To: | THE WINE GROUP LLC (paul@reidllaw.com) |
Subject: | U.S. Trademark Application Serial No. 88436213 - EXPLORA - N/A |
Sent: | September 10, 2019 12:20:56 PM |
Sent As: | ecom103@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 |
United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO)
Office Action (Official Letter) About Applicant’s Trademark Application
U.S. Application Serial No. 88436213
Mark: EXPLORA
|
|
Correspondence Address: |
|
Applicant: THE WINE GROUP LLC
|
|
Reference/Docket No. N/A
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: September 10, 2019
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)
This Office action is in response to applicant’s communication filed on August 20, 2019.
In a previous Office action(s) dated August 13, 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. In addition, applicant was required to satisfy the following requirement(s): translation required; additional processing fee required; attorney information required.
Based on applicant’s response, the trademark examining attorney notes that the following requirement(s) have been satisfied: translation required; additional processing fee required; attorney information required. See TMEP §§713.02, 714.04.
Further, the trademark examining attorney maintains and now makes FINAL the refusal(s) and/or requirement(s) 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) – Likelihood of Confusion Refusal
Trademark Act Section 2(d) bars registration of an applied-for mark that so resembles a registered mark that it is likely a consumer would be confused, mistaken, or deceived as to the source of the goods of the applicant and registrant(s). See 15 U.S.C. §1052(d). Determining likelihood of confusion is made 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). In re i.am.symbolic, llc, 866 F.3d 1315, 1322, 123 USPQ2d 1744, 1747 (Fed. Cir. 2017). However, “[n]ot all of the [du Pont] factors are relevant to every case, and only factors of significance to the particular mark need be considered.” Coach Servs., Inc. v. Triumph Learning LLC, 668 F.3d 1356, 1366, 101 USPQ2d 1713, 1719 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (quoting In re Mighty Leaf Tea, 601. F.3d 1342, 1346, 94 USPQ2d 1257, 1259 (Fed. Cir 2010)). The USPTO may focus its analysis “on dispositive factors, such as similarity of the marks and relatedness of the goods.” 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)); see TMEP §1207.01.
Applicant’s mark is “EXPLORA” for “Alcoholic beverages except beers; Wine”.
Registrant’s mark is “XPLORE” for “Wine”.
Comparison 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).
When comparing marks, “[t]he proper test is not a side-by-side comparison of the marks, but instead whether the marks are sufficiently similar in terms of their commercial impression such that [consumers] who encounter the marks would be likely to assume a connection between the parties.” Cai v. Diamond Hong, Inc., __ F.3d __, 127 USPQ2d 1797, 1801 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (quoting Coach Servs., Inc. v. Triumph Learning LLC, 668 F.3d 1356, 1368, 101 USPQ2d 1713, 1721 (Fed. Cir. 2012)); TMEP §1207.01(b). The proper focus is on the recollection of the average purchaser, who retains a general rather than specific impression of trademarks. In re Inn at St. John’s, LLC, 126 USPQ2d 1742, 1746 (TTAB 2018) (citing In re St. Helena Hosp., 774 F.3d 747, 750-51, 113 USPQ2d 1082, 1085 (Fed. Cir. 2014); Geigy Chem. Corp. v. Atlas Chem. Indus., Inc., 438 F.2d 1005, 1007, 169 USPQ 39, 40 (CCPA 1971)); TMEP §1207.01(b).
In the present case, applicant’s mark is “EXPLORA” and registrant’s mark is “XPLORE”.
In comparing the applied-for and registered marks, the marks are confusingly similar. Specifically, the marks not only look similar, but sound similar as well. Slight differences in the sound of similar marks will not avoid a likelihood of confusion. In re Energy Telecomm. & Elec. Ass’n, 222 USPQ 350, 351 (TTAB 1983); see In re Viterra Inc., 671 F.3d 1358, 1367, 101 USPQ2d 1905, 1912 (Fed. Cir. 2012).
Thus, the marks are similar in terms of appearance and sound. In addition, the connotation and commercial impression of the marks do not differ when considered in connection with applicant’s and registrant’s respective goods because, as demonstrated by the attached translation evidence, the literal and direct translation of the applied-for mark is “EXPLORE”.
Therefore, the marks are confusingly similar.
In response to the Office action, applicant has set forth two arguments with respect to the similarity of the marks: (1) the registered mark has not been considered as a whole; and (2) the applied-for mark creates a totally different commercial impression.
Applicant first argues that the registered mark has not been considered as a whole. Specifically, applicant alleges that applicant’s presentation of the mark as “XPlore” “dramatically changes the commercial impression of the mark from that assumed by the Examining Attorney.” Applicant’s argument is unpersuasive and its assertion that the examining attorney “assumed that the cited mark was XPLORE[]” is misplaced.
First, the registered mark consists of the single word “XPLORE”. Thus, the mark has been considered as a whole.
Furthermore, the registered mark appears in standard characters. A mark in typed or standard characters may be displayed in any lettering style; the rights reside in the wording or other literal element and not in any particular display or rendition. See In re Viterra Inc., 671 F.3d 1358, 1363, 101 USPQ2d 1905, 1909 (Fed. Cir. 2012); In re Mighty Leaf Tea, 601 F.3d 1342, 1348, 94 USPQ2d 1257, 1260 (Fed. Cir. 2010); 37 C.F.R. §2.52(a); TMEP §1207.01(c)(iii).
That registrant has chosen to display its standard character mark as “XPlore” does little to change the overall connotation or commercial impression of the mark. Registrant has just as much right to display its mark as “XPlore” as it does to display its mark as “XPLORE”. In fact, registrant’s specimen shows that its mark is displayed as “XPLORE” when used in commerce.
Therefore, applicant’s argument that the mark has not been considered as a whole is unpersuasive.
Applicant also argues that the applied-for mark creates a totally different commercial impression. Applicant’s argument is unpersuasive.
The applied-for mark may consist of a Spanish word. However, that the term appears in a foreign language does not create such a distinctively different commercial impression sufficient to obviate confusion. The marks “XPLORE” and “EXPLORA” are visually similar and sound very similar. As noted above, slight differences in the sound of similar marks will not avoid a likelihood of confusion.
Additionally, as noted in the Office action, the term “EXPLORA” translates to “EXPLORE”. Even if applicant’s translation is accepted, the applied-for and registered marks still share the same connotation and commercial impression. Therefore, applicant’s argument is unpersuasive.
In addition to the similarity of the marks themselves, the goods of the registrant and applicant are also similar.
Comparison of Goods
In the present case, applicant’s goods are “Alcoholic beverages except beers; Wine” and registrant’s goods are “wine”.
Thus, the goods are identical, and it is presumed that they move in all normal channels of trade and are available to all potential customers. 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, (a)(vi).
In this case, the application uses broad wording to describe alcoholic beverages except beer, which presumably encompasses all goods of the type described, including registrant’s more narrow wine. See, e.g., In re Solid State Design Inc., 125 USPQ2d 1409, 1412-15 (TTAB 2018); Sw. Mgmt., Inc. v. Ocinomled, Ltd., 115 USPQ2d 1007, 1025 (TTAB 2015). Thus, applicant’s and registrant’s goods are legally identical. See, e.g., In re i.am.symbolic, llc, 127 USPQ2d 1627, 1629 (TTAB 2018) (citing Tuxedo Monopoly, Inc. v.Gen. Mills Fun Grp., Inc., 648 F.2d 1335, 1336, 209 USPQ 986, 988 (C.C.P.A. 1981); Inter IKEA Sys. B.V. v. Akea, LLC, 110 USPQ2d 1734, 1745 (TTAB 2014); Baseball Am. Inc. v. Powerplay Sports Ltd., 71 USPQ2d 1844, 1847 n.9 (TTAB 2004)).
Additionally, the goods of the parties have no restrictions as to nature, type, channels of trade, or classes of purchasers and are “presumed to travel in the same channels of trade to the same class of purchasers.” In re Viterra Inc., 671 F.3d 1358, 1362, 101 USPQ2d 1905, 1908 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (quoting Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Packard Press, Inc., 281 F.3d 1261, 1268, 62 USPQ2d 1001, 1005 (Fed. Cir. 2002)). Thus, applicant’s and registrant’s goods are related.
Moreover, the trademark examining attorney has attached evidence from the USPTO’s X-Search database consisting of a number of third-party marks registered for use in connection with the same or similar goods as those of both applicant and registrant in this case. This evidence shows that the goods listed therein, namely alcoholic beverages except beers and wine, are of a kind that may emanate from a single source under a single mark. See In re I-Coat Co., 126 USPQ2d 1730, 1737 (TTAB 2018) (citing In re Infinity Broad. Corp., 60 USPQ2d 1214, 1217-18 (TTAB 2001); 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).
Accordingly, because the marks are confusingly similar, and because the goods of the applicant and registrant travel in the same channels of trade, the applied-for mark is refused because of a likelihood of confusion with the mark in U.S. Registration No. 5476011.
For the reasons set forth below, the refusal under Trademark Act Section 2(d) is now made FINAL with respect to U.S. Registration No(s). 5476011. See 15 U.S.C. §1052(d); 37 C.F.R. §2.63(b).
Assistance
If applicant has questions regarding this Office action, please telephone or e-mail the assigned trademark examining attorney.
/Daniel S. Stringer/
Trademark Examining Attorney
U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
Law Office 103
571.272.8975
daniel.stringer@uspto.gov
RESPONSE GUIDANCE