| To: | LISA MICHELLE CRUZ (ARMOR.APPAREL@YAHOO.COM) |
| Subject: | U.S. Trademark Application Serial No. 88464994 - ARMOR - N/A |
| Sent: | September 10, 2019 02:48:06 PM |
| Sent As: | ecom120@uspto.gov |
| Attachments: | Attachment - 1 Attachment - 2 Attachment - 3 Attachment - 4 Attachment - 5 Attachment - 6 Attachment - 7 |
United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO)
Office Action (Official Letter) About Applicant’s Trademark Application
|
U.S. Application Serial No. 88464994
Mark: ARMOR
|
|
|
Correspondence Address:
|
|
|
Applicant: LISA MICHELLE CRUZ
|
|
|
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: September 10, 2019
The preliminary amendments dated June 25, 2019 have been reviewed and present the issues below.
International Class 035 Retail apparel stores
International Class 039 Trucking services, namely, hauling of STORM DEBRIS
SUMMARY OF ISSUES THAT APPLICANT MUST ADDRESS
PARTIAL REFUSAL UNDER SECTION 2(d)- LIKELIHOOD OF CONFUSION- CLASS 035 ONLY
THIS PARTIAL REFUSAL APPLIES TO CLASS 035 ONLY
Registration of the applied-for mark is refused because of a likelihood of confusion with the mark in U.S. Registration No. 5387620. Trademark Act Section 2(d), 15 U.S.C. §1052(d); See TMEP §§1207.01 et seq. See the attached registration.
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.
In this case, a likelihood of confusion is present because there are similarities between the compared marks and relatedness of the compared services.
SIMILARITY OF THE MARKS
The applicant’s and registrant’s respective marks, “ARMOR” and “ARMOUR”, are similar in appearance, sound, connotation, and commercial impression.
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).
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 this instance, “ARMOR” and “ARMOUR” create the same overall commercial impression because the marks share dominant features. Specifically, the wording “ARMO” is the dominant feature where it appears first within registrant’s and applicant’s mark. Consumers are more likely to focus and be impressed upon by the wording “ARMO” across the marks because it is an identical lead word with the same syllable structure, which makes the marks similar in appearance and sound. Registrant’s minor spelling variation does not obviate the noted similarities because registrant’s mark for “ARMOUR” is merely the British- English spelling variation of applicant’s mark for “ARMOR”, which is an American- English word that means “defensive covering for the body”. See attached internet evidence from http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/armour and http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/armor. Thus, the marks are similar in connotation and commercial impression.
Because the marks are similar in appearance, sound, connotation, and commercial impression, the marks are confusingly similar.
RELATEDNESS OF THE GOODS AND/OR SERVICES
The applicant’s relevant services are listed below:
International Class 035 Retail apparel stores
The registrant’s relevant services are listed below:
International Class 035 On-line retail store services featuring apparel, footwear, headwear, eyewear, and sporting goods; and retail store services featuring apparel, footwear, headwear, eyewear, and sporting goods
The applicant’s and registrant’s services are related and could give rise to the mistaken belief that they emanate from the same source.
In this case, applicant’s and registrant’s services could give rise to the mistaken belief that they emanate from the same source because they are commonly provided by the same company. For example, the attached Internet evidence, consisting of third-party on-line retail store services featuring apparel, establishes that the same entity commonly provides the relevant goods and/or services and markets the goods and/or services under the same mark, the relevant goods and/or services are sold or provided through the same trade channels and used by the same classes of consumers in the same fields of use, and the goods and/or services are similar or complementary in terms of purpose or function. See attached internet evidence showing that on-line retail store services commonly feature apparel:
Thus, applicant’s and registrant’s services are considered related for likelihood of confusion purposes. See, e.g., In re Davey Prods. Pty Ltd., 92 USPQ2d 1198, 1202-04 (TTAB 2009); In re Toshiba Med. Sys. Corp., 91 USPQ2d 1266, 1268-69, 1271-72 (TTAB 2009).
Upon encountering “ARMOR” used on applicant’s services and “ARMOUR” used on registrant’s services, consumers are likely to be confused and mistakenly believe that the respective services emanate from a common source. Because the marks are similar and the services are related, there is a likelihood of confusion as to the source of applicant’s services. Therefore, applicant’s mark is not entitled to registration under Section 2(d) of Trademark Act.
Although applicant’s mark has been refused registration, applicant may respond to the refusal(s) by submitting evidence and arguments in support of registration. However, if applicant responds to the refusal(s), applicant must also respond to the refusals(s) set forth below.
DRAWING AMENDMENT NOT ACCEPTED- MATERIAL ALTERATION
The original drawing shows the mark as “ARMOR” in standard characters. The proposed- amended drawing shows the mark as the literal element “ARMOR” to the right of a design element that consists of a legionnaire helmet in front of a shield.
The USPTO cannot accept an amendment to a mark if it will materially alter the mark in the drawing filed with the original application, or in a previously accepted amended drawing. 37 C.F.R. §2.72(a)(2), (b)(2); TMEP §807.14. An amendment to the mark is material when the USPTO would need to republish the mark with the change in the USPTO Trademark Official Gazette to fairly present the mark to the public. In re Thrifty, Inc., 274 F.3d 1349, 1352, 61 USPQ2d 1121, 1123-24 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (citing In re Hacot-Columbier, 105 F.3d 616, 620, 41 USPQ2d 1523, 1526 (Fed. Cir. 1997)); TMEP §807.14.
That is, an amendment is material if the altered mark does not retain “the essence of the original mark” or if the new and old forms do not “create the impression of being essentially the same mark.” In re Hacot-Columbier, 105 F.3d at 620, 41 USPQ2d at 1526 (quoting Visa Int’l Serv. Ass’n v. Life-Code Sys., Inc., 220 USPQ 740, 743-44 (TTAB 1983)); see, e.g., In re Who? Vision Sys., Inc., 57 USPQ2d 1211, 1218 (TTAB 2000) (amendment from “TACILESENSE” to “TACTILESENSE” a material alteration); In re CTB Inc., 52 USPQ2d 1471, 1475 (TTAB 1999) (amendment of TURBO with a design to just the typed word TURBO without design a material alteration).
When determining materiality, the addition of any element that would require a further search of the USPTO database for conflicting marks is also relevant. In re Guitar Straps Online LLC, 103 USPQ2d 1745, 1747 (TTAB 2012) (citing In re Pierce Foods Corp., 230 USPQ 307, 308-09 (TTAB 1986)); In re Who? Vision Sys. Inc., 57 USPQ2d at 1218-19; TMEP §807.14.
In the present case, applicant’s proposed amendment would materially alter the mark in the drawing filed with the original application because it adds a design element that does create the impression of being essentially the same and the proposed amendment would require a further search of the USPTO database for conflicting marks that are in stylized form.
To avoid the application from abandoning, applicant must respond to this issue. TMEP §807.17. Applicant may respond by (1) withdrawing the request to amend the drawing, or (2) arguing that the proposed amendment is not a material alteration of the mark.
For more information about changes to the mark in the drawing after the application filing date, please go to the Drawing webpage.
RESPONSE OPTIONS
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.
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
Shari Gadson
/Shari Gadson/
Trademark Examining Attorney
Law Office 120
United States Patent and Trademark Office
571-272-9319
shari.g
RESPONSE GUIDANCE
