To: | Shenzhen Quawins Technology Co., ltd. (lanwayipr@gmail.com) |
Subject: | U.S. Trademark Application Serial No. 88425772 - ARROW - TUS191962 |
Sent: | August 19, 2019 12:56:06 PM |
Sent As: | ecom123@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 Attachment - 21 Attachment - 22 Attachment - 23 Attachment - 24 Attachment - 25 Attachment - 26 Attachment - 27 Attachment - 28 Attachment - 29 Attachment - 30 Attachment - 31 Attachment - 32 Attachment - 33 Attachment - 34 Attachment - 35 Attachment - 36 Attachment - 37 Attachment - 38 Attachment - 39 Attachment - 40 Attachment - 41 Attachment - 42 |
United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO)
Office Action (Official Letter) About Applicant’s Trademark Application
U.S. Application Serial No. 88425772
Mark: ARROW
|
|
Correspondence Address:
|
|
Applicant: Shenzhen Quawins Technology Co., ltd.
|
|
Reference/Docket No. TUS191962
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) and/or Electronic System for Trademark Trials and Appeals (ESTTA). A link to the appropriate TEAS response form and/or to ESTTA for an appeal appears at the end of this Office action.
Issue date: August 19, 2019
This Office action is in response to applicant’s communication filed on July 22, 2019.
In a previous Office action dated June 21, 2019, the trademark examining attorney refused registration of the applied-for mark based on the following: Trademark Act Section 2(d) for a likelihood of confusion with a registered mark.
The trademark examining attorney maintains and now makes FINAL the refusal in the summary of issues below. See 37 C.F.R. §2.63(b); TMEP §714.04.
SUMMARY OF ISSUES MADE FINAL that applicant must address:
SECTION 2(d) REFUSAL – LIKELIHOOD OF CONFUSION—MAINTAINED AND MADE FINAL
Registration of the applied-for mark is refused because of a likelihood of confusion with the mark in U.S. Registration No. 4278950. Trademark Act Section 2(d), 15 U.S.C. §1052(d); see TMEP §§1207.01 et seq. Registration previously sent.
Here, the applicant’s mark is ARROW with design for “Cartridges sold filled with chemical flavorings in liquid form for electronic cigarettes; Electronic cigarettes; Flavourings, other than essential oils, for use in electronic cigarettes; Liquid nicotine solutions for use in electronic cigarettes; Oral vaporizers for smokers” in Class 034.
The registrant’s mark is ARROW with design for “Cigarette lighters not for land vehicles” in Class 034.
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).
In this case, both marks contain the inherently distinctive wording ARROW, which is identical in appearance, sound, and overall commercial impression, namely referencing a “missile shot from a bow and usually having a slender shaft, a pointed head, and feathers at the butt”. See http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/arrow.
Furthermore, the applicant's mark also includes the design of an arrowhead symbol and the registrant's mark contains the design of horizontal stripes inside of a parallelogram. However, these additions are insufficient to obviate the similarities between the marks. Specifically, the designs are not so distinctive that consumers are likely to call for the goods by referencing them, nor do the designs otherwise alter the commercial impressions that the marks convey. When evaluating a composite mark consisting of words and a design, the word portion is normally accorded greater weight because it is likely to make a greater impression upon purchasers, be remembered by them, and be used by them to refer to or request the goods and/or services. In re Aquitaine Wine USA, LLC, 126 USPQ2d 1181, 1184 (TTAB 2018) (citing In re Viterra Inc., 671 F.3d 1358, 1362, 101 USPQ2d 1905, 1908 (Fed. Cir. 2012)); TMEP §1207.01(c)(ii). Thus, although marks must be compared in their entireties, the word portion is often considered the dominant feature and is accorded greater weight in determining whether marks are confusingly similar, even where the word portion has been disclaimed. In re Viterra Inc., 671 F.3d at 1366-67, 101 USPQ2d at 1911 (citing Giant Food, Inc. v. Nation’s Foodservice, Inc., 710 F.2d 1565, 1570-71, 218 USPQ2d 390, 395 (Fed. Cir. 1983)).
Thus, the wording ARROW remains the dominant element of the marks.
Applicant’s Argument
In response, applicant argues that because both marks contain a design and are not in standard characters, “there is no possibility for the specific design elements of the Applicant’s mark overlapping with the design elements of the Registrant’s mark.”
While the marks do have different designs, the word portion of the part is the same, namely the word Arrow, and as noted above the word portion of mark is normally accorded greater weight because it is likely to make a greater impression upon purchasers, be remembered by them, and be used by them to refer to or request the goods and/or services. In re Aquitaine Wine USA, LLC, 126 USPQ2d 1181, 1184 (TTAB 2018) (citing In re Viterra Inc., 671 F.3d 1358, 1362, 101 USPQ2d 1905, 1908 (Fed. Cir. 2012)); TMEP §1207.01(c)(ii).
For these reasons, when consumers encounter the parties' goods using marks with these similarities, they are likely to be confused as to the source of the goods. Therefore, the marks are confusingly similar.
Relatedness of the Goods
Here, the applicant's and registrant’s goods are closely related. Indeed, third parties routinely offer several of the applicant’s and registrant’s goods, including under the same mark. See e.g., http://www.atmosrx.com/atmos-vape-lighter (selling lighters and vaporizers under the same mark) and http://www.lighterusa.com/collections/vaporizers and http://www.lighterusa.com/collections/lighters (selling lighters and vaporizers at the same store) and http://www.hippiebutler.com/product/xvape-aria/ (selling lighters and vaporizers at the same store) and http://vaporgenie.com/lighters (Vaporgenie selling lighters and vaporizers under the same mark).
The undersigned attorney also has attached evidence from the Office's database of marks consisting of 10 third-party marks registered for use in connection with the same or similar goods as those of the applicant and registrant. See U.S. Registration Nos. 5791699, 5759029, 5556221, 5644147, 5331355, 5591750, 5506493, 5505780, 5410748 and 5123704. This evidence further shows that the goods identified therein are of a kind that may emanate from the same source under a single mark. See In re Anderson, 101 USPQ2d 1912, 1919 (TTAB 2012); In re Albert Trostel & Sons Co.,29 USPQ2d 1783, 1785-86 (TTAB 1993); In re Mucky Duck Mustard Co., 6 USPQ2d 1467, 1470 n.6 (TTAB 1988); TMEP §1207.01(d)(iii).
Collectively, this evidence demonstrates that the parties' goods are similar in nature and/or regularly travel in the same trade channels under the same mark. For these reasons, consumers are likely to mistakenly conclude that the goods emanate from the same source. Therefore, the goods are closely related.
Applicant’s Argument
In response, applicant deleted several of applicant’s goods and notes that the remaining goods are not related to the registrant’s goods. However, the Office has provided additional evidence as noted above demonstrating that the applicant’s goods are often sold at the same store, or under the same mark, as the registrant’s cigarette lighters.
Because the marks are confusingly similar and the goods are closely related, consumers are likely to be confused as to the source of the goods. Thus, registration is refused pursuant to Trademark Act Section 2(d).
TELEPHONE/EMAIL FOR CLARIFICATION RECOMMENDED
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 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 final Office action and/or appeal it to the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB).
/Collier L. Johnson II/
Examining Attorney
Law Office 123
571-270-0878
collier.johnson@uspto.gov
RESPONSE GUIDANCE