To: | HOLLYHOUX, INC. (khan@lhplaw.com) |
Subject: | U.S. Trademark Application Serial No. 88500384 - HYDRALINE - N/A |
Sent: | August 30, 2019 05:10:40 PM |
Sent As: | ecom122@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 |
United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO)
Office Action (Official Letter) About Applicant’s Trademark Application
U.S. Application Serial No. 88500384
Mark: HYDRALINE
|
|
Correspondence Address: 660 S. FIGUEROA ST., SUITE 1960
|
|
Applicant: HOLLYHOUX, INC.
|
|
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: August 30, 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.
SUMMARY OF ISSUES:
SECTION 2(d) REFUSAL – LIKELIHOOD OF CONFUSION
Applicant is seeking registration for the mark HYDRALINE (in standard character form) for “moisturising creams; moisturizing preparations for the skin; moisturizing solutions for the skin; after sun moisturisers; beauty serums; eye cream; facial cleansers; facial cream; facial moisturizers; fragranced facial moisturizer; night cream; skin moisturizer masks; skin moisturizing gel; skin toners; skin care products, namely, non-medicated skin serum” in International Class 3.
The mark in Reg. No. 1879452 is HYDRALANE (in standard character form) for “perfume; essential oils for personal use and essential oils for use in the manufacture of cosmetics; cosmetics, namely moisture skin care, enriched moisture care, moisture masque, eye contour moisture care, moisturizing cleanser, moisturizing toner; hair lotions; dentifrices” in International Class 3.
The mark in Reg. No. 4916019 is HYDRALANE (in standard character form) for “soaps, perfumery, essential oils, cosmetics, hair lotions, dentifrices” in International Class 3.
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 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. 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.
Comparison of the Marks
Applicant’s mark is HYDRALINE in standard character form.
The mark in Reg. No. 1879452 is HYDRALANE in standard character form.
The mark in Reg. No. 4916019 is HYRDRALANE in standard character form.
In the present case, the applicant’s mark is highly similar to each of the registered marks in sound, appearance, and overall commercial impression. Specifically, applicant’s and registrant’s marks differ by only one letter, each beginning with the identical wording “HYDRA-” and ending with the similar wording “-LINE” and “-LANE”, respectively. This is a minor visual difference that would be easily overlooked or misremembered by consumers.
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).
Similarly, while the marks may differ slightly in sound due to the differing vowels, the difference is minimal and could be misheard or misremembered by consumers. Slight differences in the sound of similar marks will not avoid a likelihood of confusion. In re Energy Telecomm. & Elec. Ass’n, 222 USPQ 350, 351 (TTAB 1983); see In re Viterra Inc., 671 F.3d 1358, 1367, 101 USPQ2d 1905, 1912 (Fed. Cir. 2012).
Accordingly, the marks are considered to be confusingly similar.
Comparison of the Goods
Applicant’s goods are “moisturising creams; moisturizing preparations for the skin; moisturizing solutions for the skin; after sun moisturisers; beauty serums; eye cream; facial cleansers; facial cream; facial moisturizers; fragranced facial moisturizer; night cream; skin moisturizer masks; skin moisturizing gel; skin toners; skin care products, namely, non-medicated skin serum” in International Class 3.
The goods in Reg. No. 1879452 are “perfume; essential oils for personal use and essential oils for use in the manufacture of cosmetics; cosmetics, namely moisture skin care, enriched moisture care, moisture masque, eye contour moisture care, moisturizing cleanser, moisturizing toner; hair lotions; dentifrices” in International Class 3.
The goods in Reg. No. 4916019 are “soaps, perfumery, essential oils, cosmetics, hair lotions, dentifrices” in International Class 3.
In this case, the goods of the parties 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)).
Accordingly, registration is refused pursuant to Trademark Act Section 2(d).
Although applicant’s mark has been refused registration, applicant may respond to the refusal by submitting evidence and arguments in support of registration
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. 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
/Kyle D. Simcox/
Trademark Examining Attorney
U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
Law Office 122
(571) 272-7851
Kyle.Simcox@USPTO.gov
RESPONSE GUIDANCE