To: | TAC Vanes, LLC (blakelisenby@lisenbylaw.com) |
Subject: | U.S. Trademark Application Serial No. 88495554 - TAC - N/A |
Sent: | March 18, 2020 06:50:21 PM |
Sent As: | ecom117@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 Attachment - 26 Attachment - 27 Attachment - 28 Attachment - 29 Attachment - 30 Attachment - 31 Attachment - 32 Attachment - 33 Attachment - 34 Attachment - 35 Attachment - 36 Attachment - 37 Attachment - 38 Attachment - 39 Attachment - 40 Attachment - 41 Attachment - 42 Attachment - 43 Attachment - 44 |
United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO)
Office Action (Official Letter) About Applicant’s Trademark Application
U.S. Application Serial No. 88495554
Mark: TAC
|
|
Correspondence Address:
|
|
Applicant: TAC Vanes, LLC
|
|
Reference/Docket No. N/A
Correspondence Email Address: |
|
FINAL OFFICE ACTION
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) and/or Electronic System for Trademark Trials and Appeals (ESTTA). A link to the appropriate TEAS response form and/or to ESTTA for an appeal appears at the end of this Office action.
Issue date: March 18, 2020
This Office action is in response to applicant’s communication filed on February 27, 2020.
In a previous Office action dated September 20, 2019, the trademark examining attorney refused registration of the applied-for mark based on the following: Trademark Act Section 2(d) for a likelihood of confusion with a registered mark. In addition, applicant was required to satisfy the following requirement(s): clarify the mark description.
Based on applicant’s response, the trademark examining attorney notes that the following requirement(s) have been satisfied: mark description. See TMEP §§713.02, 714.04.
In addition, the following refusal(s) and/or requirement(s) have been withdrawn: Section 2(d) refusal citing Registration No. 3974554 (TAC DRY) only. See TMEP §§713.02, 714.04.
Further, the trademark examining attorney maintains and now makes FINAL the refusal(s) and/or requirement(s) in the summary of issues below. See 37 C.F.R. §2.63(b); TMEP §714.04.
SUMMARY OF ISSUES MADE FINAL that applicant must address:
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 applicant argues that the marks are dissimilar because they include different designs, the users of the goods differ, and consumers are sophisticated. Applicant’s arguments have been considered and found unpersuasive for the reason(s) set forth below.
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)), aff’d per curiam, 777 F. App’x 516, 2019 BL 343921 (Fed. Cir. 2019); TMEP §1207.01(b).
In this case, the applicant’s mark is TAC and design, and the registrants’ marks are:
1) TAC and design
2) TAC APPAREL COMPANY and design.
The marks are identical as to the term TAC. The only difference in the marks are the designs. The word portions of the marks are nearly identical in appearance, sound, connotation, and commercial impression; therefore, the addition of a design element does not obviate the similarity of the marks in this case. See In re Shell Oil Co., 992 F.2d 1204, 1206, 26 USPQ2d 1687, 1688 (Fed. Cir. 1993); TMEP §1207.01(c)(ii).
Additionally, when evaluating a composite mark consisting of words and a design, the word portion is normally accorded greater weight because it is likely to make a greater impression upon purchasers, be remembered by them, and be used by them to refer to or request the goods and/or services. In re Aquitaine Wine USA, LLC, 126 USPQ2d 1181, 1184 (TTAB 2018) (citing In re Viterra Inc., 671 F.3d 1358, 1362, 101 USPQ2d 1905, 1908 (Fed. Cir. 2012)); TMEP §1207.01(c)(ii). Thus, although marks must be compared in their entireties, the word portion is often considered the dominant feature and is accorded greater weight in determining whether marks are confusingly similar, even where the word portion has been disclaimed. In re Viterra Inc., 671 F.3d at 1366-67, 101 USPQ2d at 1911 (citing Giant Food, Inc. v. Nation’s Foodservice, Inc., 710 F.2d 1565, 1570-71, 218 USPQ2d 390, 395 (Fed. Cir. 1983)).
Further, 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., 901 F.3d 1367, 1373, 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 (C.C.P.A. 1971)), aff’d per curiam, 777 F. App’x 516, 2019 BL 343921 (Fed. Cir. 2019); TMEP §1207.01(b).
Finally, the fact that one of the cited marks includes the descriptive wording APPAREL COMPANY, also
Fails to distinguish the marks because such word wording been disclaimed and is therefore the less significant portion of the mark. Although there is no mechanical test to determine the dominant element of a mark, consumers would be more likely to perceive a distinctive term, even if suggestive, rather than a generic or descriptive term as the source-identifying feature of the mark. Tao Licensing, LLC v. Bender Consulting Ltd., 125 USPQ2d 1043, 1059-60 (TTAB 2017) (citing In re Dixie Rests., Inc., 105 F.3d 1405, 1406-07, 41 USPQ2d 1531, 1533-34 (Fed. Cir. 1997); In re Binion, 93 USPQ2d 1531, 1534 (TTAB 2009)).
Based on the above, the marks are similar.
Comparison of the Goods/Services
The applicant’s goods are: hats, shirts; arrow vanes.
The registrants’ goods are:
1) Jogging outfits; referees uniforms; underwear; socks; leg-warmers; sport stockings; scarfs; gloves as clothing; belts as clothing; sweat bands for the wrist; protective hockey pants; footwear for use in sports; ski shoes; inner soles; headwear for sporting activities; headbands as clothing; swimming caps; trouser straps and braces; compression clothing and socks for use in sports; Bats and sticks as sporting articles; spare parts and replacement blades for sticks; hockey sticks; ringette sticks; bandy sticks; rinkball sticks; floorball sticks; baseball bats; lacrosse sticks; street hockey sticks; roller hockey sticks; covers for sporting bats and sticks; grip tape for sporting bats and sticks; protective covers for sporting bats and sticks; bat and stick racks; bags specially adapted for sports equipment; cases and equipment bags for sports; goals for sports; hockey goals; goal posts; goal nets; roller skates; ice skates; blades for ice skates; pucks; ice pucks; exercise balls; gloves for games; hockey gloves; elbow pads and guards as sports articles; knee pads and guards as sports articles; shoulder pads and guards as sports articles; chest pads and guards as sports articles; shin pads and guards as sports articles; wrist pads and guards as sports articles; pants comprising protective cups and guards; throat pads and guards as sports articles; spare parts and replacement parts for aforementioned goods
2) Clothing, namely, shirts, sweatshirts, hats, beanies, caps
The applicant’s argument that it’s goods will be used exclusively by archers fails because there is no evidence to predict the category of consumers that will purchase it’s goods, especially since the goods or the identification for the goods do not include any limitation on users.
Where the goods and/or services of an applicant and registrant are identical or virtually identical, the degree of similarity between the marks required to support a finding that confusion is likely declines. See Cai v. Diamond Hong, Inc., 901 F.3d 1367, 1373, 127 USPQ2d 1797, 1801 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (quoting In re Viterra Inc., 671 F.3d 1358, 1363, 101 USPQ2d 1905, 1908 (Fed. Cir. 2012)); TMEP §1207.01(b).
See: http://www.blockeroutdoors.com/
See the relatedness of clothing even as used for various sports
Thus, the evidence establishes that the goods are very closely related.
Channels of Trade
As evidenced above, the clothing commonly travels in the same channels of trade, as does sporting equipment, especially since there are no limits in the parties trade channels. See also:
http://www.sportsmansguide.com/department/hunting?d=115
http://www.dickssportinggoods.com/c/easton
For the foregoing reasons, the Section 2(d) refusal is maintained.
How to respond. Click to file a request for reconsideration of this final Office action that fully resolves all outstanding requirements and refusals and/or click to file a timely appeal to the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB) with the required filing fee(s).
Andrea D. Saunders
/Andrea D. Saunders/
Trademark Attorney
Law Office 117
571-270-3856
Andrea.Saunders@uspto.gov
RESPONSE GUIDANCE