| To: | The Carnegie Hall Corporation (trademarks@kirkland.com) |
| Subject: | U.S. Trademark Application Serial No. 88497640 - NYO-USA - N/A |
| Sent: | September 26, 2019 05:38:19 PM |
| Sent As: | ecom127@uspto.gov |
| Attachments: | Attachment - 1 Attachment - 2 Attachment - 3 Attachment - 4 Attachment - 5 Attachment - 6 |
United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO)
Office Action (Official Letter) About Applicant’s Trademark Application
|
U.S. Application Serial No. 88497640
Mark: NYO-USA
|
|
|
Correspondence Address:
|
|
|
Applicant: The Carnegie Hall 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: September 26, 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) REFUSAL – LIKELIHOOD OF CONFUSION
Applicant’s mark is NYO-USA, for “Organizing and conducting musical programs, namely, auditions, training and tour performances for young musicians who perform together as a symphony orchestra”, in International Class 41.
Registration No. 5769670 IS NYO-CHINA, for “Entertainment services in the nature of live musical performances; Entertainment services in the nature of live audio performances by classical musicians; Entertainment services in the nature of live visual and audio performances by classical musicians; Entertainment services in the nature of live visual and audio performances, namely, musical band, rock group, gymnastic, dance, and ballet performances; Entertainment services in the nature of live visual and audio performances, namely, musical, variety, news and comedy shows; Entertainment services in the nature of live vocal performances by accompanying classical musicians; Entertainment services in the nature of live classical performances; Entertainment services in the nature of presenting live musical performances; Entertainment services in the nature of classical music; Entertainment, namely, live performances by musical bands; Entertainment, namely, live performances by a musical band; Live performances by a musical group; Planning arrangement of showing movies, shows, plays or musical performances; Presentation of musical performances”, in International Class 41.
Registration No. 5798349 is NYO CHINA, plus a design, for “Consultation and advice regarding musical selections and arrangements for sound recordings and live performances; Entertainment services in the nature of live musical performances; Entertainment services in the nature of live audio performances by classical musicians; Entertainment services in the nature of live visual and audio performances by classical musicians; Entertainment services in the nature of live visual and audio performances, namely, musical band, rock group, gymnastic, dance, and ballet performances; Entertainment services in the nature of live visual and audio performances, namely, musical, variety, news and comedy shows; Entertainment services in the nature of live vocal performances by classical musicians; Entertainment services in the nature of live classical music performances; Entertainment services in the nature of presenting live musical performances; Entertainment services in the nature of classical music; Entertainment, namely, live performances by musical bands; Entertainment, namely, live performances by a musical band; Live performances by a musical group; Planning arrangement of showing movies, shows, plays or musical performances; Presentation of musical performances; Providing an Internet website portal featuring links to musical artist websites and music performance ticket information; Rental of facilities and equipment for the production of radio and television programs, musical and theatrical productions, namely, performance venues, studios, sets, dressing rooms; Theatrical and musical floor shows provided at performance venues”, in International Class 41.
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 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 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.
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).
Here, applicant’s mark NYO-USA and registrant’s marks NYO-CHINA and NYO CHINA plus design share the same initial lettering, NYO. Thus, for all of the marks, NYO is the mark’s dominant element. Thus, the marks are identical in significant part, and the commercial impression of the marks is substantially the same. The marks have their differences; however, these differences are insufficient to obviate a likelihood of confusion.
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., __ F.3d __, 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 (CCPA 1971)); TMEP §1207.01(b).
For Registration No. 5798349, 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 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)). Thus, here, in the registered mark, the design element is that of a music notes and is insufficiently distinctive to alter the applied-for mark's overall commercial impression from that engendered by the mark's literal element, NYO CHINA. Further, despite the mark's design element, consumers will use NYO CHINA to refer to or request the associated services. Thus, NYO CHINA is the applied-for mark's dominant element and source-indicating essence.
Consumers are generally more inclined to focus on the first word, prefix, or syllable in any trademark or service mark. See Palm Bay Imps., Inc. v. Veuve Clicquot Ponsardin Maison Fondee En 1772, 396 F.3d 1369, 1372, 73 USPQ2d 1689, 1692 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (finding similarity between VEUVE ROYALE and two VEUVE CLICQUOT marks in part because “VEUVE . . . remains a ‘prominent feature’ as the first word in the mark and the first word to appear on the label”); Century 21 Real Estate Corp. v. Century Life of Am., 970 F.2d 874, 876, 23 USPQ2d 1698, 1700 (Fed Cir. 1992) (finding similarity between CENTURY 21 and CENTURY LIFE OF AMERICA in part because “consumers must first notice th[e] identical lead word”); see also In re Detroit Athletic Co., 903 F.3d 1297, 1303, 128 USPQ2d 1047, 1049 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (finding “the identity of the marks’ two initial words is particularly significant because consumers typically notice those words first”). Here, for all of the marks concerned, NYO is the first syllable or wording in the marks. While applicant’s mark contains the additional wording USA, and the registered marks include the additional wording CHINA, these terms are less significant in creating the overall commercial impression of the mark within which they are contained because of their subordinate position as the second part of the mark.
Thus, for all of the marks concerned, the part of the mark that consumers are most likely to focus on and recall is the same: NYO. From the foregoing, it follows that the marks engender an overall commercial impression that is highly similar.
In short, the marks are identical in part, sharing the dominant feature NYO. Neither the design element in registrant’s mark nor the additional wording in the compared marks changes the overall commercial impression of these marks.
Thus, when compared in their entireties, the marks are confusingly similar.
In this case, the registrations use broad wording to describe “Entertainment services in the nature of live musical performances”, which presumably encompasses all services of the type described, including applicant’s more narrow “organizing and conducting musical programs, namely, auditions, training, and tour performances for young musicians who perform together”. 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 services are legally identical as registrant’s entertainment services broadly include tour performances for young musicians who perform together, among many other musical performances. 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)).
Additionally, the services of the registrant have no restrictions as to nature, type, channels of trade, or classes of purchasers and are “presumed to travel in the same channels of trade to the same class of purchasers.” In re Viterra Inc., 671 F.3d 1358, 1362, 101 USPQ2d 1905, 1908 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (quoting Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Packard Press, Inc., 281 F.3d 1261, 1268, 62 USPQ2d 1001, 1005 (Fed. Cir. 2002)).
Thus, applicant’s and registrant’s services are related.
Use of the confusingly similar marks in relation to the related services would lead to a likelihood of confusion. Accordingly, given the similarity of applicant’s mark to registrant’s mark, and the related nature of the services those marks identify, there is a likelihood of source confusion. Therefore, registration is refused pursuant to Section 2(d) of the Trademark Act.
RESPONSE GUIDELINES
For this application to proceed, applicant must explicitly address each refusal and/or requirement in this Office action. For a refusal, applicant may provide written arguments and evidence against the refusal, and may have other response options if specified above. For a requirement, applicant should set forth the changes or statements. Please see “Responding to Office Actions” and the informational video “Response to Office Action” for more information and tips on responding.
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
/Josh Galante/
Joshua M. Galante
Trademark Examining Attorney
Law Office 127
571-272-4310
Josh.Galante@uspto.gov
RESPONSE GUIDANCE
