Offc Action Outgoing

United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO)

Office Action (Official Letter) About Applicant’s Trademark Application

 

 

 

NONFINAL OFFICE ACTION

 

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 03, 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.

 

Summary of Issues That Applicant Must Address

 

·         Partial Refusal Under Section 2(d):  Likelihood of Confusion

·         Amendment of Classification and Identification of Goods and Services Required

 

Partial Refusal Under Section 2(d):  Likelihood of Confusion

 

This partial refusal applies only to the following goods identified in Class 11:  “compact and transportable devices” and “self healing lights.”

 

Registration of the applied-for mark is refused because of a likelihood of confusion with the mark in U.S. Registration No. 5723549.  Trademark Act Section 2(d), 15 U.S.C. §1052(d); see TMEP §§1207.01 et seq.  See the attached registration.

 

Applicant has filed an intent to use application to register the mark BASK and design for, in pertinent part, “compact and transportable devices” and “self healing lights.”  The registered mark is BASK in standard characters for “light therapy lamps” and “sensory light therapy unit.”

 

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 and differences in the marks.”); TMEP §1207.01.

 

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 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).

 

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)). 

 

The applicant’s mark is similar to the cited mark in sound, appearance, and meaning given the shared presences of the word “BASK”, which forms the sole literal element of both of the marks.  As such, these marks are likely to engender the same connotation and overall commercial impression when considered in connection with similar goods.    

 

Comparison of the Goods

 

The compared goods 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] 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).

 

However, the services rendered in connection the applied-for mark and referenced mark are legally identical.  Determining likelihood of confusion is based on the description of the goods stated in the application and registration at issue, not on extrinsic evidence of actual use.  See In re Detroit Athletic Co., 903 F.3d 1297, 1307, 128 USPQ2d 1047, 1052 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (citing In re i.am.symbolic, llc, 866 F.3d 1315, 1325, 123 USPQ2d 1744, 1749 (Fed. Cir. 2017)).  

 

In this case, the application uses broad wording to describe “compact and transportable devices” and “self healing lights,” which presumably encompasses all goods of the type described, including registrant’s more narrow “light therapy lamps” and “sensory light therapy unit.”  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 goods are legally identical.  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 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)).  Thus, applicant’s and registrant’s goods are related.

 

Conclusion

 

The parties utilize marks comprised of the same literal element “BASK” in connection with legally identical goods.  Accordingly, registration is refused pursuant to Section 2(d) of the Trademark Act due to a likelihood of confusion with the mark in U.S. Registration No. 5723549.

 

Although applicant’s mark has been refused registration, applicant may respond to the refusal by submitting evidence and arguments in support of registration.  However, if applicant responds to the refusal, applicant must also respond to the requirement set forth below.

 

Amendment of Classification and Identification of Goods and Services Required

 

Applicant submitted the following identification with the application:

 

International Class 5

 

Larvae exterminating preparations and insect exterminating agents

 

International Class 9

 

Marine safety products, namely, monitoring and detection systems, retracting cleats

 

International Class 11

 

Outdoor automated mist system for insect and pest control; do-it-yourself pest control systems; compact and transportable devices; larvicide dispensing systems for outdoor standing water; insect repelling lighting systems for attics, garages and outdoor areas; marine dock lighting system; self healing lights

 

The above bolded wording in the identification of goods needs clarification because it does not identify the goods with enough specificity, or it is too broad because it identifies goods in multiple International Classes.  TMEP §§1402.01, 1402.03. 

 

The wording “marine safety products, namely, monitoring and detection systems, retracting cleats” is indefinite and possibly overly broad.  See 37 C.F.R. §2.32(a)(6); TMEP §§1402.01, 1402.03.  Applicant must amend this wording to specify the common commercial or generic name of these goods.  See TMEP §1402.01.  If the goods have no common commercial or generic name, applicant must describe the product, its main purpose, and its intended uses.  See id.  Additionally, applicant must list the system’s parts or components, again using common generic terms and referencing the primary parts or components of the system first.  See 37 C.F.R. §2.32(a)(6); TMEP §§1401.05(d), 1402.01, 1402.03(a).  This wording should be classified in the same international class as the primary parts or components of the system.  See TMEP §1401.05(d).

 

The wording “retracting cleats” is generally indefinite and requires clarification as to make clear the nature of the goods offered.

 

The goods identified as “compact and transportable devices” in International Class 11 is indefinite and overly board.  See 37 C.F.R. §2.32(a)(6); TMEP §§1402.01, 1402.03.  Specially, this wording is so indefinite and overbroad as to potentially encompass devices in several international classes.  Applicant must therefore specify the common commercial or generic name of the goods offered.

 

The wording “outdoor automated mist system for insect and pest control,” “do-it-yourself pest control systems,” “larvicide dispensing systems for outdoor standing water,” “insect repelling lighting systems for attics, garages and outdoor areas,” and “marine dock lighting system” in Class 11 is indefinite and overly broad.  Specifically, the wording does not make clear the nature of the specific systems and could identify goods in more than one international class.  See 37 C.F.R. §2.32(a)(6); TMEP §1401.05(d). 

 

Applicant must clarify the goods by (1) describing the nature, purpose, or use of the system; and (2) listing the system’s parts or components, using common generic terms and referencing the primary parts or components of the system first.  See 37 C.F.R. §2.32(a)(6); TMEP §§1401.05(d), 1402.01, 1402.03(a).  Additionally, this wording should be classified in the same international class as the primary parts or components of the system.  See TMEP §1401.05(d).

 

The goods identified as “self healing lights” is indefinite and misclassified in Class 11.  To the extent that the identified goods are in the nature of “light therapy units,” the proper classification is International Class 10.  Therefore, in additional to clarifying the particular nature of the goods offered, applicant may respond by (1) adding International Class 10 to the application and reclassifying these goods in the proper international class, (2) deleting “self healing lights” from the application, or (3) deleting the remainder of the items in the class and reclassifying the specified goods in the proper international class.  See 37 C.F.R. §§2.86(a), 6.1; TMEP §§1403.02 et seq.  If applicant adds one or more international classes to the application, applicant must comply with the multiple-class requirements specified in this Office action.

 

Applicant may amend the identification of goods by substituting the following wording, if accurate (additional information must be added, as indicated in the curly brackets):

 

International Class 5 (no change)

 

Larvae exterminating preparations and insect exterminating agents

 

International Class 9

 

Marine safety products, namely, monitoring and detection systems comprised of {specify major component(s) of the system using their common commercial or generic name, e.g., display monitors, computers, image sensors, and video cameras}

 

International Class 10 (added to the application)

 

Self healing lights, namely, sensory light therapy unit

 

International Class 11

 

Outdoor automated mist system for insect and pest control comprised of {specify major component(s) of the system using their common commercial or generic name}; do-it-yourself pest control systems comprised of {specify major component(s) of the system using their common commercial or generic name}; compact and transportable devices, namely, {specify common commercial or generic name}; larvicide dispensing systems for outdoor standing water comprised of {specify major component(s) of the system using their common commercial or generic name}; insect repelling lighting systems for attics, garages and outdoor areas comprised of {specify major component(s) of the system using their common commercial or generic name}; marine dock lighting system comprised of {specify major component(s) of the system using their common commercial or generic name}

 

Applicant may amend the identification to clarify or limit the goods, but not to broaden or expand the goods beyond those in the original application or as acceptably amended.  See 37 C.F.R. §2.71(a); TMEP §1402.06.  Generally, any deleted goods may not later be reinserted.  See TMEP §1402.07(e).

 

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.

 

If applicant adopts any of the suggested amendments to the identification of goods, then applicant must amend the classification to the proper international classes noted above, i.e., International Classes 5, 9, 10, and 11.  See 37 C.F.R. §§2.32(a)(7), 2.85; TMEP §§805, 1401.   See below for discussion of multiple-class application requirements.   

 

multiple-class application requirements:  The application identifies goods services 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 fees already paid (view the USPTO’s current fee schedule).  The application identifies goods that are classified in at least four classes; however, applicant submitted a fees sufficient for only three classes.  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) application and how to satisfy the requirements online using the Trademark Electronic Application System (TEAS) form.

 

Comments:  Please call or email the assigned trademark examining attorney with questions about this Office action.  Although the trademark examining attorney cannot provide legal advice or statements about applicant’s rights, the trademark examining attorney can provide applicant with additional explanation about the refusal and/or requirements in this Office action.  See TMEP §§705.02, 709.06.  Although the USPTO does not accept emails as responses to Office actions, emails can be used for informal communications and will be included in the application record.  See 37 C.F.R. §§2.62(c), 2.191; TMEP §§304.01-.02, 709.04-.05. 

 

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  

 

 

/Troy Knight/

Examining Attorney

Law Office 107

U.S. Patent and Trademark Office

(571) 270-3151

Troy.Knight@USPTO.GOV

 

 

RESPONSE GUIDANCE

• Missing the response deadline to this letter will cause the application to abandon.  A response or notice of appeal must be received by the USPTO before midnight Eastern Time of the last day of the response period.  TEAS and ESTTA maintenance or unforeseen circumstances could affect an applicant’s ability to timely respond.  

 

• Responses signed by an unauthorized party are not accepted and can cause the application to abandon.  If applicant does not have an attorney, the response must be signed by the individual applicant, all joint applicants, or someone with legal authority to bind a juristic applicant.  If applicant has an attorney, the response must be signed by the attorney.

 

• If needed, find contact information for the supervisor of the office or unit listed in the signature block.

 

United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO)

 

USPTO OFFICIAL NOTICE

 

Office Action (Official Letter) has issued

on October 03, 2019 for

U.S. Trademark Application Serial No. 88507606

 

Your trademark application has been reviewed by a trademark examining attorney.  As part of that review, the assigned attorney has issued an official letter that you must respond to by the specified deadline or your application will be abandoned.  Please follow the steps below.

 

(1)  Read the official letter.

 

(2)  Direct questions about the contents of the Office action to the assigned attorney below. 

 

 

/Troy Knight/

Examining Attorney

Law Office 107

U.S. Patent and Trademark Office

(571) 270-3151

Troy.Knight@USPTO.GOV

 

Direct questions about navigating USPTO electronic forms, the USPTO website, the application process, the status of your application, and/or whether there are outstanding deadlines or documents related to your file to the Trademark Assistance Center (TAC).

 

(3)  Respond within 6 months (or earlier, if required in the Office action) from October 03, 2019, using the Trademark Electronic Application System (TEAS).  The response must be received by the USPTO before midnight Eastern Time of the last day of the response period.  See the Office action for more information about how to respond.

 

 

 

GENERAL GUIDANCE

·         Check the status of your application periodically in the Trademark Status & Document Retrieval (TSDR) database to avoid missing critical deadlines.

 

·         Update your correspondence email address, if needed, to ensure you receive important USPTO notices about your application.

 

·         Beware of misleading notices sent by private companies about your application.  Private companies not associated with the USPTO use public information available in trademark registrations to mail and email trademark-related offers and notices – most of which require fees.  All official USPTO correspondence will only be emailed from the domain “@uspto.gov.”