| To: | Worth Acquisition Group LLC (alatifi@tuckerlatifi.com) |
| Subject: | U.S. Trademark Application Serial No. 88496680 - WORTH - N/A |
| Sent: | October 08, 2019 08:37:20 PM |
| Sent As: | ecom118@uspto.gov |
| Attachments: | Attachment - 1 Attachment - 2 Attachment - 3 Attachment - 4 Attachment - 5 Attachment - 6 Attachment - 7 Attachment - 8 Attachment - 9 Attachment - 10 |
United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO)
Office Action (Official Letter) About Applicant’s Trademark Application
|
U.S. Application Serial No. 88496680
Mark: WORTH
|
|
|
Correspondence Address: 160 EAST 84TH STREET, SUITE 5-E
|
|
|
Applicant: Worth Acquisition Group LLC
|
|
|
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: October 08, 2019
Section 2(d) Likelihood of Confusion Refusal
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.
Registration No. 3274953
The applicant’s mark is WORTH. The registered marks is WC WORTH CAPITAL and design with CAPITAL disclaimed.
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)).
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 Viterra Inc., 671 F.3d 1358, 1362, 101 USPQ2d 1905, 1908 (Fed. Cir. 2012); In re Nat’l Data Corp., 753 F.2d 1056, 1058, 224 USPQ 749, 751 (Fed. Cir. 1985); TMEP §1207.01(b)(viii), (c)(ii). Disclaimed matter that is descriptive of or generic for a party’s goods and/or services 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).
The dominant part of the registered mark is WORTH. The applicant’s mark is identical to the dominant part of the mark.
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).
Comparison of the Services
The applicant’s services are identified as “Media production services, namely, video and film production, publication of online magazines; publication of the editorial content of sites accessible via a global computer network; publication of books and magazines; entertainment and educational services, namely, providing a web site containing on-line non-downloadable articles and videos in the fields of finance, entrepreneurship, career growth, travel, fashion, alcoholic beverages, jewelry, automobiles, philanthropy, personal safety and security, recreation and leisure activities; entertainment and educational services, namely, conducting seminars in the fields of finance, entrepreneurship, career growth, travel, fashion, alcoholic beverages, jewelry, automobiles, philanthropy, personal safety and security, recreation and leisure activities; entertainment services in the nature of development, creation, production, distribution, and post-production of motion pictures, television shows, radio shows, multimedia entertainment content.” The registrant’s services are identified as “Business finance procurement services; Investment banking services.”
The applicant’s services specifically indicate that some of its services are in the field of finance. Other services are identified so broadly that they would include the field of finance as the subject matter. The providers of financial services provide seminars in the field of finance and related subjects and could provide online articles and videos and other media in the field of finance and related subjects. The same class of customers would be interested in the applicant’s and registrant’s services.
The marks of the applicant and registrant are similar. The services are related. Consumers are likely to mistakenly believe that the services come from the same source. Registration is therefore refused under Section 2(d) of the Trademark Act.
Registration No. and 5474185
Comparison of the Marks
The applicant’s mark is WORTH. The registered mark is WA WORTH ADVISORS and design with ADVISORS disclaimed.
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)).
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 Viterra Inc., 671 F.3d 1358, 1362, 101 USPQ2d 1905, 1908 (Fed. Cir. 2012); In re Nat’l Data Corp., 753 F.2d 1056, 1058, 224 USPQ 749, 751 (Fed. Cir. 1985); TMEP §1207.01(b)(viii), (c)(ii). Disclaimed matter that is descriptive of or generic for a party’s goods and/or services 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).
The dominant part of the registered mark is WORTH. The applicant’s mark is identical to the dominant part of the mark.
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).
Comparison of the Services
The applicant’s services are identified as “Media production services, namely, video and film production, publication of online magazines; publication of the editorial content of sites accessible via a global computer network; publication of books and magazines; entertainment and educational services, namely, providing a web site containing on-line non-downloadable articles and videos in the fields of finance, entrepreneurship, career growth, travel, fashion, alcoholic beverages, jewelry, automobiles, philanthropy, personal safety and security, recreation and leisure activities; entertainment and educational services, namely, conducting seminars in the fields of finance, entrepreneurship, career growth, travel, fashion, alcoholic beverages, jewelry, automobiles, philanthropy, personal safety and security, recreation and leisure activities; entertainment services in the nature of development, creation, production, distribution, and post-production of motion pictures, television shows, radio shows, multimedia entertainment content.” The registrant’s services are identified as “Financial planning; Financial planning consultation; Financial services namely, wealth management services; Insurance consultancy.”
The applicant’s services specifically indicate that some of its services are in the field of finance. Other services are identified so broadly that they would include the field of finance as the subject matter. The providers of financial services provide seminars in the field of finance and related subjects and could provide online articles and videos and other media in the field of finance and related subjects. The same class of customers would be interested in the applicant’s and registrant’s services.
The services are compared to determine whether they are similar, commercially related, or travel in the same trade channels. See Coach Servs., Inc. v. Triumph Learning LLC, 668 F.3d 1356, 1369-71, 101 USPQ2d 1713, 1722-23 (Fed. Cir. 2012); Herbko Int’l, Inc. v. Kappa Books, Inc., 308 F.3d 1156, 1165, 64 USPQ2d 1375, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2002); TMEP §§1207.01, 1207.01(a)(vi).
The marks of the applicant and registrant are similar. The services are related. Consumers are likely to mistakenly believe that the services come from the same source. Registration is therefore refused under Section 2(d) of the Trademark Act.
Registration No. and 4185721
Comparison of the Marks
In the present case, applicant’s mark is WORTH and registrant’s mark is WORTH. These marks are identical in appearance, sound, and meaning, “and have the potential to be used . . . in exactly the same manner.” In re i.am.symbolic, llc, 116 USPQ2d 1406, 1411 (TTAB 2015), aff’d, 866 F.3d 1315, 123 USPQ2d 1744 (Fed. Cir. 2017). Additionally, because they are identical, these marks are likely to engender the same connotation and overall commercial impression when considered in connection with applicant’s and registrant’s respective goods and/or services. Id.
Therefore, the marks are confusingly similar.
Comparison of the Services
The applicant’s services are identified as “Media production services, namely, video and film production, publication of online magazines; publication of the editorial content of sites accessible via a global computer network; publication of books and magazines; entertainment and educational services, namely, providing a web site containing on-line non-downloadable articles and videos in the fields of finance, entrepreneurship, career growth, travel, fashion, alcoholic beverages, jewelry, automobiles, philanthropy, personal safety and security, recreation and leisure activities; entertainment and educational services, namely, conducting seminars in the fields of finance, entrepreneurship, career growth, travel, fashion, alcoholic beverages, jewelry, automobiles, philanthropy, personal safety and security, recreation and leisure activities; entertainment services in the nature of development, creation, production, distribution, and post-production of motion pictures, television shows, radio shows, multimedia entertainment content.” The registrant’s services are identified as “Entertainment services in the nature of live musical performances.”
The applicant’s media services, publications and seminars are identified broadly enough to include live musical entertainment as a subject matter. Those that offer live musical performances also provide publications, shows, multimedia entertainment, websites and articles and videos about themselves and their music and musical performances.
The marks of the applicant and registrant are identical. The services are related. Consumers are likely to mistakenly believe that the services come from the same source. Registration is therefore refused under Section 2(d) of the Trademark Act.
Registration No. 4571888
Comparison of the Marks
In a likelihood of confusion determination, the marks in their entireties are compared for similarities in appearance, sound, connotation, and commercial impression. In re i.am.symbolic, llc, 866 F.3d 1315, 1323, 123 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2017); 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)); In re E. I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., 476 F.2d 1357, 1361, 177 USPQ 563, 567 (C.C.P.A. 1973); TMEP §1207.01(b)-(b)(v).
In the present case, applicant’s mark is WORTH and registrant’s mark is WORTH. These marks are identical in appearance, sound, and meaning, “and have the potential to be used . . . in exactly the same manner.” In re i.am.symbolic, llc, 116 USPQ2d 1406, 1411 (TTAB 2015), aff’d, 866 F.3d 1315, 123 USPQ2d 1744 (Fed. Cir. 2017). Additionally, because they are identical, these marks are likely to engender the same connotation and overall commercial impression when considered in connection with applicant’s and registrant’s respective goods and/or services. Id.
Therefore, the marks are confusingly similar.
Comparison of the Goods and Services
Where the marks of the respective parties are identical or virtually identical, as in this case, the degree of similarity or relatedness between the goods and services needed to support a finding of likelihood of confusion declines. See In re i.am.symbolic, llc, 116 USPQ2d 1406, 1411 (TTAB 2015) (citing In re Shell Oil Co., 992 F.2d 1204, 1207, 26 USPQ2d 1687, 1689 (Fed. Cir. 1993)), aff’d, 866 F.3d 1315, 123 USPQ2d 1744 (Fed. Cir. 2017); TMEP §1207.01(a).
The applicant’s services are identified as “Media production services, namely, video and film production, publication of online magazines; publication of the editorial content of sites accessible via a global computer network; publication of books and magazines; entertainment and educational services, namely, providing a web site containing on-line non-downloadable articles and videos in the fields of finance, entrepreneurship, career growth, travel, fashion, alcoholic beverages, jewelry, automobiles, philanthropy, personal safety and security, recreation and leisure activities; entertainment and educational services, namely, conducting seminars in the fields of finance, entrepreneurship, career growth, travel, fashion, alcoholic beverages, jewelry, automobiles, philanthropy, personal safety and security, recreation and leisure activities; entertainment services in the nature of development, creation, production, distribution, and post-production of motion pictures, television shows, radio shows, multimedia entertainment content.” The registrant’s goods are identified as “Audio and video recordings featuring music and artistic performances.”
The applicant’s media services, production services, publications, motion pictures, television shows, radio shows, and multimedia entertainment content are identified broadly enough to include musical and artistic performances as a subject matter.
The compared services need not be identical or even competitive to find a likelihood of confusion. See On-line Careline Inc. v. Am. Online Inc., 229 F.3d 1080, 1086, 56 USPQ2d 1471, 1475 (Fed. Cir. 2000); Recot, Inc. v. Becton, 214 F.3d 1322, 1329, 54 USPQ2d 1894, 1898 (Fed. Cir. 2000); TMEP §1207.01(a)(i). They need only be “related in some manner and/or if the circumstances surrounding their marketing are such that they could give rise to the mistaken belief that [the goods and/or services] emanate from the same source.” Coach Servs., Inc. v. Triumph Learning LLC, 668 F.3d 1356, 1369, 101 USPQ2d 1713, 1722 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (quoting 7-Eleven Inc. v. Wechsler, 83 USPQ2d 1715, 1724 (TTAB 2007)); TMEP §1207.01(a)(i).
The marks of the applicant and registrant are identical. The goods and services are related. Consumers are likely to mistakenly believe that the services come from the same source. Registration is therefore refused under Section 2(d) of the Trademark Act.
Specimens
Registration is refused because the specimen does not show the applied-for mark in use in commerce in International Class 41. Trademark Act Sections 1 and 45, 15 U.S.C. §§1051, 1127; 37 C.F.R. §§2.34(a)(1)(iv), 2.56(a); TMEP §§904, 904.07(a), 1301.04(g)(i). Specifically, the specimen does not show the mark used in association with the identified services. The mark appears to be used in association with a section or feature in a magazine and not used in association with the services identified in the application. The specimen shows that the mark is used in the middle of the magazine and in relation to a section of the publication dealing with wealth management and no other subject matter.
The specimen does not show the mark used in association with “Media production services, namely, video and film production, publication of online magazines; publication of the editorial content of sites accessible via a global computer network; publication of books and magazines; entertainment and educational services, namely, providing a web site containing on-line non-downloadable articles and videos in the fields of finance, entrepreneurship, career growth, travel, fashion, alcoholic beverages, jewelry, automobiles, philanthropy, personal safety and security, recreation and leisure activities; entertainment and educational services, namely, conducting seminars in the fields of finance, entrepreneurship, career growth, travel, fashion, alcoholic beverages, jewelry, automobiles, philanthropy, personal safety and security, recreation and leisure activities; entertainment services in the nature of development, creation, production, distribution, and post-production of motion pictures, television shows, radio shows, multimedia entertainment content.”
The applicant should note that publishing one’s own magazine or publication or producing one’s own video, film, motion picture, show or multimedia content is not a service. In order to be a service the actions must be done on behalf of others.
An applicant publishing its own periodical is not a registrable service because it is done primarily for applicant’s own benefit and not for the benefit of others. TMEP §1301.01(b)(iii); see In re Alaska Nw. Publ’g Co., 212 USPQ 316 (TTAB 1981); In re Landmark Commc’ns, Inc., 204 USPQ 692 (TTAB 1979); In re Television Digest, Inc., 169 USPQ 505 (TTAB 1971).
The following criteria determines whether the applicant is providing services:
(1) A service is a real activity, not an idea, concept, process, or system.
(2) A service is performed primarily for the benefit of someone other than the applicant.
(3) A service is an activity that is sufficiently separate and qualitatively different from an applicant’s principal activity, i.e., it cannot be an activity that is merely incidental or necessary to an applicant’s larger business.
TMEP §1301.01(a); see In re Dr Pepper Co., 836 F.2d 508, 509-510, 5 USPQ2d 1207, 1208-1209 (Fed. Cir. 1987); In re Canadian Pac. Ltd., 754 F.2d 992, 994-95, 224 USPQ 971, 973 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
The specimen must show that the applicant is providing the services identified and providing those services to others.
An application based on Trademark Act Section 1(a) must include a specimen showing the applied-for mark in use in commerce for each international class of services identified in the application or amendment to allege use. 15 U.S.C. §1051(a)(1); 37 C.F.R. §§2.34(a)(1)(iv), 2.56(a); TMEP §§904, 904.07(a).
Examples of specimens for services include advertising and marketing materials, brochures, photographs of business signage and billboards, and webpages that show the mark used in the actual sale, rendering, or advertising of the services. See TMEP §1301.04(a), (h)(iv)(C). Specimens comprising advertising and promotional materials must show a direct association between the mark and the services. TMEP §1301.04(f)(ii).
Applicant may respond to this refusal by satisfying one of the following for each applicable international class:
(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 the mark in actual use in commerce for the services identified in the application or amendment to allege use. A “verified substitute specimen” is a specimen that is accompanied by the following statement made in a signed affidavit or supported by a declaration under 37 C.F.R. §2.20: “The substitute (or new, or originally submitted, if appropriate) specimen(s) was/were in use in commerce at least as early as the filing date of the application or prior to the filing of the amendment to allege use.” The substitute specimen cannot be accepted without this statement.
(2) Amend the filing basis to intent to use under Section 1(b), for which no specimen is required. This option will later necessitate additional fee(s) and filing requirements such as providing a specimen.
For an overview of both response options referenced above and instructions on how to satisfy either option online using the Trademark Electronic Application System (TEAS) form, please go to http://www.gov.uspto.report/trademarks/law/specimen.jsp.
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
/Kelley L. Wells/
Examining Attorney
Law Office 118
571-272-9312
Kelley.Wells@uspto.gov
RESPONSE GUIDANCE
