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 02, 2019

 

INTRODUCTION

 

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

• Section 2(d) Refusal – Likelihood of Confusion
• Identification Requirements

 

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. 2000494, 2133628 and 4801626.  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’s applied-for mark is: “BOMBER” for “Apparel, including jackets, pants, shorts, flip-flops, gloves, turtleneck shirts, socks, hats, hooded sweatshirts, short-sleeved or long-sleeved t-shirts, ski clothing, after ski boots, long sleeved vests, ski and snowboard shoes and parts thereof, ski bibs, ski boot bags, ski boot cases, ski boots, ski gloves, ski masks, ski pants, ski suits, ski suits for competition, ski trousers, ski wear, skiing shoes, snowboard boot liners, snowboard boots, snowboard gloves, snowboard jackets, snowboard mittens, snowboard pants, snowboard trousers, sweaters, sweatpants, sweatshirts, tennis wear, tennis skirts, tennis shorts, tennis socks, tennis shoes, tennis shirts, golf wear, golf shorts, golf shirts, golf gloves, golf hats, golf socks, bicycling clothing, bicycling shoes and parts thereof, bicycling shoe bags, bicycling gloves, bicycling masks, bicycling pants, bicycling shorts, bicycling wear.”

 

The cited registered marks are:

 

Reg. No. 2000494: “BOMBER” for “hats.”

 

Reg. No. 2133628: “BOMBERS” for “shirts.”

 

Reg. No. 4801626: “BOMBERS” for in relevant part, “Sweatshirts; pants; footwear; headgear, namely, hats, caps, berets; bathing caps; bathing suits; bandanas; headbands; stockings; sweat-absorbent stockings; overalls; boas; teddies; hosiery; boots; half-boots; suspenders; collar protectors; camisoles; briefs; bathing trunks; belts; money belts; shawls; sweaters; paper hats for use as clothing items; chasubles; socks; bedroom slippers; shirts; short-sleeve shirts; tights; collars; suits; masquerade costumes; ear muffs; neckties; breeches for wear; babies' pants; dress shields; outer clothing, namely, coats, jackets, and fur stoles; finished textile linings for garments; sashes for wear; esparto shoes; esparto sandals; fur stoles; sock suspenders; scarves; gaberdines; girdles; gloves; vests; raincoats; leggings; jerseys; skirts; shorts; ascots; layettes; duplicate entry liveries; singlets; cuffs; muffs; coats; mantillas; mittens; top coats; trousers; parkas; pelerines; pelisses; beachwear; shirt fronts; pullovers; pajamas; dresses; jumper dresses; wooden shoes; sandals; underpants; shoes; trouser straps being suspenders; underwear; sweat-absorbent underclothing; brassieres; sports shoes; turbans; uniforms; stuff jackets; jackets; clothing of leather, namely, leather jackets, leather pants, leather coats and leather skirts; clothing of imitations of leather, namely, imitation leather jackets, imitation leather coats, imitation leather pants and imitation leather skirts; cap peaks; neckties; socks; duplicate entry and sports footwear.”

 

COMPARISON OF 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).

 

Reg. No. 2000494

 

In a likelihood of confusion determination, the marks in their entireties are compared for similarities in appearance, sound, connotation, and commercial impression.  In re i.am.symbolic, llc, 866 F.3d 1315, 1323, 123 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2017); 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)); In re E. I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., 476 F.2d 1357, 1361, 177 USPQ 563, 567 (C.C.P.A. 1973); TMEP §1207.01(b)-(b)(v). 

 

In the present case, applicant’s mark is “BOMBER” and registrant’s mark is “BOMBER”.  These marks are identical in appearance, sound, and meaning, “and have the potential to be used . . . in exactly the same manner.”  In re i.am.symbolic, llc, 116 USPQ2d 1406, 1411 (TTAB 2015), aff’d, 866 F.3d 1315, 123 USPQ2d 1744 (Fed. Cir. 2017).  Additionally, because they are identical, these marks are likely to engender the same connotation and overall commercial impression when considered in connection with applicant’s and registrant’s respective goods and/or services.  Id.

 

Therefore, the marks are confusingly similar. 

 

Reg. Nos. 2133628 and 4801626

 

An applied-for mark that is the singular or plural form of a registered mark is essentially identical in sound, appearance, meaning, and commercial impression, and thus the marks are confusingly similar.  Swiss Grill Ltd., v. Wolf Steel Ltd., 115 USPQ2d 2001, 2011 n.17 (TTAB 2015) (holding “it is obvious that the virtually identical marks [the singular and plural of SWISS GRILL] are confusingly similar”); Weider Publ’ns, LLC v. D & D Beauty Care Co., 109 USPQ2d 1347, 1355 (TTAB 2014) (finding the singular and plural forms of SHAPE to be essentially the same mark) (citing Wilson v. Delaunay, 245 F.2d 877, 878, 114 USPQ 339, 341 (C.C.P.A. 1957) (finding no material difference between the singular and plural forms of ZOMBIE such that the marks were considered the same mark).

 

Moreover, in regard to Reg. No. 4801626, the word portions of the marks are nearly identical in appearance, sound, connotation, and commercial impression; therefore, 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).

 

Based on the foregoing, the applicant’s applied-for and registrants’ marks are sufficiently similar to find a likelihood of confusion.

 

COMPARISON OF GOODS

 

The compared goods and/or services 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 and/or services] 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).

 

When analyzing an applicant’s and registrant’s goods and/or services for similarity and relatedness, that determination is based on the description of the goods and/or services in the application and registration at issue, not on extrinsic evidence of actual use.  See Stone Lion Capital Partners, LP v. Lion Capital LLP, 746 F.3d 1317, 1323, 110 USPQ2d 1157, 1162 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (quoting Octocom Sys. Inc. v. Hous. Computers Servs. Inc., 918 F.2d 937, 942, 16 USPQ2d 1783, 1787 (Fed. Cir. 1990)). 

 

In this case, the goods in the application and all three registrations are identical in part.  Therefore, it is presumed that the channels of trade and class of purchasers are the same for these goods.  See Cai v. Diamond Hong, Inc., __ F.3d __, 27 USPQ2d 1797, 1801 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (quoting In re Viterra Inc., 671 F.3d 1358, 1362, 101 USPQ2d 1905, 1908 (Fed. Cir. 2012)).  Thus, applicant’s and registrants’ goods are related.  

 

Based on the analysis above, applicant’s and registrants’ goods are related and the marks are all confusingly similar. Therefore, registration is refused in accordance with Section 2(d) of the Trademark Act.

 

If applicant responds to the refusal, applicant must also respond to the requirement set forth below.

 

IDENTIFICATION REQUIREMENT

 

The wording “including” in the identification of goods is indefinite and must be deleted and replaced with a definite term, such as “namely,” “consisting of,” “particularly,” or “in particular.”  See 37 C.F.R. §2.32(a)(6); TMEP §§1402.01, 1402.03(a).  The identification must be specific and all-inclusive.  This wording is an open-ended term (e.g., “including,” “such as”) that is not acceptable because it fails to identify specific goods.  See TMEP §1402.03(a). 

 

Applicant has included the term “or” in the identification of goods.  However, this term is generally not accepted in identifications when (1) it is unclear whether applicant is using the mark, or intends to use the mark, on all the identified goods or services; (2) the nature of the goods and services is unclear; or (3) classification cannot be determined from such wording.  See TMEP §1402.03(a).  In this case, it is unclear whether applicant is using the mark, or intends to use the mark, on all the identified goods or services.

 

An application must specify, in an explicit manner, the particular goods or services on or in connection with which the applicant uses, or has a bona fide intention to use, the mark in commerce.  See 15 U.S.C. §1051(a)(2), (b)(2); 37 C.F.R. §2.32(a)(6); TMEP §1402.01.  Therefore, applicant should replace “and/or” or “or” with “and” in the identification of goods or services, if appropriate, or rewrite the identification with the “and/or” or “or” deleted and the goods or services specified using definite and unambiguous language. 

 

The wording “After ski boots” in the identification of goods is indefinite and must be clarified because it is unclear what is meant by “After”.  See 37 C.F.R. §2.32(a)(6); TMEP §1402.01. 

 

The wording “ski clothing” in the identification of goods is indefinite and must be clarified because it is unclear what type of ski clothing the goods are.  See 37 C.F.R. §2.32(a)(6); TMEP §1402.01. 

 

The wording “golf wear” in the identification of goods is indefinite and must be clarified because it is unclear what type of golf wear this identifies.  See 37 C.F.R. §2.32(a)(6); TMEP §1402.01. 

 

The wording “bicycle wear” in the identification of goods is indefinite and must be clarified because it is unclear what type of bicycle wear this identifies.  See 37 C.F.R. §2.32(a)(6); TMEP §1402.01. 

 

The wording “bicycle clothing” in the identification of goods is indefinite and must be clarified because it is unclear what type of bicycle clothing this identifies.  See 37 C.F.R. §2.32(a)(6); TMEP §1402.01. 

 

Applicant may substitute the following wording, if accurate: 

 

“Apparel, namely, jackets, pants, shorts, flip-flops, gloves, turtleneck shirts, socks, hats, hooded sweatshirts, short-sleeved and long-sleeved t-shirts; ski clothing, namely, ski boots, long sleeved vests, ski and snowboard shoes and parts thereof, ski bibs, ski boot bags, ski boot cases, ski boots, ski gloves, ski masks, ski pants, ski suits, ski suits for competition, ski trousers, ski wear, skiing shoes; Snowboard boot liners, snowboard boots, snowboard gloves, snowboard jackets, snowboard mittens, snowboard pants, snowboard trousers; sweaters, sweatpants, sweatshirts; tennis wear, tennis skirts, tennis shorts, tennis socks, tennis shoes, tennis shirts; golf wear, namely, golf shorts, golf shirts, golf gloves, golf hats, golf socks; bicycling clothing and wear, namely, bicycling shoes and parts thereof, bicycling shoe bags, bicycling gloves, bicycling masks, bicycling pants, bicycling shorts.”

 

Applicant may amend the identification to clarify or limit the goods and/or services, but not to broaden or expand the goods and/or services 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 and/or services 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.

 

CONCLUSION

 

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  

 

 

/Justin R. Moscati/

Justin R. Moscati

Attorney Examiner

Law Office 127

(571) 272-6305

justin.moscati@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 02, 2019 for

U.S. Trademark Application Serial No. 88517181

 

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. 

 

 

/Justin R. Moscati/

Justin R. Moscati

Attorney Examiner

Law Office 127

(571) 272-6305

justin.moscati@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 02, 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.”