United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO)
Office Action (Official Letter) About Applicant’s Trademark Application
U.S. Application Serial No. 88514333
Mark: THE ART OF SOUND
|
|
Correspondence Address: 201 SOUTH MAIN STREET, SUITE 1100
|
|
Applicant: Control4 Corporation
|
|
Reference/Docket No. 62396-6
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:October 15, 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.
Prior-Filed Pending Applications
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.
Section 2(d) Refusal – Likelihood of Confusion
Registration of the applied-for mark is refused because of a likelihood of confusion with the marks in U.S. Registration Nos. 4459340, 5127560, and 3382218. 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.
Applicant has applied for the mark “THE ART OF SOUND” for the goods “Printed publications, namely, pamphlets, brochures, booklets, leaflets, and newsletters in the fields of home, business and entertainment automation systems.”
A. Registration No. 5127560
Registrant has registered the mark “ART+SOUND” in standard characters for the goods “Wireless headphones; wireless headsets for cellular or mobile phones; wireless indoor and outdoor speakers; wireless speakerphones; wireless home audio speakers; wireless computer audio speakers; audio speakers for televisions; audio systems, namely, stereo receivers, stereo signal processors, amplifiers, and speakers; mobile phone and tablet computer accessories, namely, protective cases, electronic docking stations, stands adapted for mobile phones and tablet computers, audio speakers, headphones, battery chargers, electric cables, screen protectors comprised of plastic, acrylic and glass adapted for use with portable electronic devices, excluding gaming apparatus, stylus for computers, tablet computers and mobile phones, battery packs, lenses for cameras incorporated in mobile electronic devices, and protective skins in the nature of fitted plastic skins for covering and protecting mobile phones and tablet computers; DJ audio speakers, DJ equipment, namely, turntables being record players, audio recorders, audio amplifiers, microphones and audio speakers; novelty speakers; home theater systems comprising remotes controls, DVD players, audio amplifiers audio speakers, soundbar speakers and video projectors; sound systems comprising remote controls, amplifiers, audio speakers, and components therefor; waterproof and splash proof audio speakers; microphones; audio recorders; tower audio speakers; tailgate audio speakers; turntables being record players; electronic receivers that communicate with cell phones, mobile phones, headphones, internet and computers; jukeboxes; retro home audio systems comprising turntables being record players, amplifiers and speakers.”
(1) 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 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).
In this case, the applied-for and registered marks share two common terms “ART” and “SOUND” used in similar locations within the mark. The use of these terms shows that the marks are similar in sound and appearance, and their similar locations within the mark along with the fact that there is no other distinctive wording or material in the mark shows that the marks also share a similar meaning and commercial impression. Finally, the use of the word “THE” at the beginning of the applied-for mark does not diminish the similarity of between the marks.
Therefore, the marks are similar.
(2) Relatedness of the Goods
Thus, applicant’s and registrant’s 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).
(3) Conclusion
Because the marks share two common distinctive terms giving them a similar sound, appearance, and commercial impression, and because the goods are commonly provided by the same entities, travel through the same trade channels, and are complementary in terms of purpose and function, registration is refused for a likelihood of confusion between the marks.
B. Registration No. 4459340
Registrant has registered the mark “THE SOUND OF ART” for the goods “Amplifiers; Audio speakers; High definition multimedia interface cables; Media players.”
(1) Similarity of the Marks
In this case, the applied-for mark “THE ART OF SOUND” is merely the reverse combination of the mark “THE SOUND OF ART.” When compared, these marks convey a similar meaning and commercial impression. Specifically, each mark conveys to consumers that the applicant’s and registrant’s goods represent high quality sound, akin to a work of art.
Therefore, the marks are similar.
(2) Relatedness of the Goods
The above evidence from Crutchfield, Theatron, PCMag, and Smarthome, establishes that the same entity commonly provides registrant’s goods and applicant’s publications that are associated with registrant’s goods and markets the goods under the same mark, the relevant goods are sold or provided through the same trade channels and used by the same classes of consumers in the same fields of use, and the goods are complementary in terms of purpose or function.
Therefore, the goods are related.
(3) Conclusion
Because the applied-for and registered marks are merely reverse combination of each other with the same meaning, and because the goods are commonly provided by the same entities, travel through he same trade channels, and are complementary in terms of purpose or function, registration is refused for a likelihood of confusion between the marks.
C. Registration No. 3382218
Registrant has registered the mark “TECHNOLOGY AND ART OF SOUND MANUFACTURED BY ELETTROMEDIA ITALY” with a corresponding design for the goods “Amplifiers; amplifiers for wireless communications; audio amplifiers; audio cassette decks for automobiles; audio cassette recorders; audio mixers; audio speakers; audio tape recorders; loudspeakers; cable connectors; cable modems; cable jump leads; cable television converters; microphone cables; electric cords; electrical cables; car navigation computers; global positioning systems (GPS) consisting of computers, computer software, transmitters, receivers and network interface devices, navigation apparatus for vehicles in the nature of on-board computers; satellite navigational systems, namely, global positioning systems (GPS); CD drives for computers; CD players; CD storage racks; computer monitors; computer monitor frames; microphones; digital audio tape players; digital audio tape recorders; digital audio players; digital video disc drives; digital video recorders; DVD machines; electric audio playback units with lights and speakers; radios for vehicles; radios; stereo amplifiers; stereo receivers; stereo tuners; sub-woofers; television sets; liquid crystal displays; liquid crystal display (LCD) projectors; video monitors; video screens; videotape recorders.”
(1) Similarity of the Marks
In the present case, the marks are identical in part, as they share the common phrase “ART OF SOUND.” The registered mark fully incorporates the applied-for mark and contains the same distinctive wording. When compared in relation to the applicant’s and registrant’s goods, these marks have the same commercial impression, specifically that the applicant’s and registrant’s goods represent a high quality level of sound akin to a work of art.
Regarding the design component of the registered mark, 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)).
Therefore, the marks are similar.
(2) Relatedness of the Goods
The above evidence from Crutchfield, Theatron, PCMag, and Smarthome, establishes that the same entity commonly provides registrant’s goods and applicant’s publications that are associated with registrant’s goods and markets the goods under the same mark, the relevant goods are sold or provided through the same trade channels and used by the same classes of consumers in the same fields of use, and the goods are complementary in terms of purpose or function.
(3) Conclusion
Because the applied-for and registered marks are identical in part and the registered mark fully encompasses the applied-for mark, and because the goods are commonly provided by the same entities, travel through he same trade channels, and are complementary in terms of purpose or function, registration is refused for a likelihood of confusion between the marks.
D. Conclusion
For the reasons above, registration is refused for a likelihood of confusion with the aforementioned marks.
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.
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(s) and/or requirement(s) 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
/Joseph Greene/
Joe Greene
Trademark Examining Attorney
U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, Law Office 125 (571)272-5763
joseph.greene@uspt
RESPONSE GUIDANCE