To: | J. C. PENNEY PURCHASING CORPORATION (TRADEMARKS-SM@JCP.COM) |
Subject: | U.S. Trademark Application Serial No. 88483643 - THE FOUNDRY BIG & TALL SUPPLY CO. - N/A |
Sent: | August 09, 2019 01:45:30 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 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 |
United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO)
Office Action (Official Letter) About Applicant’s Trademark Application
U.S. Application Serial No. 88483643
Mark: THE FOUNDRY BIG & TALL SUPPLY CO.
|
|
Correspondence Address: J. C. PENNEY PURCHASING CORPORATION J. C. PENNEY PURCHASING CORPORATION
|
|
Applicant: J. C. PENNEY PURCHASING CORPORATION
|
|
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 09, 2019
The referenced application has been reviewed by the assigned trademark examining attorney. Applicant must respond timely and completely to the issues below. 15 U.S.C. §1062(b); 37 C.F.R. §§2.62(a), 2.65(a); TMEP §§711, 718.03.
Section 2(d) Refusal – Likelihood of Confusion
Registration of the applied-for mark is refused because of a likelihood of confusion with the mark in U.S. Registration No. 4925044. 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, the applicant has applied to register THE FOUNDRY BIG & TALL SUPPLY CO. (and Design) for “Clothing including, knit, woven, jersey and tee shirts, pants, jeans, denim, shorts, swimsuits, sleepwear, robes, jackets, hoodies, outerwear, active wear.”
The registrant’s mark is THE FOUNDRY CLOTHING COMPANY (Standard Characters) for “T-Shirts, Hats, Sweatshirts, Pants, Jackets, Apparel Tops and Bottoms.”
Comparison of the Marks
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).
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 Detroit Athletic Co., 903 F.3d 1297, 1305, 128 USPQ2d 1047, 1050 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (citing In re Dixie Rests., 105 F.3d 1405, 1407, 41 USPQ2d 1531, 1533-34 (Fed. Cir. 1997)); 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 Detroit Athletic Co., 903 F.3d at 1305, 128 USPQ2d at 1050 (citing In re Dixie Rests., 105 F.3d at 1407, 41 USPQ2d at 1533-34).
In this case, the marks contain the same dominant wording, namely, “THE FOUNDRY.” The registrant’s mark consists of the wording “THE FOUNDRY” followed by the generic wording “CLOTHING COMPANY,” which has been disclaimed. The literal portion of the applicant’s mark consists of the wording “THE FOUNDRY” followed by the descriptive wording “BIG & TALL SUPPLY CO.,” which the applicant will be required to disclaim. Because of this common wording, the marks are highly similar in sound, appearance, and overall commercial impression. Attached is the definition of “foundry” from http://www.ahdictionary.com/word/search.html?q=foundry.
Further, disclaimed matter that is descriptive of or generic for a party’s goods is typically less significant or less dominant when comparing marks. In re Detroit Athletic Co., 903 F.3d 1297, 1305, 128 USPQ2d 1047, 1050 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (citing In re Dixie Rests., Inc., 105 F.3d 1405, 1407, 41 USPQ2d 1531, 1533-34 (Fed. Cir. 1997)); TMEP §1207.01(b)(viii), (c)(ii). In this case, the registrant has disclaimed the generic wording “CLOTHING COMPANY,” and the applicant will be required to disclaim the descriptive wording “BIG & TALL SUPPLY CO.”. Thus, this wording is given less weight in the likelihood of confusion analysis.
The fact that the applicant’s mark contains a design element while the registrant’s mark is in standard characters is insufficient to overcome the likelihood of confusion. A mark in standard characters, such as the registrant’s mark, may be displayed in any lettering style; the rights reside in the wording or other literal element and not in any particular display or rendition. See In re Viterra Inc., 671 F.3d 1358, 1363, 101 USPQ2d 1905, 1909 (Fed. Cir. 2012); In re Mighty Leaf Tea, 601 F.3d 1342, 1348, 94 USPQ2d 1257, 1260 (Fed. Cir. 2010); 37 C.F.R. §2.52(a); TMEP §1207.01(c)(iii). Thus, a mark presented in stylized characters and/or with a design element, such as the applicant’s mark, generally will not avoid likelihood of confusion with a mark in standard characters because the word portion could be presented in the same manner of display. See, e.g., In re Viterra Inc., 671 F.3d at 1363, 101 USPQ2d at 1909; Squirtco v. Tomy Corp., 697 F.2d 1038, 1041, 216 USPQ 937, 939 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (stating that “the argument concerning a difference in type style is not viable where one party asserts rights in no particular display”).
Relatedness of the Goods
In this case, the goods in the application and registration are identical in part. The registrant’s goods include t-shirts, pants, and jackets; the applicant’s goods also include tee shirts, pants, and jackets. Therefore, it is presumed that the channels of trade and classes of purchasers are the same for these goods. See Cai v. Diamond Hong, Inc., __ F.3d __, 27 USPQ2d 1797, 1801 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (quoting In re Viterra Inc., 671 F.3d 1358, 1362, 101 USPQ2d 1905, 1908 (Fed. Cir. 2012)). Thus, applicant’s and registrant’s goods are related.
The goods are also legally identical in part. In this case, the application uses broad wording to describe “outerwear, active wear,” which presumably encompass all goods of the type described, including registrant’s more narrow “Sweatshirts, Pants, Jackets, Apparel Tops and Bottoms.” The registration also uses broad wording to describe “Sweatshirts,” which presumably encompasses all goods of the type described, including applicant’s more narrow “hoodies.” See, e.g., In re Solid State Design Inc., 125 USPQ2d 1409, 1412-15 (TTAB 2018); Sw. Mgmt., Inc. v. Ocinomled, Ltd., 115 USPQ2d 1007, 1025 (TTAB 2015). Thus, applicant’s and registrant’s goods are legally identical in part. See, e.g., In re i.am.symbolic, llc, 127 USPQ2d 1627, 1629 (TTAB 2018) (citing Tuxedo Monopoly, Inc. v. Gen. Mills Fun Grp., Inc., 648 F.2d 1335, 1336, 209 USPQ 986, 988 (C.C.P.A. 1981); Inter IKEA Sys. B.V. v. Akea, LLC, 110 USPQ2d 1734, 1745 (TTAB 2014); Baseball Am. Inc. v. Powerplay Sports Ltd., 71 USPQ2d 1844, 1847 n.9 (TTAB 2004)).
Summary of the Refusal
The marks contain the same dominant wording and are highly similar in sound, appearance, and overall commercial impression. The goods are identical in part, legally identical in part, and are highly related. The similarities among the marks and the goods are so great as to create a likelihood of confusion among consumers. The overriding concern is not only to prevent buyer confusion as to the source of the goods, 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).
1. Identification of Goods
b. The wording “denim” in the identification of goods is indefinite and must be clarified because it is unclear whether the applicant is describing denim fabric or denim pants. See 37 C.F.R. §2.32(a)(6); TMEP §1402.01. Applicant may substitute the following wording, if accurate: “denims.”
d. 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.
e. Applicant may adopt the following identification of goods in International Class 25, if accurate: Clothing, namely, knit, woven, jersey, and tee shirts, pants, jeans, denims, shorts, swimsuits, sleepwear, robes, jackets, hoodies; outerwear, namely, [list each item of outerwear by its generic name, e.g., coats, hats, gloves, rain jackets, etc.]; active wear, namely, [list each item of active wear by its generic name, e.g., t-shirts, sweat pants, sweat shirts, athletic shorts, etc.]. See TMEP §1402.01.
2. Disclaimer
In this case, applicant must disclaim the wording “BIG & TALL SUPPLY” because it is not inherently distinctive. These unregistrable terms at best are merely descriptive of a quality, characteristic, function, feature, purpose, or use of applicant’s goods. See 15 U.S.C. §1052(e)(1); DuoProSS Meditech Corp. v. Inviro Med. Devices, Ltd., 695 F.3d 1247, 1251, 103 USPQ2d 1753, 1755 (Fed. Cir. 2012); TMEP §§1213, 1213.03(a).
As shown by the attached representative website excerpts from the examining attorney’s search of the internet using the Google® search engine, “big and tall” is a specific category of men’s clothing designed to fit the larger man, i.e., a man who is bigger and/or taller than the average man.
“Supply” means “The act of supplying.” See the attached excerpt from http://www.ahdictionary.com/word/search.html?q=supply. To “supply” means “To make available for use; provide.” Id.
The wording as a whole is merely descriptive because the applicant provides “big and tall” clothing items for larger men.
Business type designations and abbreviations such as “Corporation,” “Inc.,” “Company,” “Co.,” “LLC,” and “Ltd.” or family business designations such as “& Sons” or “Bros.” must be disclaimed, because they merely indicate applicant’s business type or structure and generally have no source-indicating capacity. TMEP §1213.03(d); see, e.g., Goodyear’s India Rubber Glove Mfg. Co. v. Goodyear Rubber Co., 128 U.S. 598, 602-03 (1888); In re Piano Factory Grp., Inc., 85 USPQ2d at 1526; In re Patent & Trademark Servs., Inc., 49 USPQ2d at 1539-40.
“Co.” is the abbreviation of “company.” See the attached excerpt from http://www.ahdictionary.com/word/search.html?q=Co. A “company” is “A business enterprise; a firm.” The applicant is a “business enterprise”; therefore, the abbreviation “Co.” must be disclaimed.
Applicant may respond to this issue by submitting a disclaimer in the following format:
No claim is made to the exclusive right to use “BIG & TALL SUPPLY CO.” apart from the mark as shown.
For an overview of disclaimers and instructions on how to satisfy this issue using the Trademark Electronic Application System (TEAS), see the Disclaimer webpage.
3. Attorney Bar Information Required
Applicant’s attorney must provide the following bar information: (1) his or her bar membership number, if the bar provides one; (2) the name of the U.S. state, commonwealth, or territory of his or her bar membership; and (3) the year of his or her admission to the bar. 37 C.F.R. §2.17(b)(3). This information is required for all U.S.-licensed attorneys who are representing trademark applicants at the USPTO. Id. If the attorney’s bar does not issue bar membership numbers, applicant must state this for the record. See id.
4. Attorney Attestation Required
Applicant’s attorney must provide the following statement: “I attest that I am an attorney who is an active member in good standing of the bar of the highest court of a U.S. state (including the District of Columbia and any U.S. Commonwealth or territory).” See 37 C.F.R. §2.17(b)(3). This is required for all U.S.-licensed attorneys who are representing trademark applicants at the USPTO. Id.
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
If the applicant has any questions or needs assistance in responding to this Office action, please call the assigned examining attorney.
A prompt response to this Office action will expedite the handling of this matter.
/Barbara A. Gaynor/
Barbara A. Gaynor
Trademark Examining Attorney
Law Office 115
(571) 272-9164
Barbara.gaynor@uspto.gov
RESPONSE GUIDANCE