To: | SpeedKore Performance Group, LLC (tmadmin@reinhartlaw.com) |
Subject: | U.S. Trademark Application Serial No. 88518062 - EVOLUTION - 14516 |
Sent: | May 06, 2020 05:01:02 PM |
Sent As: | ecom130@uspto.gov |
Attachments: |
United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO)
Office Action (Official Letter) About Applicant’s Trademark Application
U.S. Application Serial No. 88518062
Mark: EVOLUTION
|
|
Correspondence Address: |
|
Applicant: SpeedKore Performance Group, LLC
|
|
Reference/Docket No. 14516
Correspondence Email Address: |
|
SUSPENSION NOTICE
No Response Required
Issue date: May 06, 2020
The application is suspended for the reason(s) specified below. See 37 C.F.R. §2.67; TMEP §§716 et seq.
The pending application(s) below has an earlier filing date or effective filing date than applicant’s application. If the mark in the application(s) below registers, the USPTO may refuse registration of applicant’s mark under Section 2(d) because of a likelihood of confusion with the registered mark(s). 15 U.S.C. §1052(d); see 37 C.F.R. §2.83; TMEP §§1208.02(c). Action on this application is suspended until the prior-filed application(s) below either registers or abandons. 37 C.F.R. §2.83(c). Information relevant to the application(s) below was sent previously.
- U.S. Application Serial No(s). 88463395
Refusal(s) and/or requirement(s) resolved and maintained and continued. The following refusal(s) and/or requirement(s) is/are satisfied/withdrawn:
• Identification of Services and Multiple Class Application Requirements
• Section 2(d) Refusal as to Reg. No. 5492415 and prior pending application 88144268
See TMEP §713.02.
The following refusal(s) and/or requirement(s) is/are maintained and continued:
• Section 2(d) Refusal as to Reg. No. 5308093
See id. These refusal(s) and/or requirement(s) will be made final once this application is removed from suspension, unless a new issue arises. See TMEP §716.01.
Response to Applicant’s Arguments
- Generic, Disclaimed Term
Although marks are compared in their entireties, one feature of a mark may be more significant or dominant in creating a commercial impression. See In re Viterra Inc., 671 F.3d 1358, 1362, 101 USPQ2d 1905, 1908 (Fed. Cir. 2012); In re Nat’l Data Corp., 753 F.2d 1056, 1058, 224 USPQ 749, 751 (Fed. Cir. 1985); TMEP §1207.01(b)(viii), (c)(ii). Disclaimed matter that is descriptive of or generic for a party’s goods and/or services 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). In this case the registrant disclaimed their generic term LAW. Thus the dominant elements of both marks are the distinctive term EVOLUTION.
- App No. 88463395
Applicant presented no arguments against the potential citation of 88463395.
Suspension process. The USPTO will periodically check this application to determine if it should remain suspended. See TMEP §716.04. As needed, the trademark examining attorney will issue a letter to applicant to inquire about the status of the reason for the suspension. TMEP §716.05.
No response required. Applicant may file a response, but is not required to do so.
/Charles Hiser/
Examining Attorney
Law Office 130
(571) 272-7526
Charles.Hiser@uspto.gov