United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO)
Office Action (Official Letter) About Applicant’s Trademark Application
|
U.S. Application Serial No. 88505302
Mark: LITTLE JOEY
|
|
|
Correspondence Address: WOODARD, EMHARDT, MORIARTY, MCNETT & HEN 111 MONUMENT CIRCLE, SUITE 3700
|
|
|
Applicant: Australian Gold, LLC
|
|
|
Reference/Docket No. 8183-1833
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 05, 2019
The referenced application has been reviewed by the assigned trademark examining attorney. Applicant must respond timely and completely to the issues 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 has applied for the mark LITTLE JOEY, in design form, for use in connection with the following goods:
Class 3: Outdoor skin tanning preparations, sun-tanning preparations, body wash, soaps and skin moisturizers
Registrant in U.S. Reg. No. 2376395 owns a registration for the mark JOEY NEW YORK, in standard character form, for use in connection with the following goods:
Class 3: cosmetics and skin care products, namely, skin creams, skin lotions, skin cleansers, skin moisturizers, skin toners, facial masks, facial moisturizers, non-medicated acne treatment, foundations, face powders, lipsticks, blush, lip gloss, lip pencils, eyebrow pencils, eye shadows, eye liners, nail polish
Registrant in U.S. Reg. No. 5291582 owns a registration for the mark JOEY NEW YORK, in standard character form, for use in connection with the following goods:
Class 3: Body scrub; body lotion
Registrant in U.S. Reg. No. 4910852 owns a registration for the mark LITTLE JOE, in standard character form, for use in connection with the following goods:
Class 3: Air deodorizing preparations
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.
Similarity 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 this case, the applied-for mark LITTLE JOEY is confusingly similar in sound, appearance, and connotation to the registrations for LITTLE JOE, JOEY NEW YORK, and JOEY SALTS.
With respect to the applied-for mark LITTLE JOEY and the registered mark LITTLE JOE, these marks are nearly identical; that is, the only difference is the applied-for mark uses the nickname “JOEY” whereas the registered mark uses the name “JOE.” 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).
With respect to the applied-for mark LITTLE JOEY and the registered marks JOEY NEW YORK and JOEY SALTS, these marks share the same dominant word “JOEY”. The wording “NEW YORK” and “SALTS” in the registered marks are disclaimed, and disclaimed matter that is descriptive of or generic for a party’s goods 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). Thus, the wording “JOEY” in these registered mark is the dominant element in terms of affecting the mark’s commercial impression, which is identical to the word “JOEY” in the applied-for mark.
Finally, the fact that the applied-for mark contains design elements, in addition to the literal elements of the mark, does not obviate the likelihood of confusion in this case. 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. 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)).
Accordingly, applicant’s and registrants’ marks are similar in sound, appearance, connotation, and commercial impression. As such, the marks are confusingly similar for likelihood of confusion purposes.
Relatedness of the Goods
In this case, the applied-for goods are related to the registered goods because they are commonly offered under the same brand name.
The attached Internet evidence, consisting of screenshots of webpages from entities offering the applied-for tanning preparations, body wash, soaps, and skin moisturizers, and the registered air deodorizers, body scrubs, body lotions, and skin care products, establishes that the same entity commonly provides the relevant goods and markets the goods under the same mark.
Thus, applicant’s and registrants’ goods are considered related for likelihood of confusion purposes. See, e.g., In re Davey Prods. Pty Ltd., 92 USPQ2d 1198, 1202-04 (TTAB 2009); In re Toshiba Med. Sys. Corp., 91 USPQ2d 1266, 1268-69, 1271-72 (TTAB 2009).
Conclusion
The similarity between applicant and registrants’ marks and goods is likely to cause consumers to be confused, mistaken, or deceived as to the source of the goods. Accordingly, applicant’s mark must be refused registration under Section 2(d) of the Trademark Act.
CLARIFICATION OF IDENTIFICATION OF GOODS REQUIRED
Applicant may substitute the following wording, if accurate:
Class 3: Outdoor skin tanning preparations, body wash, skin soaps and skin moisturizers
Class 5: antibacterial soaps
For assistance with identifying and classifying goods and services in trademark applications, please see the USPTO’s online searchable U.S. Acceptable Identification of Goods and Services Manual. See TMEP §1402.04.
MULTIPLE-CLASS APPLICATION REQUIREMENTS
The application identifies goods in more than one international class; therefore, applicant must satisfy all the requirements below for each international class based on Trademark Act Section 1(b):
(1) List the goods by their international class number in consecutive numerical order, starting with the lowest numbered class.
(2) Submit a filing fee for each international class not covered by the fee(s) already paid (view the USPTO’s current fee schedule). The application identifies goods that are classified in at least 2 classes; however, applicant submitted a fee(s) sufficient for only 1 class(es). Applicant must either submit the filing fees for the classes not covered by the submitted fees or restrict the application to the number of classes covered by the fees already paid.
See 15 U.S.C. §§1051(b), 1112, 1126(e); 37 C.F.R. §§2.32(a)(6)-(7), 2.34(a)(2)-(3), 2.86(a); TMEP §§1403.01, 1403.02(c).
See an overview of the requirements for a Section 1(b) multiple-class application and how to satisfy the requirements online using the Trademark Electronic Application System (TEAS) form.
ASSISTANCE
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
/Elizabeth A. O'Brien/
Examining Attorney
Law Office 105
(571) 272-0046
Elizabeth.OBrien@uspto.gov
RESPONSE GUIDANCE
