| To: | Lindsay Lucas (annelise.rivera@gmail.com) |
| Subject: | U.S. Trademark Application Serial No. 88495068 - TOUGH COOKIE - N/A |
| Sent: | September 19, 2019 08:38:24 PM |
| Sent As: | ecom116@uspto.gov |
| Attachments: | Attachment - 1 Attachment - 2 |
United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO)
Office Action (Official Letter) About Applicant’s Trademark Application
|
U.S. Application Serial No. 88495068
Mark: TOUGH COOKIE
|
|
|
Correspondence Address: CAROLINA, PUERTO RICO, FL 00985
|
|
|
Applicant: Lindsay Lucas
|
|
|
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 19, 2019
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.
The assigned examining attorney has reviewed the referenced application and determined the following.
REGISTRATION
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. 3429296. Trademark Act Section 2(d), 15 U.S.C. §1052(d); see TMEP §§1207.01 et seq. See the enclosed 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.
The proposed mark is closely related to the prior registered mark in each of the factors listed above in the DuPont case. The sound, commercial meaning, and impression of the marks are closely related. Applicant’s mark is TOUGH COOKIE. Registrant’s mark is TUFF COOKIES. The marks are nearly identical in sound and overall commercial impression.
Applicant offers a wide variety of clothing; registrant offers an overlapping wide variety of clothing. The goods are overlapping and found in the same channels of trade. Consumers, therefore, are likely to believe that the goods of the parties originate from the same source.
Registration of the proposed mark must therefore be refused. Applicant may, however, offer evidence in support of registration.
Mark is Merely Ornamental
Registration is refused because the applied-for mark as used on the specimen of record is merely a decorative or ornamental feature of the goods and, thus, does not function as a trademark to indicate the source of applicant’s goods and to identify and distinguish them from others. Trademark Act Sections 1, 2, and 45, 15 U.S.C. §§1051-1052, 1127; see In re Villeroy & Boch S.A.R.L., 5 USPQ2d 1451, 1454 (TTAB 1987); TMEP §§904.07(b), 1202.03 et seq.
Whether a designation functions as a mark depends on the commercial impression it makes on the relevant public; that is, whether purchasers would likely regard it as a source-indicator for the goods. See In re Keep A Breast Found., 123 USPQ2d 1869, 1879 (TTAB 2017) (quoting In re Eagle Crest Inc., 96 USPQ2d 1227, 1229 (TTAB 2010)); TMEP §1202. The specimen and any other relevant evidence of use is reviewed to determine whether an applied-for mark is being used as a trademark. In re Bose Corp., 546 F.2d 893, 897, 192 USPQ 213, 216 (C.C.P.A. 1976); In re Volvo Cars of N. Am., Inc., 46 USPQ2d 1455, 1459 (TTAB 1998).
In this case, the mark as shown on the specimen would be perceived as merely a decorative or ornamental feature of the goods because the mark appears in large font on the front of the hat and shirt.
In appropriate circumstances, applicant may overcome this refusal by satisfying one of the following options:
(1) Submit a different specimen (a verified “substitute” specimen) that (a) was in actual use in commerce at least as early as the filing date of the application (or prior to the filing of an amendment to allege use) and (b) shows proper trademark use for each international class identified in the application or amendment to allege use.
(2) Amend to the Supplemental Register, which is a second trademark register for marks not yet eligible for registration on the Principal Register, but which may become capable over time of functioning as source indicators.
(3) Claim acquired distinctiveness under Trademark Act Section 2(f) by submitting evidence that the applied-for mark has become distinctive of applicant’s goods; that is, proof that applicant’s extensive use and promotion of the mark has allowed consumers now directly to associate the mark with applicant as the source of the goods.
(4) Submit evidence that the applied-for mark is an indicator of secondary source; that is, proof that the mark is already recognized as a source indicator for other goods or services that applicant sells/offers.
(5) Amend the filing basis to intent to use under Section 1(b). This option will later necessitate additional fee(s) and filing requirements.
For an overview of the response options above and instructions on how to satisfy each option online using the Trademark Electronic Application System (TEAS) form, see the Ornamental Refusal webpage.
INFORMALITY
If applicant chooses to respond to the refusal to register, applicant must also respond to the following informality:
Disclaimer
Applicant’s Response
Guidelines for responding are set forth below.
How to respond. Click to file a response to this nonfinal Office action
/wgb/
William Breckenfeld
Examining Attorney
Law Office 116
571-272-9133
Email: william.breckenfeld@uspto.gov
(informal queries
RESPONSE GUIDANCE
