To: | Essential Products, Inc. (pctrademarks@perkinscoie.com) |
Subject: | U.S. Trademark Application Serial No. 88467035 - GEM - 119306-4000 |
Sent: | August 30, 2019 11:18:59 AM |
Sent As: | ecom110@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. 88467035
Mark: GEM
|
|
Correspondence Address:
|
|
Applicant: Essential Products, Inc.
|
|
Reference/Docket No. 119306-4000
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 30, 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 THAT APPLICANT MUST ADDRESS
SECTION 2(d) LIKELIHOOD OF CONFUSION REFUSAL FOR INTERNATIONAL CLASS 9
Registration of the applied-for mark is refused because of a likelihood of confusion with the marks in U.S. Registration Nos. 4769576 and 5442453. Trademark Act Section 2(d), 15 U.S.C. §1052(d); see TMEP §§1207.01 et seq. See the attached registrations.
The applicant has applied to register GEM in standard character form for “mobile phones; smart phones; replacement parts for mobile phones and smart phones; cases for mobile phones; battery chargers for use with mobile phones; earphones and headphones; wireless communication device featuring voice, data and image transmission including voice, text and picture messaging, a video and still image camera, also functional to purchase music, games, video and software applications over the air for downloading to the device; downloadable computer application software for mobile phones, namely, software for games or third party users' communications, calendars, social media, storage of audio, visual, or audiovisual content; downloadable computer operating programs and computer operating system for mobile phones; downloadable computer application software for mobile phones, namely, software for voice recognition, speech to text conversion, and voice command control; downloadable computer software for controlling, managing, monitoring, and scheduling contacts, events, alerts, digital footprints, projects, notes, and activities.” The registered marks are:
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.
COMPARISON OF THE MARKS
The registered marks are for GEMS in standard characters. The application is for the mark GEM in standard characters.
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).
In the present case, applicant’s mark is similar to the registered mark in sound, appearance and connotation. An applied-for mark that is the singular or plural form of a registered mark is essentially identical in sound, appearance, meaning, and commercial impression, and thus the marks are confusingly similar. Swiss Grill Ltd., v. Wolf Steel Ltd., 115 USPQ2d 2001, 2011 n.17 (TTAB 2015) (holding “it is obvious that the virtually identical marks [the singular and plural of SWISS GRILL] are confusingly similar”); Weider Publ’ns, LLC v. D & D Beauty Care Co., 109 USPQ2d 1347, 1355 (TTAB 2014) (finding the singular and plural forms of SHAPE to be essentially the same mark) (citing Wilson v. Delaunay, 245 F.2d 877, 878, 114 USPQ 339, 341 (C.C.P.A. 1957) (finding no material difference between the singular and plural forms of ZOMBIE such that the marks were considered the same mark).
COMPARISON OF THE GOODS
Applicant’s goods are mobile phones; smart phones; replacement parts for mobile phones and smart phones; cases for mobile phones; battery chargers for use with mobile phones; earphones and headphones; wireless communication device featuring voice, data and image transmission including voice, text and picture messaging, a video and still image camera, also functional to purchase music, games, video and software applications over the air for downloading to the device; downloadable computer application software for mobile phones, namely, software for games or third party users' communications, calendars, social media, storage of audio, visual, or audiovisual content; downloadable computer operating programs and computer operating system for mobile phones; downloadable computer application software for mobile phones, namely, software for voice recognition, speech to text conversion, and voice command control; downloadable computer software for controlling, managing, monitoring, and scheduling contacts, events, alerts, digital footprints, projects, notes, and activities.
The registrant’s goods are consumer electronic products, namely, audio amplifiers, audio speakers, audio receivers, electrical audio and speaker cables and connectors, audio decoders, video decoders, speakers, power conversion devices, power converters, and power inverters; cell phone cases; clear protective covers specially adapted for personal electronic devices, namely, computer keyboard; and cell phone battery chargers; cell phone battery chargers for use in vehicles; wall chargers, namely, power supply connectors and adaptors for use with portable electronic devices; portable power packs, namely, power supplies for use with portable electronic devices to provide backup power; earphones and headphones; virtual reality glasses; wearable activity trackers; portable photography equipment, namely, adjustable smartphone and PC tablet stabilizers and mounts; physical fitness equipment in the nature of bands used for securing electronic devices, namely, armbands specially adapted for holding mobile phones, portable music players and personal digital assistants. Both the applicant and registrant provide cell phone cases and related accessories.
In total, the two marks GEM and GEMS create the same commercial impression and the goods are commercially related and likely to be encountered together in the marketplace by consumers. Therefore, consumers are likely to be confused and mistakenly believe that the products originate from a common source. Therefore, registration must be refused under Section 2(d) of the Lanham Act.
PRIOR PENDING APPLICATION FOR INTERNATIONAL CLASS 9
The filing date of pending U.S. Application Serial No. 88417114 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.
RESULT OF NON-RESPONSE
If applicant does not respond to this Office action within the six-month period for response, International Class(es) 9 will be deleted from the application. The application will then proceed with International Class(es) 38 only. See 37 C.F.R. §2.65(a)-(a)(1); TMEP §718.02(a).
ASSISTANCE
How to respond. Click to file a response to this nonfinal Office action
/Tarah Hardy Ludlow/
Examining Attorney
Law Office 110
571-272-9361
tarah.hardy@uspto.gov
RESPONSE GUIDANCE