Suspension Letter

United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO)

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

 

 

 

SUSPENSION NOTICE

No Response Required

 

 

Issue date:  April 01, 2020

 

 

The application is suspended for the reason(s) specified below.  See 37 C.F.R. §2.67; TMEP §§716 et seq. 

 

The pending application(s) below has an earlier filing date or effective filing date than applicant’s application.  If the mark in the application(s) below registers, the USPTO may refuse registration of applicant’s mark under Section 2(d) because of a likelihood of confusion with the registered mark(s). 15 U.S.C. §1052(d); see 37 C.F.R. §2.83; TMEP §§1208.02(c). Action on this application is suspended until the prior-filed application(s) below either registers or abandons.  37 C.F.R. §2.83(c).  Information relevant to the application(s) below was sent previously.

 

            - U.S. Application Serial No(s). 86257475 (now Reg. No. 5984571), 86291191, 86386047 & 88370153

 

Refusal(s) and/or requirement(s) resolved and maintained and continued.  The following refusal(s) and/or requirement(s) is/are obviated: 

 

            •  Section 2(d) Refusal as to Reg. Nos. 4314920 & 4355601 (now cancelled)

            •  Prior-filed application advisories re: Ser. Nos. 86819428, 86819445, 86819468, 88238211 & 88409039 (now all abandoned)

 

See TMEP §713.02.

 

The following refusal(s) and/or requirement(s) is/are maintained and continued: 

 

•  Section 2(d) Refusal as to Reg. Nos.  4537908, 4572603, 4529746, 4564379, 3862142, 4035777, 4176105, 4361690, 4455269, 3532627, 4543712, 4836986, 4314478, 4177191, 4314930, 4314931, 5161347, 5448731, 5428637, 4695868, 4937568, 5715751, 5715752, 5188070, 5273961, 4814903, 5028678, 5387349, 5387883 & 5396184.

 

See id.  These refusal(s) and/or requirement(s) will be made final once this application is removed from suspension, unless a new issue arises.  See TMEP §716.01.

 

 

SECTION 2(d) REFUSAL – LIKELIHOOD OF CONFUSION

The trademark examining attorney maintains the refusal to the applied-for mark because of a likelihood of confusion with the marks in U.S. Registration Nos. 4537908, 4572603, 4529746, 4564379, 3862142, 4035777, 4176105, 4361690, 4455269, 3532627, 4543712, 4836986, 4314478, 4177191, 4314930, 4314931, 5161347, 5448731, 5428637, 4695868, 4937568, 5715751, 5715752, 5188070, 5273961, 4814903, 5028678, 5387349, 5387883 & 5396184.  Trademark Act Section 2(d), 15 U.S.C. §1052(d); see TMEP §§1207.01 et seq.  Please reference the registrations made of record in the Office Action dated August 22, 2019.

 

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).  Any evidence of record related to those factors need be considered; however, “not all of the DuPont factors are relevant or of similar weight in every case.”  In re Guild Mortg. Co., 912 F.3d 1376, 1379, 129 USPQ2d 1160, 1162 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (quoting In re Dixie Rests., Inc., 105 F.3d 1405, 1406, 41 USPQ2d 1531, 1533 (Fed. Cir. 1997)).

 

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 trademark examining attorney incorporates by reference all of the relevant arguments and evidence made of record in the Office Action dated August 22, 2019 and further submits the following: 

 

In its response to the Office Action, applicant submits generally that registrant’s goods were acquired through “fraud by impersonation and criminal impersonations, [and] hence, neither they enjoy the protection provided by the Trademark Act of 1946 nor their cancellation is governed by this provisions of the said Act…” and further submits specific claims/evidence to support its position.  Further, applicant submits generally that Beats Electronics (owner of the cited registrations) is no longer a business entity and thus, can no longer hold/own the cited trademark registrations.  Please reference applicant’s response to the Office Action dated February 21, 2020.  The trademark examining attorney has considered applicant’s arguments and found the foregoing unpersuasive. 

 

The trademark examining submits that a trademark or service mark registration on the Principal Register is prima facie evidence of the validity of the registration and the registrant’s exclusive right to use the mark in commerce in connection with the specified goods and/or services.  See 15 U.S.C. §1057(b); TMEP §1207.01(d)(iv).

 

Thus, evidence and arguments that constitute a collateral attack on a cited registration, such as information or statements regarding a registrant’s nonuse of its mark, business entity dissolution or other similar claim(s) are not relevant during ex parte prosecution.  See In re Dixie Rests., 105 F.3d 1405, 1408, 41 USPQ2d 1531, 1534-35 (Fed. Cir. 1997); In re Peebles Inc., 23 USPQ2d 1795, 1797 n.5 (TTAB 1992); TMEP §1207.01(d)(iv).  Such evidence and arguments may, however, be pertinent to a formal proceeding before the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board to cancel the cited registration(s) instituted by an applicant or other third party.

 

Further, the trademark examining attorney submits that the presumption under Trademark Act Section 7(b) is that the registrant is the owner of the mark and that their use of the mark extends to all goods and/or services identified in the registration.  15 U.S.C. §1057(b).  In the absence of limitations as to channels of trade or classes of purchasers in the goods and/or services in the registration, the presumption is that the goods and/or services move in all trade channels normal for such goods and/or services and are available to all potential classes of ordinary consumers of such goods and/or services.  See In re I-Coat Co., 126 USPQ2d 1730, 1737 (TTAB 2018); In re Melville Corp., 18 USPQ2d 1386, 1388 (TTAB 1991); TMEP §1207.01(a)(iii).

 

Based on the foregoing, the trademark examining attorney maintains that a likelihood of confusion exists between applicant's mark and the cited registration(s) and registration is refused under Section 2(d) of the Trademark Act. 

 

The trademark examining attorney reserves and maintains the right to more fully address applicant’s arguments and evidence if and when a further and/or final Office Action issues pending the disposition of the prior-pending cited applications.

 

 

 

RESPONSE GUIDELINES

 

Suspension process.  The USPTO will periodically check this application to determine if it should remain suspended.  See TMEP §716.04.  As needed, the trademark examining attorney will issue a letter to applicant to inquire about the status of the reason for the suspension.  TMEP §716.05. 

 

No response required.  Applicant may file a response, but is not required to do so. 

 

 

/Erin Z. Dyer/

Erin Zaskoda Dyer

Trademark Examining Attorney

Law Office 130/TM Innovation Lab

(571) 272-9740

erin.dyer@uspto.gov (preferred)

 

 

 

United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO)

 

USPTO OFFICIAL NOTICE

 

Office Action (Official Letter) has issued

on April 01, 2020 for

U.S. Trademark Application Serial No. 88454319

 

Your trademark application has been reviewed by a trademark examining attorney.  As part of that review, the assigned attorney has issued an official letter.  Please follow the steps below.

 

(1)  Read the official letter.  No response is necessary.

 

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

 

/Erin Z. Dyer/

Erin Zaskoda Dyer

Trademark Examining Attorney

Law Office 130/TM Innovation Lab

(571) 272-9740

erin.dyer@uspto.gov (prefer

 

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).

 

 

 

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.”