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 05, 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:

• Likelihood of Confusion
• Prior Pending Application
• Description of Goods

 

Likelihood of Confusion

Registration of the applied-for mark is refused because of a likelihood of confusion with the marks in U.S. Registration Nos. 5057706, 4327923, 2484723, 3765992, 0890813, 1167171.  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 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.

 

Here, the marks are:

 

PANTHER

PANTHER (4 cited marks)

PANTERA

PB PANTHER BRAKE U.S.A. and design

 

Applicant’s mark is identical to those in registrations 4327923, 2484723, 3765992 and 0890813.

 

Applicant’s mark is visually similar to PANTERA as each mark begins with PANT.  Additionally, the marks are equivalent in meaning as the registered mark translates to “panther” per the registration information and attached translation page.  Under the doctrine of foreign equivalents, a mark in a common, modern foreign language and a mark that is its English equivalent may be held confusingly similar.  TMEP §1207.01(b)(vi); see, e.g., In re Aquamar, Inc., 115 USPQ2d 1122, 1127-28 (TTAB 2015); In re Thomas, 79 USPQ2d 1021, 1025 (TTAB 2006).  Consequently, marks comprised of foreign wording are translated into English to determine similarity in meaning and connotation with English word marks.  See Palm Bay Imps., Inc. v. Veuve Clicquot Ponsardin Maison Fondee en 1772, 396 F.3d 1369, 1377, 73 USPQ2d 1689, 1696 (Fed. Cir. 2005).  Equivalence in meaning and connotation may be sufficient to find such marks confusingly similar.  See In re Aquamar, Inc., 115 USPQ2d at 1127-28; In re Thomas, 79 USPQ2d at 1025.

 

The registrant’s mark is in Spanish which is a common, modern language in the United States.  See In re Aquamar, Inc., 115 USPQ2d 1122 (Spanish).  The doctrine is applied when “the ordinary American purchaser” would “stop and translate” the foreign term into its English equivalent.  Palm Bay, 396 F.3d at 1377, 73 USPQ2d at 1696 (quoting In re Pan Tex Hotel Corp., 190 USPQ 109, 110 (TTAB 1976)); TMEP §1207.01(b)(vi)(A).  The ordinary American purchaser includes those proficient in the foreign language.  In re Spirits Int’l, N.V., 563 F.3d 1347, 1352, 90 USPQ2d 1489, 1492 (Fed. Cir. 2009); see In re Thomas, 79 USPQ2d at 1024.

 

In this case, the ordinary American purchaser would likely stop and translate the mark because the Spanish language is a common, modern language spoken by an appreciable number of consumers in the United States. 

 

Applicant’s mark is similar to PB PANTHER BRAKE U.S.A. and design because the wording PANTHER is the most dominant and source designating literal element in the registered mark.  The wording BRAKE and USA in the mark are disclaimed as they are descriptive or geographically descriptive.  PB clearly is an acronym for PANTHER BRAKE in the mark and therefore is a reference to this wording.  Further, the design in the registered mark features the image of a panther’s head which brings to mind a “panther.”  The shared PANTHER in the marks creates a clear, overall, similarity.

 

Next, the goods are related.  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).

 

Determining likelihood of confusion is based on the description of the goods and/or services stated in the application and registration at issue, not on extrinsic evidence of actual use.  See In re Detroit Athletic Co., 903 F.3d 1297, 1307, 128 USPQ2d 1047, 1052 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (citing In re i.am.symbolic, llc, 866 F.3d 1315, 1325, 123 USPQ2d 1744, 1749 (Fed. Cir. 2017)).  

 

Additionally, where the goods of the parties have no restrictions as to nature, type, channels of trade, or classes of purchasers they 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)). 

 

Applicant provides goods defined as “power steering systems for recreational watercraft and components therefor; hose kits for power steering systems; skeg replacement parts; outboard motor brackets; oarlocks, oarlock sockets and socket bushings; outboard motor supports, namely, transom savers; hydraulic jack plates for outboard motors; paddles for canoes and small watercraft; outboard motor stabilizer clips; boat cleats; and anchor ropes.”

 

Registration 5057706 is for goods including “Steering and suspension systems and parts for steering and suspension systems for vehicles, namely, upper ball joints, lower ball joints, ball joints with control arms, bushing kits, inner tie rod ends, outer tie rod ends, sleeves, idler arms, center links, stabilizer kits, inner sockets and pitman arms.” Applicant provides “hose kits for power steering systems.”  Applicant’s goods are not limited in use and therefore include use with registrant’s “upper ball joints, lower ball joints, ball joints with control arms, bushing kits, inner tie rod ends, outer tie rod ends, sleeves, idler arms, center links, stabilizer kits, inner sockets and pitman arms” would be used with.  Each party provides parts for steering systems which may be used together.  Thus, the goods are related.  This bar to registration applies to goods currently defined as “hose kits for power steering systems” only.

 

Registration 4327923 is for “amphibious vehicles.”  Applicant’s “power steering systems for recreational watercraft and components therefor; hose kits for power steering systems” may be used together with registrant’s amphibious vehicles as such vehicles are a form of watercraft which may be used in recreation.  See attached example of recreational amphibious vehicles.  Further, the attached evidence shows that amphibious vehicles commonly employ outboard motors.  Thus, applicant’s goods for use with outboard motors may be used on registrant’s amphibious vehicles.  Likewise, applicant’s oars and ropes may be used together with registrant’s goods.  Thus, the goods are related.  This bar to registration applies to all goods.

 

Registrations 2484723 and 3765992 are for “crankshafts for internal combustion engines” and “power transmission belts not for land vehicles.”  Outboard motors for boats are a form of internal combustion engine which use crankshafts. See attached evidence. Outboard motors employ transmission belts.  See attached evidence.  Thus, the goods of the registrants must be read to include use with outboard motors.  Applicant’s “power steering systems for recreational watercraft and components therefor; hose kits for power steering systems;” would be used together in the mechanical operation and propulsion of a boat.  Applicant’s “outboard motor brackets; outboard motor supports, namely, transom savers; hydraulic jack plates for outboard motors; outboard motor stabilizer clips;” also would be used together with registrants’ goods as the goods of the parties are for use with or in an outboard motor.  A person replacing a PANTHER branded belt or crankshaft for an outboard motor would likely be confused as to source when mounting said motor with applicant’s PANTHER brand brackets, clips and jack plates.  Each party provides goods used together with outboard motors.  Thus, the goods are related.   Where the marks of the respective parties are identical, as in this case, the degree of similarity or relatedness between the goods and/or services needed to support a finding of likelihood of confusion declines.  See In re i.am.symbolic, llc, 116 USPQ2d 1406, 1411 (TTAB 2015) (citing In re Shell Oil Co., 992 F.2d 1204, 1207, 26 USPQ2d 1687, 1689 (Fed. Cir. 1993)), aff’d, 866 F.3d 1315, 123 USPQ2d 1744 (Fed. Cir. 2017); TMEP §1207.01(a).  Registrations 2484723 and 3765992 are bars to registration to goods defined as “power steering systems for recreational watercraft and components therefor; hose kits for power steering systems; outboard motor brackets; outboard motor supports, namely, transom savers; hydraulic jack plates for outboard motors; outboard motor stabilizer clips.”

 

Registrations 0890813 and 1167171 are for goods including parts for snowmobiles.  Applicant’s “hose kits for power steering systems” are not defined by use and therefore include use with snowmobiles.  Thus, applicant’s goods are read to be parts for snowmobiles and the goods of the parties are legally identical.  This bar to registration applies to applicant’s goods defined as “hose kits for power steering systems.”

 

The marks are either identical or highly similar.  The goods are related.  Thus, there is a likelihood of confusion and registration must be denied.

 

Although applicant’s mark has been refused registration, applicant may respond to the refusal(s) by submitting evidence and arguments in support of registration.

 

Prior Pending Application

The filing date of pending U.S. Application Serial No. 79196796 precedes applicant’s filing date.  See attached referenced application.  If the mark in the referenced application registers, applicant’s mark may be refused registration under Trademark Act Section 2(d) because of a likelihood of confusion between the two marks.  See 15 U.S.C. §1052(d); 37 C.F.R. §2.83; TMEP §§1208 et seq.  Therefore, upon receipt of applicant’s response to this Office action, action on this application may be suspended pending final disposition of the earlier-filed referenced application.

 

In response to this Office action, applicant may present arguments in support of registration by addressing the issue of the potential conflict between applicant’s mark and the mark in the referenced application.  Applicant’s election not to submit arguments at this time in no way limits applicant’s right to address this issue later if a refusal under Section 2(d) issues.

 

Identification of Goods

Certain wording in the identification of goods is indefinite and must be clarified.  See 37 C.F.R. §2.32(a)(6); TMEP §1402.01.  Applicant must amend the identification to specify the common commercial or generic name of the goods.  See TMEP §1402.01.  If the goods have no common commercial or generic name, applicant must describe the product, its main purpose, and its intended uses.  See id.  Applicant may amend the description as follows: 

 

“Power steering systems for recreational watercraft and components therefor;”  is too broad.  The parts of the systems must be named or applicant may refer to them as “power steering units.”  Applicant may state “class 12--Power steering units for recreational watercraft and components thereof.”

 

“Hose kits for power steering systems;” is too broad.  The parts of the “kits” and the type of power steering systems must be named.  Applicant may state “Class 12—hoses for power steering systems for recreational watercraft.”

 

“Skeg replacement parts;” must be defined further.  Applicant may state “Class 12—skeg replacement parts being structural parts for boats.”

 

“Outboard motor brackets;” are class 7 goods.  Applicant may state “class 7--Mounting brackets for mounting outboard motors to boats.”

 

“oarlocks, oarlock sockets and socket bushings;” may be stated “class 12--oarlocks, oarlock sockets and socket bushings for oarlocks.”

 

“Outboard motor supports, namely transom savers;” is too broad and may be stated “Class 12--Structural parts of trailers in the nature of transom savers that brace the weight of an outboard motor against the frame of a trailer, protecting the motor and the boat from the torque caused by the weight of the motor bouncing during travel.”

 

“Hydraulic jack plates for outboard motors;” must be defined further.  Applicant may state “Class 7-- Hydraulic jack plates for use in adjusting outboard motors on boats.”

 

“Paddles for canoes and small watercraft;” is acceptable in class 12.

 

“Outboard motor stabilizer clips;” are class 7 goods.

 

“boat cleats;” are acceptable class 12 goods.

 

“Anchor ropes” are class 22 goods.

 

Applicant’s goods and/or services may be clarified or limited, but may not be expanded beyond those originally itemized in the application or as acceptably amended.  See 37 C.F.R. §2.71(a); TMEP §1402.06.  Applicant may clarify or limit the identification by inserting qualifying language or deleting items to result in a more specific identification; however, applicant may not substitute different goods and/or services or add goods and/or services not found or encompassed by those in the original application or as acceptably amended.  See TMEP §1402.06(a)-(b).  The scope of the goods and/or services sets the outer limit for any changes to the identification and is generally determined by the ordinary meaning of the wording in the identification.  TMEP §§1402.06(b), 1402.07(a)-(b).  Any acceptable changes to the goods and/or services will further limit scope, and once goods and/or services are deleted, they are not permitted to be reinserted.  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.

 

The application references goods and/or services based on use in commerce in more than one international class; therefore, applicant must satisfy all the requirements below for each international class:

 

(1)       List the goods and/or services by their international class number in consecutive numerical order, starting with the lowest numbered class (for example, International Class 3: perfume; International Class 18: cosmetic bags sold empty).

 

(2)       Submit a filing fee for each international class not covered by the fee(s) already paid (view the USPTO’s current fee schedule).  Specifically, the application identifies goods and/or services based on use in commerce that are classified in at least 3 classes; however, applicant submitted a fee(s) sufficient for only 1 class(es).  Applicant must either (a) submit the filing fees for the classes not covered by the submitted fees or (b) restrict the application to the number of classes covered by the fees already paid.

 

(3)       Submit verified dates of first use of the mark anywhere and in commerce for each international class.  See more information about verified dates of use.

 

(4)       Submit a specimen for each international class.  The current specimen is acceptable for class(es) 12; and applicant needs a specimen for class(es) 7, 22.  See more information about specimens.

 

            Examples of specimens for goods include tags, labels, instruction manuals, containers, and photographs that show the mark on the actual goods or packaging, or displays associated with the actual goods at their point of sale.  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. 

 

            Examples of specimens for services include advertising and marketing materials, brochures, photographs of business signage and billboards, and website printouts that show the mark used in the actual sale, rendering, or advertising of the services. 

 

(5)       Submit a verified statement that “The specimen was in use in commerce on or in connection with the goods and/or services listed in the application at least as early as the filing date of the application.”  See more information about verification.

 

See 15 U.S.C. §§1051(a), 1112; 37 C.F.R. §§2.32(a)(6)-(7), 2.34(a)(1), 2.86(a); TMEP §§904, 1403.01, 1403.02(c).

 

See an overview of the requirements for a Section 1(a) multiple-class application and how to satisfy the requirements online using the Trademark Electronic Application System (TEAS) form.

 

If applicant has questions regarding this Office action, please telephone or e-mail the assigned trademark examining attorney.  All relevant e-mail communications will be placed in the official application record; however, an 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. §2.191; TMEP §§709.04-.05.  Further, although the trademark examining attorney may provide additional explanation pertaining to the refusal(s) and/or requirement(s) in this Office action, the trademark examining attorney may not provide legal advice or statements about applicant’s rights.  See TMEP §§705.02, 709.06.

 

 

 

 

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  

 

 

/Daniel F. Capshaw/

Daniel F. Capshaw

Examining Attorney

Law Office 110

571-272-9356

daniel.capshaw@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 05, 2019 for

U.S. Trademark Application Serial No. 88460589

 

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. 

 

 

/Daniel F. Capshaw/

Daniel F. Capshaw

Examining Attorney

Law Office 110

571-272-9356

daniel.capshaw@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 05, 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.”