| To: | The ACL LLC (Lance@apollogrouplaw.com) |
| Subject: | U.S. Trademark Application Serial No. 88460381 - ACL - N/A |
| Sent: | August 28, 2019 02:00:53 PM |
| Sent As: | ecom115@uspto.gov |
| Attachments: | Attachment - 1 Attachment - 2 Attachment - 3 Attachment - 4 Attachment - 5 Attachment - 6 Attachment - 7 Attachment - 8 Attachment - 9 |
United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO)
Office Action (Official Letter) About Applicant’s Trademark Application
|
U.S. Application Serial No. 88460381
Mark: ACL
|
|
|
Correspondence Address: APOLLO SPORTS & ENTERTAINMENT LAW GROUP
|
|
|
Applicant: The ACL 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). A link to the appropriate TEAS response form appears at the end of this Office action.
Issue date: August 28, 2019
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.
INTRODUCTION
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.
LIKELIHOOD OF CONFUSION REFUSAL – CLASS 41
Registration of the applied-for mark is refused as to International Class 41 because of a likelihood of confusion with the marks in U.S. Registration Nos. 4531567, 4806309, and 4245814. Trademark Act Section 2(d), 15 U.S.C. §1052(d); see TMEP §§1207.01 et seq. See the enclosed registrations.
Trademark Act Section 2(d) bars registration of an applied-for mark that so resembles a registered mark that it is likely a potential consumer would be confused, mistaken, or deceived as to the source of the goods and/or services of the applicant and registrant. See 15 U.S.C. §1052(d). A determination of likelihood of confusion under Section 2(d) is made on a case-by case basis and the factors set forth in In re E. I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., 476 F.2d 1357, 177 USPQ 563 (C.C.P.A. 1973) aid in this determination. Citigroup Inc. v. Capital City Bank Grp., Inc., 637 F.3d 1344, 1349, 98 USPQ2d 1253, 1256 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (citing On-Line Careline, Inc. v. Am. Online, Inc., 229 F.3d 1080, 1085, 56 USPQ2d 1471, 1474 (Fed. Cir. 2000)). Not all the du Pont factors, however, are necessarily relevant or of equal weight, and any one of the factors may control in a given case, depending upon the evidence of record. Citigroup Inc. v. Capital City Bank Grp., Inc., 637 F.3d at 1355, 98 USPQ2d at 1260; In re Majestic Distilling Co., 315 F.3d 1311, 1315, 65 USPQ2d 1201, 1204 (Fed. Cir. 2003); see In re E. I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., 476 F.2d at 1361-62, 177 USPQ at 567.
In this case, the following factors are the most relevant: similarity of the marks, similarity and nature of the goods and/or services, and similarity of the trade channels of the goods and/or services. See In re Viterra Inc., 671 F.3d 1358, 1361-62, 101 USPQ2d 1905, 1908 (Fed. Cir. 2012); In re Dakin’s Miniatures Inc., 59 USPQ2d 1593, 1595-96 (TTAB 1999); TMEP §§1207.01 et seq.
Applicant seeks to register the mark ACL (special form) for, inter alia, “Entertainment services in the nature of organizing, conducting, arranging, and operating sports events, namely, cornhole games and exhibitions; Entertainment services in the nature of professional cornhole games and exhibitions rendered and through broadcast media, including television and radio, and via a global computer network or a commercial on-line service; Entertainment services in the nature or organizing, conducting, arranging, and operating sporting activities, namely, cornhole skills competitions and showcases; Entertainment services in the nature of live shows featuring cornhole games, exhibitions, competitions, and showcases; Informational services, namely, providing information in the field of cornhole; Entertainment services in the nature of development, creation, production, and post-production of multimedia entertainment.”
Registrant has registered the mark ACL for, inter alia, “Entertainment services by a musical artist and producer, namely, musical composition for others and production of musical sound recordings; Production of sound and music video recordings; Rental of facilities and equipment for the production of radio and television programs, musical and theatrical productions, namely, performance venues, studios, sets, dressing rooms; Entertainment, namely, live music concerts; Provision of information relating to live performances, road shows, live stage events, theatrical performances, live music concerts and audience participation in such events” and the mark ACL LIVE and the mark ACL LIVE (special form) both for, inter alia, “Entertainment services, namely in the nature of radio and television programs and concerts; radio and television program and concert production and distribution services. Entertainment services by a musical artist and producer, namely, musical composition for others and production of musical sound recordings; Production of sound and music video recordings; Rental of facilities and equipment for the production of radio and television programs, musical and theatrical productions, namely, performance venues, studios, sets, dressing rooms; Entertainment, namely, live music concerts; Provision of information relating to live performances, road shows, live stage events, theatrical performances, live music concerts and audience participation in such events.”
Comparison of the Marks
Marks are compared in their entireties for similarities in appearance, sound, connotation, and commercial impression. In re Viterra Inc., 671 F.3d 1358, 1362, 101 USPQ2d 1905, 1908 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (quoting 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). Similarity in any one of these elements may be sufficient to find the marks confusingly similar. In re White Swan Ltd., 8 USPQ2d 1534, 1535 (TTAB 1988); see In re 1st USA Realty Prof’ls, Inc., 84 USPQ2d 1581, 1586 (TTAB 2007); TMEP §1207.01(b).
Although not identical, the marks at issue are highly similar. Applicant’s mark, ACL, comprises the identical three letters that make up registrant’s first mark and the dominant portion of the registrant’s second and third marks.
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). Greater weight is often given to this dominant feature when determining whether marks are confusingly similar. See In re Nat’l Data Corp., 753 F.2d at 1058, 224 USPQ at 751.
Comparison of the Goods and/or Services
The goods and/or services of the parties 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) (“[E]ven if the goods in question are different from, and thus not related to, one another in kind, the same goods can be related in the mind of the consuming public as to the origin of the goods.”); TMEP §1207.01(a)(i).
The respective goods and/or services need only be “related in some manner and/or if the circumstances surrounding their marketing [be] 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)); Gen. Mills Inc. v. Fage Dairy Processing Indus. SA, 100 USPQ2d 1584, 1597 (TTAB 2011); TMEP §1207.01(a)(i).
Here, the services are closely related. Applicant and registrant both identify entertainment production services. Further, registrant’s “provision of information relating to live performances, road shows, live stage events, theatrical performances, live music concerts and audience participation in such events” is broadly identified and necessarily encompasses information regarding applicant’s entertainment services.
Additionally, the goods and/or services 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 and/or services are related.
Conclusion
Because the marks are highly similar and the services are closely related, consumers are likely to be confused as to the source of applicant’s services. Accordingly, registration must be refused under Section 2(d).
The overriding concern is not only to prevent buyer confusion as to the source of the goods and/or services, but to protect the registrant from adverse commercial impact due to use of a similar mark by a newcomer. See In re Shell Oil Co., 992 F.2d 1204, 1208, 26 USPQ2d 1687, 1690 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Therefore, any doubt regarding a likelihood of confusion determination is resolved in favor of the registrant. TMEP §1207.01(d)(i); see Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Packard Press, Inc., 281 F.3d 1261, 1265, 62 USPQ2d 1001, 1003 (Fed. Cir. 2002); In re Hyper Shoppes (Ohio), Inc., 837 F.2d 463, 464-65, 6 USPQ2d 1025, 1026 (Fed. Cir. 1988).
The stated refusal refers to International Class 41 only and does not bar registration in the other class. Applicant may respond to the stated refusal by submitting evidence and arguments against the refusal. In addition, applicant may respond by doing one of the following:
(1) Deleting the class to which the refusal pertains; or
(2) Filing a request to divide out the goods and/or services that have not been refused registration, so that the mark may proceed toward publication for opposition in the class to which the refusal does not pertain. See 37 C.F.R. §2.87. See generally TMEP §§1110 et seq. (regarding the requirements for filing a request to divide). If applicant files a request to divide, then to avoid abandonment, applicant must also file a timely response to all outstanding issues in this Office action, including the refusal. 37 C.F.R. §2.87(e).
MARK ON SPECIMEN DIFFERS FROM MARK IN DRAWING – CLASS 28
Registration is refused because the specimen does not show the mark in the drawing in use in commerce in International Class 28, which is required in the application or amendment to allege use. Trademark Act Sections 1 and 45, 15 U.S.C. §§1051, 1127; 37 C.F.R. §§2.34(a)(1)(iv), 2.56(a); TMEP §§904, 904.07(a), 1301.04(g)(i). The mark appearing on the specimen and in the drawing must match; that is, the mark in the drawing “must be a substantially exact representation of the mark” on the specimen. See 37 C.F.R. §2.51(a)-(b); TMEP §807.12(a).
In this case, the specimen displays the mark as the stylized letters “ACL” with line inside a black parallelogram with a stylized figure tossing a cornhole bag at the top. However, the drawing displays the mark without the stylized figure tossing a cornhole bag. Applicant has thus failed to provide the required evidence of use of the mark in commerce. See TMEP §807.12(a).
Applicant may respond to this refusal by satisfying one of the following:
(1) Submit a different specimen (a verified “substitute” specimen) for each applicable international class that (a) shows the mark in the drawing in actual use in commerce for the goods and/or services in the application or amendment to allege use, and (b) was in actual use in commerce at least as early as the filing date of the application or prior to the filing of an amendment to allege use.
Examples of specimens for goods include tags, labels, instruction manuals, containers, photographs that show the mark on the actual goods or packaging, and displays associated with the actual goods at their point of sale. See TMEP §§904.03 et seq. Webpages may also be specimens for goods when they include a picture or textual description of the goods associated with the mark and the means to order the goods. TMEP §904.03(i).
(2) Submit a request to amend the filing basis to intent to use under Section 1(b), for which no specimen is required. This option will later necessitate additional fee(s) and filing requirements such as providing a specimen.
The USPTO will not accept an amended drawing submitted in response to this refusal because the changes would materially alter the drawing of the mark in the original application or as previously acceptably amended. See 37 C.F.R. §2.72(a)-(b); TMEP §807.14. Specifically, the addition of a stylized figure tossing a cornhole bag creates an additional impression not present in the applied-for mark.
For more information about drawings and instructions on how to satisfy these response options online using the Trademark Electronic Application System (TEAS) form, see the Drawing webpage.
MARK ON SPECIMEN DIFFERS FROM MARK IN DRAWING – CLASS 41
Registration is refused because the specimen does not show the mark in the drawing in use in commerce in International Class 41, which is required in the application or amendment to allege use. Trademark Act Sections 1 and 45, 15 U.S.C. §§1051, 1127; 37 C.F.R. §§2.34(a)(1)(iv), 2.56(a); TMEP §§904, 904.07(a), 1301.04(g)(i). The mark appearing on the specimen and in the drawing must match; that is, the mark in the drawing “must be a substantially exact representation of the mark” on the specimen. See 37 C.F.R. §2.51(a)-(b); TMEP §807.12(a).
In this case, the specimen displays the mark in the colors red, white and gray. However, the drawing displays the mark in the colors black, white and gray. Applicant has thus failed to provide the required evidence of use of the mark in commerce. See TMEP §807.12(a).
Applicant may respond to this refusal by satisfying one of the following:
(1) Submit a new color drawing of the mark that shows the mark on the specimen and an amendment of the description and color claim that agrees with the new drawing. See 37 C.F.R. §2.72(b). Applicant may amend the mark in the drawing to match the mark on the specimen but may not make any other changes or amendments that would materially alter the drawing of the mark. See 37 C.F.R. §2.72(a)-(b); TMEP §807.14. The following color claim and description are suggested, if accurate:
“The colors red, white, and gray are claimed as a feature of the mark.”
“The mark consists of white stylized letters “ACL” with gray lines all within a red parallelogram that features a thin white outline.”
(2) Submit a new black-and-white drawing of the mark and an amendment deleting any color claim and modifying the description to delete any references to color. The following description is suggested, if accurate: “The mark consists of the stylized letters “ACL” within a parallelogram.” Applicant may amend the mark in the drawing to delete color but may not make any other changes or amendments that would materially alter the mark on the drawing. See 37 C.F.R. §2.72(a)-(b); TMEP §807.14.
(3) Submit a different specimen (a verified “substitute” specimen) for each applicable international class that (a) shows the mark in the drawing in actual use in commerce in the colors depicted on the drawing and for the goods and/or services in the application or amendment to allege use, and (b) in actual use in commerce at least as early as the filing date of the application or prior to the filing of an amendment to allege use.
Examples of specimens for services include advertising and marketing materials, brochures, photographs of business signage and billboards, and webpages that show the mark used in the actual sale, rendering, or advertising of the services. See TMEP §1301.04(a), (h)(iv)(C).
For more information about drawings and instructions on how to satisfy these response options online using the Trademark Electronic Application System (TEAS) form, see the Drawing webpage.
MARK DESCRIPTION
Applicant must submit an amended description of the mark because the current one is incomplete and does not describe all the significant aspects of the mark. 37 C.F.R. §2.37; see TMEP §§808.01, 808.02. A complete description must identify all the literal and design elements in the mark and specify where the colors appear in those elements. See 37 C.F.R. §§2.37, 2.52(b)(1); TMEP §§807.07(a) et seq. If black, white, and/or gray are not being claimed as a color feature of the mark, applicant must exclude them from the color claim and include in the description a statement that black, white, and/or gray represent background, outlining, shading, and/or transparent areas and are not part of the mark. See TMEP §807.07(d).
Thus, applicant may submit the following amended mark description for the drawing of record, if accurate:
“The mark consists of the white stylized letters “ACL” with gray lines all within a black parallelogram that features a thin white outline. The remaining black represents background and does not form part of the mark.”
IDENTIFICATION OF THE SERVICES – CLASS 41
Applicant must clarify some of the wording in the identification of services because it is indefinite and too broad. See 37 C.F.R. §2.32(a)(6); TMEP §§1402.01, 1402.03. This wording is indefinite because it does not make clear the exact nature of the services. Applicant must amend this wording to specify the common commercial or generic name of the services. See TMEP §1402.01. If the services have no common commercial or generic name, applicant must describe or explain the nature of the services using clear and succinct language. See id.
Wording in applicant’s proposed identification of services that should be deleted appears in strikethrough. Additional suggested wording appears in bolded italics. Please note that these forms of stylization are being used to provide guidance
in forming an acceptable amended identification; they should not be made part of any amendments offered by applicant in its response.
Applicant may adopt the following identification of services, if accurate:
“Entertainment services in the nature of organizing, conducting, arranging, and operating sports events, namely, cornhole games and exhibitions; Entertainment services in
the nature of professional cornhole games and exhibitions rendered and through broadcast via media, including television, and radio,
and via a global computer network or a commercial on-line service; Entertainment services in the nature or organizing, conducting, arranging, and operating sporting activities, namely,
cornhole skills competitions and showcases in the nature of live conhole performances; Entertainment services in the nature of live show performances shows featuring cornhole games, exhibitions, competitions, and showcases; Informational services, namely, providing information in the
field of community sporting and cultural activities, contests and games relating to cornhole; Entertainment services in the nature of development,
creation, production, and post-production of multimedia entertainment content;” in CLASS 41
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.
For information on how to identify the goods and services in an application, applicant is encouraged to view the USPTO’s Trademark Information Network Video number 6, “Goods and services.”
CLOSING
For this application to proceed, applicant must explicitly address each refusal and/or requirement 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.
Do not respond via e-mail; e-mail communication will not be accepted as a response to this Office action and will not extend the deadline for filing a proper response. See 37 C.F.R. §§2.62(c), 2.191; TMEP §§304.01-.02, 709.04-.05. How to respond: Click to file a response to this nonfinal Office action
Please telephone the undersigned with questions about this Office action.
/Tracy Fletcher/
Examining Attorney
Law Office 115
U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
Direct Dial: 571-272-9471
tracy.fletcher@uspto.gov
RESPONSE GUIDANCE
