To: | Zhang, Zhanjiang (trademarks@branding-law.com) |
Subject: | U.S. Trademark Application Serial No. 88444155 - FOXBACKDROP - N/A |
Sent: | August 16, 2019 11:39:22 AM |
Sent As: | ecom121@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 Attachment - 43 Attachment - 44 Attachment - 45 Attachment - 46 Attachment - 47 Attachment - 48 Attachment - 49 |
United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO)
Office Action (Official Letter) About Applicant’s Trademark Application
U.S. Application Serial No. 88444155
Mark: FOXBACKDROP
|
|
Correspondence Address: 1300 PENNSYLVANIA AVE., N.W.; STE. 700
|
|
Applicant: Zhang, Zhanjiang
|
|
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). A link to the appropriate TEAS response form appears at the end of this Office action.
Issue date: August 16, 2019
The referenced application has been reviewed by the assigned trademark examining attorney. Applicant must respond timely and completely to the issue 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
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 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. 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.
Here, there is a likelihood of confusion because the marks are similar and the goods are related.
Similarity of the Marks
In this case, the marks share the term “FOX”, giving the marks a similar sound, appearance, and connotation, thus creating a similar overall commercial impression.
Additionally, 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 Detroit Athletic Co., 903 F.3d 1297, 1305, 128 USPQ2d 1047, 1050 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (citing In re Dixie Rests., 105 F.3d 1405, 1407, 41 USPQ2d 1531, 1533-34 (Fed. Cir. 1997)); TMEP §1207.01(b)(viii), (c)(ii). Greater weight is often given to this dominant feature when determining whether marks are confusingly similar. See In re Detroit Athletic Co., 903 F.3d at 1305, 128 USPQ2d at 1050 (citing In re Dixie Rests., 105 F.3d at 1407, 41 USPQ2d at 1533-34).
In this case, “FOX”, as the only word in the registration and the first word in applicant’s mark, is the dominant feature in each of the marks. Specifically, consumers are generally more inclined to focus on the first word, prefix, or syllable in any trademark or service mark. See Palm Bay Imps., Inc. v. Veuve Clicquot Ponsardin Maison Fondee En 1772, 396 F.3d 1369, 1372, 73 USPQ2d 1689, 1692 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (finding similarity between VEUVE ROYALE and two VEUVE CLICQUOT marks in part because “VEUVE . . . remains a ‘prominent feature’ as the first word in the mark and the first word to appear on the label”); Century 21 Real Estate Corp. v. Century Life of Am., 970 F.2d 874, 876, 23 USPQ2d 1698, 1700 (Fed Cir. 1992) (finding similarity between CENTURY 21 and CENTURY LIFE OF AMERICA in part because “consumers must first notice th[e] identical lead word”); see also In re Detroit Athletic Co., 903 F.3d 1297, 1303, 128 USPQ2d 1047, 1049 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (finding “the identity of the marks’ two initial words is particularly significant because consumers typically notice those words first”).
In the present case, the identification of goods in the application shows that the wording “BACKDROP” in the applied-for mark is merely descriptive of or generic for applicant’s “textile backdrops.” Thus, this wording is less significant in terms of affecting the mark’s commercial impression, and renders the wording “FOX” the more dominant element of the mark.
Furthermore, 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. 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)). Here, the word “FOX” in registrant’s mark is the more dominant feature because consumers are likely to use this term to refer to or request the goods, thus, the fox design element will not obviate the similarities between the marks.
Accordingly, consumers are likely to use the similar term, FOX, as the source identifier for applicant’s and registrant’s goods, causing a likelihood of confusion as to the source of the goods.
Similarity of the Goods
Applicant’s goods are “baby blankets; backdrops comprised of polymeric material being a textile substitute for use in photography; calico; canvas and muslin backdrops for use in photographic and video production; polyester fabric; printed calico cloth; textile backdrops for use in photography; textile backdrops for use in photography comprised in whole or substantial part of nylon and cotton featuring scenes of cityscapes and background scenery; textile backdrops for use in photography featuring scenes of cityscapes and background scenery; textile backdrops for use in photography comprised in whole or substantial part of nylon and cotton” in International Class 24.
Registrant’s relevant goods are “textiles and textile goods, not included in other classes, namely, bed covers, plastic table covers; bath linen, except clothing; bed blankets; bed clothes, namely, bed covers of paper; bed linen; bedspreads; billiard cloth; brocades; buckram; cloth bunting; calico; printed calico cloth; canvas for tapestry or embroidery; cheese cloth; chenille fabric; cheviots cloth; table linen; cloth coasters; fabrics for textile use; face towels of textile; felt; filtering materials of textile, namely, mosquito nets; cloth flags,; fabric flannel; sanitary flannel; fabric for footwear, namely, fabric for boots and shoes; frieze cloth; unfitted furniture coverings of textile, namely, plastic; fustian; gauze fabric; glass cloths towels; gummed waterproof cloth, other than for stationery; haircloth, namely, sackcloth; handkerchiefs of textile; textile used as lining for clothing, namely, hat linings; hemp cloth; hemp yarn fabric; household linen; jersey fabric for clothing; jute fabric; knitted fabric; labels of cloth; linen cloth; household linen; lingerie fabric; linen lining fabric for shoes; marabouts cloth; textile material, namely, ribbons of textile materials; mattress covers; moleskin fabric not for medical use; napkins of cloth for removing make-up; table napkins of textile; net curtains; non-woven textile fabrics; oilcloth for use as tablecloths; pillow shams; pillowcases; place mats, not of paper; printers' blankets of textile; quilts; ramie fabric; rayon fabric; travelling rugs, namely, lap robes; fabric table runners; serviettes of textile; shrouds; silk cloth; silk fabrics for printing patterns; [ sleeping bags in the nature of sheeting; ] table linen, not of paper; taffeta cloth; tapestry-style wall hangings of textile. futon ticks, namely, unstuffed futon covers not of paper; tulle of textile; traced cloths for embroidery; upholstery fabrics; velvet; wall hangings of textile; washing mitts; woollen cloth; woollen fabric; zephyr fabric” in International Class 24.
In this case, the goods listed as “calico” and “printed calico cloth” in the application and registration are identical. Therefore, it is presumed that the channels of trade and class of purchasers are the same for these goods. See Cai v. Diamond Hong, Inc., __ F.3d __, 27 USPQ2d 1797, 1801 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (quoting In re Viterra Inc., 671 F.3d 1358, 1362, 101 USPQ2d 1905, 1908 (Fed. Cir. 2012)). Thus, applicant’s and registrant’s goods are related.
The registration uses broad wording to describe “fabrics for textile use,” “tapestry-style wall hangings of textile,” and “wall hangings of textile” which presumably encompasses all goods of the type described, including applicant’s more narrow “backdrops comprised of polymeric material being a textile substitute for use in photography; canvas and muslin backdrops for use in photographic and video production; textile backdrops for use in photography; textile backdrops for use in photography comprised in whole or substantial part of nylon and cotton featuring scenes of cityscapes and background scenery; textile backdrops for use in photography featuring scenes of cityscapes and background scenery; textile backdrops for use in photography comprised in whole or substantial part of nylon and cotton.” 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 discussed above are related.
Accordingly, the applicant’s mark is similar to the registered mark, and the goods of the parties are related in such a way that there would be a likelihood of confusion as to the source of the goods. Therefore, registration is refused under Trademark Section 2(d).
RESPONSE TO OFFICE ACTION
Response guidelines. For this application to proceed, applicant must explicitly address each refusal in this Office action. For a refusal, applicant may provide written arguments and evidence against the refusal, and may have other response options if specified above. For a requirement, applicant should set forth the changes or statements. Please see “Responding to Office Actions” and the informational video “Response to Office Action” for more information and tips on responding.
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
/Omolayo Adebayo/
Examining Attorney
United States Patent and Trademark Office
Law Office 121
Tel: (571) 272-4711
Email: Omolayo.Adebayo@uspto.gov
RESPONSE GUIDANCE