 1127; 37 C.F.R. §§2.34(a)(1)(iv), 2.56(a); TMEP §§904, 904.07(a), 1301.04(g)(i). The mark appearing on the specimen and in the drawing must match; that is, the mark in the drawing “must be a substantially exact representation of the mark” on the specimen. See 37 C.F.R. §2.51(a)-(b); TMEP §807.12(a).
In this case, the specimen displays the mark as VIBES in blue, with separating circles in white and the skeleton hand in the color orange.. However, the drawing displays the mark as in the colors orange, silver and white. The mark on the specimen does not match the mark in the drawing because the colors differ. Applicant has thus failed to provide the required evidence of use of the mark in commerce. See TMEP §807.12(a).
Applicant may respond to this refusal by satisfying one of the following:
(1) Submit a new color drawing of the mark that shows the mark on the specimen and an amendment of the description and color claim that agrees with the new drawing. See 37 C.F.R. §2.72(b). Applicant may amend the mark in the drawing to match the mark on the specimen but may not make any other changes or amendments that would materially alter the drawing of the mark. See 37 C.F.R. §2.72(a)-(b); TMEP §807.14.
(2) Submit a new black-and-white drawing of the mark and an amendment deleting any color claim and modifying the description to delete any references to color. The following description is suggested, if accurate: “The mark consists of the design of a skeleton of a hand making the peace sign with the index finger and middle finger pointing up while the other fingers are folded won, enclosed within the wording “VIBES” “VIBES” “VIBES” in circular format with dots separating the words.” Applicant may amend the mark in the drawing to delete color but may not make any other changes or amendments that would materially alter the mark on the drawing. See 37 C.F.R. §2.72(a)-(b); TMEP §807.14.
(3) Submit a different specimen (a verified “substitute” specimen) for each applicable international class that (a) shows the mark in the drawing in actual use in commerce in the colors depicted on the drawing and for the goods and/or services in the application or amendment to allege use, and (b) 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.
Examples of specimens for goods include tags, labels, instruction manuals, containers, photographs that show the mark on the actual goods or packaging, and displays associated with the actual goods at their point of sale. See TMEP §§904.03 et seq. Webpages may also be specimens for goods when they include a picture or textual description of the goods associated with the mark and the means to order the goods. TMEP §904.03(i). Examples of specimens for services include advertising and marketing materials, brochures, photographs of business signage and billboards, and webpages that show the mark used in the actual sale, rendering, or advertising of the services. See TMEP §1301.04(a), (h)(iv)(C).
For more information about drawings and instructions on how to satisfy these response options online using the Trademark Electronic Application System (TEAS) form, see the Drawing webpage.
Application has been amended as shown below. As agreed to by the individual identified in the Priority Action section, the examining attorney has amended the application as shown below. Please notify the examining attorney immediately of any objections. TMEP §707. In addition, applicant is advised that amendments to the goods and/or services are permitted only if they clarify or limit them; amendments that add to or broaden the scope of the goods and/or services are not permitted. 37 C.F.R. §2.71(a).
Entity and Citizenship Clarification
The applicant is an individual and a citizen of the United States.
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.
/CarynGlasser/
Trademark Examining Attorney
Law Office 105
Phone: (571) 270-1517
Fax: (571) 270-2517
caryn.glasser@uspto.gov
RESPONSE GUIDANCE