United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO)
Office Action (Official Letter) About Applicant’s Trademark Application
|
U.S. Application Serial No. 88499514
Mark: COOKS JCPENNEY HOME
|
|
|
Correspondence Address:
|
|
|
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: September 16, 2019
The assigned trademark examining attorney has reviewed the referenced application and has determined the following:
Section 2(d) - Likelihood of Confusion Refusal
Registration of the applied-for mark is refused because of a likelihood of confusion with the marks in U.S. Registration Nos. 4950068 and 4950072. Trademark Act Section 2(d), 15 U.S.C. §1052(d); see TMEP §§1207.01 et seq. See the attached registrations.
The overriding concern is not only to prevent buyer confusion as to the source of the goods and/or services, 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).
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 Davia, 110 USPQ2d 1810, 1812 (TTAB 2014) (citing In re 1st USA Realty Prof’ls, Inc., 84 USPQ2d 1581, 1586 (TTAB 2007)); In re White Swan Ltd., 8 USPQ2d 1534, 1535 (TTAB 1988)); TMEP §1207.01(b).
In the instant case, the applicant’s mark “COOKS JCPENNEY HOME” is highly similar to the registrant’s marks, both for “JCPENNEY”. The only difference between the marks is that the applicant added the merely descriptive wording “COOKS” and “HOME” to the registered mark.
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). Matter that is descriptive of or generic for a party’s goods and/or services is typically less significant or less dominant in relation to other wording in a mark. See Anheuser-Busch, LLC v. Innvopak Sys. Pty Ltd., 115 USPQ2d 1816, 1824-25 (TTAB 2015) (citing In re Chatam Int’l Inc., 380 F.3d 1340, 1342-43, 71 USPQ2d 1944, 1946 (Fed. Cir. 2004)).
In the present case, the attached evidence shows that the wording “COOKS” and “HOME” in the applied-for mark is merely descriptive of or generic for applicant’s goods. Thus, this wording is less significant in terms of affecting the mark’s commercial impression, and renders the wording JCPENNEY the more dominant element of the mark.
Comparison of the Goods
The applicant’s goods in International Class 8 for “Cutlery”; International Class 11 for “Small electrics, griddles, fryers, slow cookers, coffee and tea makers”; International Class 21 for “Dishes, dinnerware, food storage, serving utensils, cookware and bakeware”; and International Class 24 for “Kitchen towels and oven mitts” are closely related to the registrant’s services (RNs 4950068 and 4950072) in International Class 35 for “Retail department store services, retail mail order catalog services, computerized online retail department store services in the fields of cosmetics, jewelry, luggage, handbags, furniture, picture frames, lamps, dinnerware, glassware, wearing apparel and footwear for men, women, and children, bedding, window coverings and window hardware, towels, table linens, rugs, exercise equipment, pet accessories, small electric appliances”.
The use of similar marks on or in connection with both products and retail-store services has been held likely to cause confusion where the evidence showed that the retail-store services featured the same type of products. See In re Detroit Athletic Co., 903 F.3d 1297, 1307, 128 USPQ2d 1047, 1051 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (holding the use of similar marks for various clothing items, including athletic uniforms, and for retail shops featuring sports team related clothing and apparel likely to cause confusion); In re House Beer, LLC, 114 USPQ2d 1073, 1078 (TTAB 2015) (holding the use of identical marks for beer and for retail store services featuring beer likely to cause confusion); In re Thomas, 79 USPQ2d 1021, 1023 (TTAB 2006) (holding the use of similar marks for jewelry and for retail-jewelry and mineral-store services likely to cause confusion); TMEP §1207.01(a)(ii).
Purchasers of applicant’s goods could mistakenly assume such goods were produced by registrant, or that applicant and registrant are related in some way. Accordingly, since the marks are confusingly similar and the goods are closely related, there is a likelihood of confusion and registration must be refused under Section 2(d) of the Trademark Act.
Ownership of Cited Registrations
(1) Record the assignment with the USPTO’s Assignment Recordation Branch (ownership transfer documents such as assignments can be filed online at http://etas.uspto.gov) and promptly notify the trademark examining attorney that the assignment has been duly recorded.
(2) Submit copies of documents evidencing the chain of title.
(3) Submit the following statement, verified with an affidavit or signed declaration under 37 C.F.R. §2.20: “Applicant is the owner of U.S. Registration Nos. 4950068 and 4950072.” To provide this statement using the Trademark Electronic Application System (TEAS), use the “Response to Office Action” form; answer “yes” to wizard questions #3 and #10; then, continuing on to the next portion of the form, in the “Additional Statement(s)” section, find “Active Prior Registration(s)” and insert the U.S. registration numbers in the data fields; and follow the instructions within the form for signing. The form must be signed twice; a signature is required both in the “Declaration Signature” section and in the “Response Signature” section.
TMEP §812.01; see 15 U.S.C. §1060; 37 C.F.R. §§2.193(e)(1), 3.25, 3.73(a)-(b); TMEP §502.02(a).
Recording a document with the Assignment Recordation Branch does not constitute a response to an Office action. TMEP §503.01(d).
Although the trademark examining attorney has refused registration, applicant may respond to the refusal to register by submitting evidence and arguments in support of registration. If applicant chooses to respond to the refusal to register, then applicant must also respond to the following requirements.
Application Informalities
Identification of Goods
A portion of the identification of goods is unacceptable as indefinite because the goods listed were not specific enough. See 37 C.F.R. §2.32(a)(6); TMEP §1402.01.
Applicant may adopt the following identification, if accurate:
Class 8: “{Specify, e.g., Table} cutlery; serving utensils, namely, knives”;
Class 11: “Small electric {specify, e.g., appliances, namely}, griddles, fryers, slow cookers, coffee makers and tea {specify, e.g., kettles, pots}”;
Class 21: “Dishes, dinnerware, {specify, e.g., household containers for} food storage, serving utensils, namely, {specify, e.g., forks, spoons, etc.}, cookware, namely, {specify, e.g., pots, pans} and bakeware; oven mitts”
Class 24: “Kitchen towels”
For assistance with identifying and classifying goods and/or services in trademark applications, please see the online searchable Manual of Acceptable Identifications of Goods and Services at http://tess2.gov.uspto.report/netahtml/tidm.html.
Please note that, while the identification of services may be amended to clarify or limit the services, adding to the services or broadening the scope of the services is not permitted. 37 C.F.R. §2.71(a); TMEP §1402.06. Therefore, applicant may not amend the identification to include services that are not within the scope of the services set forth in the present identification.
Applicant must disclaim the wording “COOKS” and “HOME” because these words merely describe an ingredient, quality, characteristic, function, feature, purpose, or use of applicant’s goods and/or services, and thus is an unregistrable component of the mark. Specifically, the applicant’s goods are for cooks and they are for use at home. See 15 U.S.C. §§1052(e)(1), 1056(a); DuoProSS Meditech Corp. v. Inviro Med. Devices, Ltd., 695 F.3d 1247, 1251, 103 USPQ2d 1753, 1755 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (quoting In re Oppedahl & Larson LLP, 373 F.3d 1171, 1173, 71 USPQ2d 1370, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2004)); TMEP §§1213, 1213.03(a).
The word “COOK” is defined as “a person who prepares food for eating”. The word “HOME” is defined as “one’s place of residence”. Please see the attached dictionary definitions, as well as the applicant’s attached website, which demonstrates that the listed goods are intended to be used at home by people who prepare food for eating, i.e., cooks.
An applicant may not claim exclusive rights to terms that others may need to use to describe their goods and/or services in the marketplace. See Dena Corp. v. Belvedere Int’l, Inc., 950 F.2d 1555, 1560, 21 USPQ2d 1047, 1051 (Fed. Cir. 1991); In re Aug. Storck KG, 218 USPQ 823, 825 (TTAB 1983). A disclaimer of unregistrable matter does not affect the appearance of the mark; that is, a disclaimer does not physically remove the disclaimed matter from the mark. See Schwarzkopf v. John H. Breck, Inc., 340 F.2d 978, 978, 144 USPQ 433, 433 (C.C.P.A. 1965); TMEP §1213.
If applicant does not provide the required disclaimer, the USPTO may refuse to register the entire mark. See In re Stereotaxis Inc., 429 F.3d 1039, 1040-41, 77 USPQ2d 1087, 1088-89 (Fed. Cir. 2005); TMEP §1213.01(b).
Please see the attached registrations, both live and dead, which are/were owned by the applicant, where the applicant disclaimed the wording “COOKS” and “HOME” when used in connection with goods that are identical and/or highly related to the instant goods. The examining attorney recognizes that several of the attached registrations have been cancelled, but points them out to demonstrate that the applicant previously acknowledged the descriptive nature of this wording, when used in connection with similar goods.
Applicant should submit a disclaimer in the following standardized format:
No claim is made to the exclusive right to use “COOKS” and “HOME” apart from the mark as shown.
For an overview of disclaimers and instructions on how to satisfy this disclaimer requirement online using the Trademark Electronic Application System (TEAS) form, please go to http://www.gov.uspto.report/trademarks/law/disclaimer.jsp.
Response
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
/David Collier/
Examining Attorney
Law Office 109
(571) 272-8859
david.collier@uspto.gov (not for formal responses)
RESPONSE GUIDANCE
