| To: | Carlos Saavedra LLC (cmsaavedra@aol.com) |
| Subject: | U.S. Trademark Application Serial No. 88513407 - LOOP - N/A |
| Sent: | September 10, 2019 03:49:46 PM |
| Sent As: | ecom105@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 Attachment - 22 Attachment - 23 |
United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO)
Office Action (Official Letter) About Applicant’s Trademark Application
|
U.S. Application Serial No. 88513407
Mark: LOOP
|
|
|
Correspondence Address: |
|
|
Applicant: Carlos Saavedra LLC
|
|
|
Reference/Docket No. N/A
Correspondence Email Address: |
|
COMBINED EXAMINER’S AMENDMENT/PRIORITY ACTION 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: September 10, 2019
Applicant must address issues shown below. On September 5, 2019, the examining attorney and Carlos Saavedra discussed the issues below. Applicant must timely respond to these issues. See 15 U.S.C. §1062(b); 37 C.F.R. §2.62(a); TMEP §708.05.
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) – Likelihood of Confusion Refusal
· Prior Pending Application
SECTION 2(d) REFUSAL – LIKELIHOOD OF CONFUSION
Registration of the applied-for mark is refused because of a likelihood of confusion with the mark in U.S. Registrations Nos. 5223373, 4450511 and 3566262. Trademark Act Section 2(d), 15 U.S.C. §1052(d); see TMEP §§1207.01 et seq. See the attached registrations.
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 and/or 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 goods and/or 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.
The Marks
In the present case, applicant’s mark is LOOP and registrants’ marks are LOOP and THE LOOP and design.
Further, with respect to registrant’s mark THE LOOP and design, these marks are also highly similar, because they both share the identical term LOOP. When comparing similar marks, the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board has found that inclusion of the term “the” at the beginning of one of the marks will generally not affect or otherwise diminish the overall similarity between the marks. See In re Thor Tech Inc., 90 USPQ2d 1634, 1635 (TTAB 2009) (finding WAVE and THE WAVE “virtually identical” marks; “[t]he addition of the word ‘The’ at the beginning of the registered mark does not have any trademark significance.”); In re Narwood Prods. Inc., 223 USPQ 1034, 1034 (TTAB 1984) (finding THE MUSIC MAKERS and MUSIC-MAKERS “virtually identical” marks; the inclusion of the definite article “the” is “insignificant in determining likelihood of confusion”). Accordingly, the shared portions of the word marks -- LOOP -- are identical in sound, connotation, and commercial impression; the addition of a design element does not obviate the similarity of the marks in this case. See In re Shell Oil Co., 992 F.2d 1204, 1206, 26 USPQ2d 1687, 1688 (Fed. Cir. 1993); TMEP §1207.01(c)(ii).
Therefore, the marks are confusingly similar.
Further, where the goods of an applicant and registrant are identical or virtually identical, the degree of similarity between the marks required to support a finding that confusion is likely declines. See Cai v. Diamond Hong, Inc., __ F.3d __, 127 USPQ2d 1797, 1801 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (quoting In re Viterra Inc., 671 F.3d 1358, 1363, 101 USPQ2d 1905, 1908 (Fed. Cir. 2012)); TMEP §1207.01(b).
The Goods
The goods are compared to determine whether they are similar, commercially related, or travel in the same trade channels. See Coach Servs., Inc. v. Triumph Learning LLC, 668 F.3d 1356, 1369-71, 101 USPQ2d 1713, 1722-23 (Fed. Cir. 2012); Herbko Int’l, Inc. v. Kappa Books, Inc., 308 F.3d 1156, 1165, 64 USPQ2d 1375, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2002); TMEP §§1207.01, 1207.01(a)(vi).
In this case, applicant’s goods are identified as clothing in Class 25, namely “Dresses; Jackets; Pants; Shirts; Shorts; Skirts; Sweaters; Tops; Fashion Jumpsuits; Swimwear.” Registrant for LOOP, U.S. Reg. No. 5223373, identifies its goods in Class 25 as “Clothing, namely, T-shirts, shirts, T-shirts; T-shirts with specialty designs; T-shirts with artistic designs; none of the aforementioned being for fishermen.” Registrant for THE LOOP and Design, U.S. Reg. No. 4450511, identifies its goods as “Men's, women's and children's clothing, namely, shirts, tank tops and athletic wear, namely, athletic shirts and cyclists' jerseys; men's, women's and children's headgear, namely, hats and visors” (emphasis added). Finally, registrant for the mark LOOP, U.S. Reg. No. 3566262, identifies its goods in Class 18 as “handbags.”
In this case, the applicant and both clothing registrants uses its mark LOOP and THE LOOP on identical clothing goods, namely, shirts. Further, the application uses broad wording to describe its goods, such as “shirts” which presumably encompasses all the goods of the type described, including registrants’ more narrow list of “t-shirts” and “men’s, women’s and children’s clothing, namely, tank tops… athletic shirts and cyclists’ jerseys.” 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 in the nature of shirts are all 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)).
Further, the attached internet evidence from retailers with both online and in store retail store services such as Banana Republic, Forever 21 and Macy’s (screenshots dated September 8 and 10, 2019) demonstrates that the same third party entities will provide all types of clothing -- including dresses, jackets, pants, shirts, shorts, skirts, sweaters, jumpsuits, swimwear, athletic wear, tank tops, jerseys, hats, visors -- and handbags -- all under the same mark. Thus, the attached internet evidence of record establishes that the same entity commonly provides the relevant goods and markets these goods all under the same mark.
Finally, because the goods of the parties have no restrictions as to nature, type, channels of trade, or classes of purchasers (with the exception of clothing not for fisherman in Reg. No. 5223373 for LOOP), they 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 registrants’ goods are either identical or highly related.
Accordingly, a likelihood of confusion exists between applicant’s applied-for mark and registrants’ registered marks. The overriding concern is not only to prevent buyer confusion as to the source of the goods, 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).
Although applicant’s mark has been refused registration, applicant may respond to the refusal by submitting evidence and arguments in support of registration.
PRIOR PENDING APPLICATION
In response to this Office action, applicant may present arguments in support of registration by addressing the issue of the potential conflict between applicant’s mark and the mark in the referenced application. Applicant’s election not to submit arguments at this time in no way limits applicant’s right to address this issue later if a refusal under Section 2(d) issues.
Application has been amended as shown below. As agreed to by the individual identified in the Priority Action section, the examining attorney has amended the application as shown below. Please notify the examining attorney immediately of any objections. TMEP §707. In addition, applicant is advised that amendments to the goods and/or services are permitted only if they clarify or limit them; amendments that add to or broaden the scope of the goods and/or services are not permitted. 37 C.F.R. §2.71(a).
Amendment to Identification of Goods
The identification of goods is amended to read as follows:
“Dresses; Jackets; Pants; Shirts; Shorts; Skirts; Sweaters; Tops as Clothing; Fashion Jumpsuits; Swimwear.”
See TMEP §§1402.01, 1402.01(e).
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.
Applicant May Wish to Hire Trademark Counsel
Because of the legal technicalities and strict deadlines of the trademark application process, applicant may wish to hire a private attorney who specializes in trademark matters to assist in the process. The assigned trademark examining attorney can provide only limited assistance explaining the content of an Office action and the application process. USPTO staff cannot provide legal advice or statements about an applicant’s legal rights. TMEP §§705.02, 709.06. See Hiring a U.S.-licensed trademark attorney for more information.
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.
/Karen Estilo Owczarski/
Trademark Attorney
Law Office 105
571-272-3758
karen.owczarski@uspto.gov
RESPONSE GUIDANCE
