To: | Pado, Inc. (joel@voelzke.com) |
Subject: | U.S. Trademark Application Serial No. 88470482 - PUREWAVE - 220-052 |
Sent: | September 04, 2019 03:15:43 PM |
Sent As: | ecom103@uspto.gov |
Attachments: | Attachment - 1 Attachment - 2 Attachment - 3 Attachment - 4 Attachment - 5 Attachment - 6 Attachment - 7 Attachment - 8 Attachment - 9 Attachment - 10 Attachment - 11 Attachment - 12 Attachment - 13 Attachment - 14 Attachment - 15 Attachment - 16 Attachment - 17 Attachment - 18 Attachment - 19 Attachment - 20 Attachment - 21 Attachment - 22 Attachment - 23 Attachment - 24 Attachment - 25 |
United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO)
Office Action (Official Letter) About Applicant’s Trademark Application
U.S. Application Serial No. 88470482
Mark: PUREWAVE
|
|
Correspondence Address: IP LAW OFFICES OF JOEL VOELZKE, APC
|
|
Applicant: Pado, Inc.
|
|
Reference/Docket No. 220-052
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 04, 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.
Section 2(d) Likelihood of Confusion Refusal
I. 2(d) Standard of Review
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.
II. Application of the 2(d) Standard of Review
The cited registration is the mark PURWAVE for “device for non-surgical cosmetic treatments, namely, an electric massage apparatus”.
The applied-for mark is PUREWAVE for “Hand-held electric massage apparatus for therapeutic purposes, namely, hand-held electric massagers for massaging the back, neck, feet, arms, and legs”.
A. Comparison of Sound, Appearance and Meaning
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).
The marks are essentially phonetic equivalents and thus sound similar. Similarity in sound alone may be sufficient to support a finding that the marks are 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)(iv).
Applicant’s mark PUREWAVE is confusingly similar to the cited registered mark PURWAVE because the marks share the phonetically identical suggestive conjoined term “PURE WAVE”, presented as one word for each mark, with the cited registered mark dropping the silent letter “E” between the letters “R” and “W” in the mark. The marks are thus visually highly similar, are phonetically identical, and have the same meaning and commercial impression.
Consumers would be likely to confuse the source of related goods offered under such similar marks.
B. Comparison of Goods
The goods of the cited registration are an electric massage apparatus for use in providing non-surgical cosmetic treatments.
The applicant’s goods are a hand-held electric massage apparatus for therapeutic purposes, for use in massaging the back, neck, feet, arms, and legs.
Consumers are likely to confuse the source of the applicant’s and registrant’s goods as the marks under which the goods are offered are almost identical, and as the goods with which they are used are both electric massage apparatuses for use on the body.
See the attached website evidence showing that electric massagers for cosmetic use are also commonly intended for use in massaging other parts of the user’s body:
Furthermore, as the goods of the applied for mark and the cited registration are related and possibly overlapping, they may travel within the same channels of trade.
C. Summary of 2(d) review
The applied for mark is confusingly similar to the cited registered mark because the marks are phonetically identical, visually highly similar, and create the same commercial impression and have the same meaning. Because the marks are confusingly similar and because the goods are related and/or travel within the same channels of trade, the applicant’s mark is refused on grounds of likelihood of confusion.
How to respond. Click to file a response to this nonfinal Office action
/Kaelie E. Kung/
Examining Attorney
Law Office 103
571-272-8265
kaelie.kung@uspto.gov
RESPONSE GUIDANCE