Offc Action Outgoing

United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO)

Office Action (Official Letter) About Applicant’s Trademark Application

 

 

 

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:  August 08, 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.

 

SUMMARY OF ISSUES:

 

• Section 2(d) Likelihood of Confusion Refusal - Partial
• Sections 1, 2, and 45 Refusal – Failure to Function as a Trademark – Name of  Performing Artist - Partial
• Amendment to the Identification of Goods and Services Required - Partial
• Partial Abandonment Advisory

 

SECTION 2(d) REFUSAL – LIKELIHOOD OF CONFUSION – PARTIAL

Applicant should note that the following refusal applies only to the goods identified as “Audio recordings featuring […] Podcasts,” and the refusal does not apply to applicant’s other goods and services as outlined in International Classes 9 and 41.

Registration of the applied-for mark is refused because of a likelihood of confusion with the mark in U.S. Registration No. 5040237.  Trademark Act Section 2(d), 15 U.S.C. §1052(d); see TMEP §§1207.01 et seq.  See the attached registration.

 

The applicant has applied for the standard character mark having the literal element “TOP FLIGHT” for the relevant goods identified as “Audio recordings featuring […] Podcasts.”

 

Registrant’s mark is “TOP FLIGHT FAMILY” in standard characters for goods and services identified as “Downloadable documents in the field of travel provided via a website; Downloadable electronic publications in the nature of articles, blogs and brochures in the field of travel; Digital materials, namely, articles, blogs and brochures featuring travel information” and “On-line journals, namely, blogs featuring articles and stories about travel, vacations, food, fashion and family life; Providing on-line non-downloadable articles in the field of family-friendly activities and travel tips; Providing a website featuring blogs and non-downloadable publications in the nature of articles in the field(s) of travel, travel tips, travel ideas, hotel reviews and family-friendly recreational activities.”

 

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

 

In a likelihood of confusion determination, the marks in their entireties are compared for similarities in appearance, sound, connotation, and commercial impression.  In re i.am.symbolic, llc, 866 F.3d 1315, 1323, 123 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2017); 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)); In re E. I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., 476 F.2d 1357, 1361, 177 USPQ 563, 567 (C.C.P.A. 1973); TMEP §1207.01(b)-(b)(v). 

 

With respect to registrant’s mark, although marks are compared in their entireties, one feature of a mark may be more significant or dominant in creating a commercial impression.  See In re Viterra Inc., 671 F.3d 1358, 1362, 101 USPQ2d 1905, 1908 (Fed. Cir. 2012); In re Nat’l Data Corp., 753 F.2d 1056, 1058, 224 USPQ 749, 751 (Fed. Cir. 1985); TMEP §1207.01(b)(viii), (c)(ii).  Disclaimed matter that is descriptive of or generic for a party’s goods and/or services is typically less significant or less dominant when comparing marks.  In re Detroit Athletic Co., 903 F.3d 1297, 1305, 128 USPQ2d 1047, 1050 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (citing In re Dixie Rests., Inc., 105 F.3d 1405, 1407, 41 USPQ2d 1531, 1533-34 (Fed. Cir. 1997)); TMEP §1207.01(b)(viii), (c)(ii). Therefore, as registrant has disclaimed the term “FAMILY” as being descriptive of registrant’s goods and services, the dominant element of registrant’s mark is the term “TOP FLIGHT.”

 

In that regard, applicant’s mark is “TOP FLIGHT” and the dominant element of registrant’s mark is “TOP FLIGHT.”  Therefore, applicant’s mark and the dominant element of registrant’s mark 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/or services.  Id.

 

Although applicant’s mark does not contain the entirety of the registered mark, applicant’s mark is likely to appear to prospective purchasers as a shortened form of registrant’s mark.  See In re Mighty Leaf Tea, 601 F.3d 1342, 1348, 94 USPQ2d 1257, 1260 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (quoting United States Shoe Corp., 229 USPQ 707, 709 (TTAB 1985)).  Thus, merely omitting some of the wording from a registered mark may not overcome a likelihood of confusion.  See In re Mighty Leaf Tea, 601 F.3d 1342, 94 USPQ2d 1257; In re Optica Int’l, 196 USPQ 775, 778 (TTAB 1977); TMEP §1207.01(b)(ii)-(iii).  In this case, applicant’s mark does not create a distinct commercial impression from the registered mark because it contains some of the wording in the registered mark and does not add any wording that would distinguish it from that mark as applicant’s mark merely deletes the term “FAMILY” from registrant’s mark.

 

As both applicant’s and registrant’s marks are substantially similar in sound, appearance, meaning, and overall commercial impression, the marks are considered similar for likelihood of confusion purposes.

 

RELATEDNESS OF THE GOODS AND SERVICES

 

In addition to the marks being substantially similar, the goods and services in this comparison are also related.

 

The goods and/or services are compared to determine whether they are similar, commercially related, or travel in the same trade channels.  See Coach Servs., Inc. v. Triumph Learning LLC, 668 F.3d 1356, 1369-71, 101 USPQ2d 1713, 1722-23 (Fed. Cir. 2012); Herbko Int’l, Inc. v. Kappa Books, Inc., 308 F.3d 1156, 1165, 64 USPQ2d 1375, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2002); TMEP §§1207.01, 1207.01(a)(vi).

 

The compared goods and/or services need not be identical or even competitive to find a likelihood of confusion.  See On-line Careline Inc. v. Am. Online Inc., 229 F.3d 1080, 1086, 56 USPQ2d 1471, 1475 (Fed. Cir. 2000); Recot, Inc. v. Becton, 214 F.3d 1322, 1329, 54 USPQ2d 1894, 1898 (Fed. Cir. 2000); TMEP §1207.01(a)(i).  They need only be “related in some manner and/or if the circumstances surrounding their marketing are such that they could give rise to the mistaken belief that [the goods and/or services] emanate from the same source.”  Coach Servs., Inc. v. Triumph Learning LLC, 668 F.3d 1356, 1369, 101 USPQ2d 1713, 1722 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (quoting 7-Eleven Inc. v. Wechsler, 83 USPQ2d 1715, 1724 (TTAB 2007)); TMEP §1207.01(a)(i).

 

In that regard, applicant’s relevant goods relate to audio recordings in the nature of podcasts without indication of the subject matter of such podcasts, and as such, these goods may feature the same subject matter featured through applicant’s publications, blogs and websites. In that regard, the attached Internet evidence, consisting of webpages from www.amateurtraveler.com, www.gobyb.com, and www.indietravelpodcast.com, establishes that the same entity commonly provides the relevant goods and/or services and markets the goods and/or services under the same mark.  Thus, applicant’s and registrant’s goods and/or services 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). See the attached internet evidence demonstrating that podcasts commonly emanate from the same source as blogs, publications, and websites relating to a particular subject matter such as travel, food, and family friendly activities.

 

Thus, the parties’ respective goods are related for likelihood of confusion purposes.

 

Upon encountering either applicant’s mark “TOP FLIGHT” or registrant’s mark “TOP FLIGHT FAMILY” as used in connection with the relevant goods and services, consumers are likely to be confused and mistakenly believe that the goods and services emanate from a single source. As such, applicant’s mark must be refused registration.

 

Applicant should note the following additional ground for refusal.

 

SECTIONS 1, 2, AND 45 REFUSAL - FAILURE TO FUNCTION AS A TRADEMARK – NAME OF A PERFORMING ARTIST – PARTIAL

 

Applicant should note that the following refusal pertains only to those goods recited in International Class 9 and does not pertain to those services identified in International Class 41.

 

Registration is refused because the applied-for mark, as used on the specimen of record, merely identifies the name of a featured performer(s) on a sound recording; it does not function as a trademark to indicate the source of applicant’s goods and to identify and distinguish them from others.  Trademark Act Sections 1, 2 and 45, 15 U.S.C. §§1051-1052, 1127; see In re Polar Music Int’l AB, 714 F.2d 1567, 1572, 221 USPQ 315, 318 (Fed. Cir. 1983); In re Arnold, 105 USPQ2d 1953, 1957 (TTAB 2013).  Sound recordings include musical and other performances presented in recorded or electronic form.  See TMEP §1202.09(a). Specifically, the specimens of record demonstrate that the applied-for mark “TOP FLIGHT” is the name of a performing artist featured by the applied-for sound recording goods.

 

Applicant may respond to this refusal by satisfying one of the following:

 

            (1) Submitting evidence that (a) the name is used on a series of sound recordings, and (b) the name is promoted and recognized by others as the source of the series of sound recordings.  See In re Arnold, 105 USPQ2d at 1958; TMEP §1202.09(a)-(a)(ii)(A).  Evidence of a series includes copies or photographs of at least two different CD covers or similar packaging for recorded works that show the name sought to be registered.  TMEP §1202.09(a)(i); see In re Polar Music Int’l AB, 714 F.2d at 1572, 221 USPQ at 318.  Evidence that the name is promoted and recognized by others as a source of the series includes advertising that promotes the name as the source of the series, third-party reviews showing use of the name by others to refer to the series, and/or declarations from the sound recording industry, retailers, and purchasers showing recognition of the name as an indicator of the source of a series of recordings.  TMEP §1202.09(a)(ii)(A); cf. In re First Draft, Inc., 76 USPQ2d 1183, 1191 (TTAB 2005); In re Scholastic, Inc., 23 USPQ2d 1774, 1777-78 (TTAB 1992).

 

            (2) Submitting evidence that (a) the name is used on a series of sound recordings, and (b) the performer controls the quality of the recordings and controls the use of the name, such that the name has come to represent an assurance of quality to the public.  See In re Polar Music Int’l AB, 714 F.2d at 1572, 221 USPQ at 318; In re Arnold, 105 USPQ2d at 1958; TMEP §1202.09(a)-(a)(ii), (a)(ii)(B).  Evidence of a series includes copies or photographs of at least two different CD covers or similar packaging for recorded works that show the name sought to be registered.  TMEP §1202.09(a)(i); see In re Polar Music Int’l AB, 714 F.2d at 1572, 221 USPQ at 318.  Evidence of control over the quality of the recordings and use of the name includes licensing contracts or similar documentation.  TMEP §1202.09(a)(ii)(B); see In re Polar Music Int’l AB, 714 F.2d at 1568-72, 221 USPQ at 316-18.  However, if the sound recordings are recorded directly under applicant’s control, applicant may submit solely as evidence of control the following statement, verified with an affidavit or signed declaration under 37 C.F.R. §2.20:  “The applicant produces the goods and controls their quality.”  TMEP §1202.09(a)(ii)(B); see 37 C.F.R. §2.193(e)(1).

 

            (3) Amending the application to seek registration on the Supplemental Register.  Trademark Act Section 23, 15 U.S.C. §1091; see 37 C.F.R. §§2.47, 2.75(a); TMEP §§816, 1202.09(a).

 

If applicant cannot satisfy one of the above requirements, applicant may amend the application from a use in commerce basis under Trademark Act Section 1(a) to an intent to use basis under Section 1(b), and the refusal will be withdrawn.  See TMEP §806.03(c).  However, if applicant amends the basis to Section 1(b), registration will not be granted until applicant later amends the application back to use in commerce by filing an acceptable allegation of use along with satisfying one of the above requirements.  See 15 U.S.C. §1051(c), (d); 37 C.F.R. §§2.76, 2.88; TMEP §1103.  If the same specimen is submitted with an allegation of use, and applicant does not either provide the additional evidence described above or amend to the Supplemental Register, the same refusal will issue.

 

To amend to Section 1(b), applicant must submit the following statement, verified with an affidavit or signed declaration under 37 C.F.R. §2.20:  “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 filing date of the application.”  37 C.F.R. §2.34(a)(2); TMEP §806.01(b); see 15 U.S.C. §1051(b); 37 C.F.R. §§2.35(b)(1), 2.193(e)(1).

 

Although applicant’s mark has been refused registration, applicant may respond to the refusals by submitting evidence and arguments in support of registration.  However, if applicant responds to the refusal(s), applicant must also respond to the requirement(s) set forth below.

 

AMENDMENT TO THE IDENTIFICATION OF GOODS AND SERVICES – PARTIAL INTERNATIONAL CLASS 9 ONLY

 

The following applies to only the entries identified below in International Class 9. Applicant should note that the services as recited in International Class 41 are acceptable as currently identified.

 

The wording “Audio recordings featuring Music, Podcasts” in the identification of goods is indefinite and must be clarified because the wording “podcasts” must identify the subject matter of these goods.  See 37 C.F.R. §2.32(a)(6); TMEP §1402.01. 

 

Full Suggested Identifications

 

In the recommendations below, the examining attorney sought to offer comprehensive proposals in instances where the identification of goods or recitations of services require clarification. Applicant is not required to accept these proposals, but any further changes must be within the scope of the identifications set out in the application. Please see below for a more thorough discussion.

 

Suggested amendments appear below. Please note that the suggestions are in bold, explanatory information is in brackets, suggested removal of language is in strikethrough typeface and notations are in italicized parentheses.

 

Applicant may substitute the following wording if acceptable and accurate:

 

In Class 9:

 

Audio recordings featuring music and podcasts in the field of {specify subject matter of podcasts, e.g., music, gaming, etc.}; Compact discs featuring music; Digital music downloadable from the Internet; Digital media, namely, pre-recorded DVDs, downloadable audio and video recordings, and CDs featuring and promoting music; Downloadable MP3 files and MP3 recordings featuring music; Downloadable MP3 files, MP3 recordings, on-line discussion board posts, webcasts, webinars and podcasts, news, and audio books in the field of music; Downloadable musical sound recordings; Downloadable ring tones, graphics and music via a global computer network and wireless devices; Downloadable Music via the internet and wireless devices

 

In Class 41: (no changes)

 

Entertainment services in the nature of live musical performances; Entertainment services, namely, live appearances by a musician; Entertainment services, namely, personal appearances by a musician; Entertainment services, namely, televised appearances by a musician; Entertainment, namely, live music concerts; Entertainment, namely, live performances by a musical band

 

Scope Advisory and Identification of Manual Reference

 

Applicant may amend the identification to clarify or limit the goods and/or services, but not to broaden or expand the goods and/or services beyond those in the original application or as acceptably amended.  See 37 C.F.R. §2.71(a); TMEP §1402.06.  Generally, any deleted goods and/or services may not later be reinserted.  See TMEP §1402.07(e).

 

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.

 

PARTIAL ABANDONMENT ADVISORY

 

If applicant does not respond to this Office action within the six-month period for response, International Class 9 will be deleted from the application.  The application will then proceed with International Class 41 only.  See 37 C.F.R. §2.65(a)-(a)(1); TMEP §718.02(a).

 

COMMUNICATIONS WITH THE TRADEMARK OFFICE

 

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(s) and/or requirement(s) 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  

 

 

Lauren Roncoroni

/Lauren Roncoroni/

Trademark Examining Attorney

Law Office 109

Phone: (571) 270-5661

Lauren.Roncoroni@uspto.gov

 

 

RESPONSE GUIDANCE

• Missing the response deadline to this letter will cause the application to abandon.  A response or notice of appeal must be received by the USPTO before midnight Eastern Time of the last day of the response period.  TEAS and ESTTA maintenance or unforeseen circumstances could affect an applicant’s ability to timely respond.  

 

• Responses signed by an unauthorized party are not accepted and can cause the application to abandon.  If applicant does not have an attorney, the response must be signed by the individual applicant, all joint applicants, or someone with legal authority to bind a juristic applicant.  If applicant has an attorney, the response must be signed by the attorney.

 

• If needed, find contact information for the supervisor of the office or unit listed in the signature block.

 

United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO)

 

USPTO OFFICIAL NOTICE

 

Office Action (Official Letter) has issued

on August 08, 2019 for

U.S. Trademark Application Serial No. 88428482

 

Your trademark application has been reviewed by a trademark examining attorney.  As part of that review, the assigned attorney has issued an official letter that you must respond to by the specified deadline or your application will be abandoned.  Please follow the steps below.

 

(1)  Read the official letter.

 

(2)  Direct questions about the contents of the Office action to the assigned attorney below. 

 

 

Lauren Roncoroni

/Lauren Roncoroni/

Trademark Examining Attorney

Law Office 109

Phone: (571) 270-5661

Lauren.Roncoroni@uspto.gov

 

Direct questions about navigating USPTO electronic forms, the USPTO website, the application process, the status of your application, and/or whether there are outstanding deadlines or documents related to your file to the Trademark Assistance Center (TAC).

 

(3)  Respond within 6 months (or earlier, if required in the Office action) from August 08, 2019, using the Trademark Electronic Application System (TEAS).  The response must be received by the USPTO before midnight Eastern Time of the last day of the response period.  See the Office action for more information about how to respond.

 

 

 

GENERAL GUIDANCE

·       Check the status of your application periodically in the Trademark Status & Document Retrieval (TSDR) database to avoid missing critical deadlines.

 

·       Update your correspondence email address, if needed, to ensure you receive important USPTO notices about your application.

 

·       Beware of misleading notices sent by private companies about your application.  Private companies not associated with the USPTO use public information available in trademark registrations to mail and email trademark-related offers and notices – most of which require fees.  All official USPTO correspondence will only be emailed from the domain “@uspto.gov.”