United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO)
Office Action (Official Letter) About Applicant’s Trademark Application
|
U.S. Application Serial No. 88536138
Mark: HERA
|
|
|
Correspondence Address: |
|
|
Applicant: Zhang,Jianming
|
|
|
Reference/Docket No. N/A
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 17, 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.
SUMMARY OF ISSUES PRESENTED IN THIS OFFICE ACTION:
· Section 2(d) Refusal—Likelihood of Confusion
· Prior-filed Application—Advisory
· Foreign Pro Se Applicant—U.S.-Licensed Attorney Required
SECTION 2(d) REFUSAL—LIKELIHOOD OF CONFUSION
Applicant’s mark is “HERA”, for use with:
Class 20: 3D decorative ornaments made from plastic; Anti-roll cushions for babies; Baby bolsters; Baby changing mats; Baby head support cushions; Beds for household pets; Beds, mattresses, pillows and bolsters; Chairs; Furniture, mirrors, picture frames; Hand mirrors; Hutches; Infant walkers; Personal compact mirrors; Pet furniture; Stools; Toilet mirrors being hand-held mirrors; Wind chimes; Mirrors
The registered marks are as follows:
U.S. Registration No. 3001801 “HERA”, for use with, in relevant part:
Class 9: lighting fixtures
U.S. Registration No. 3079922 “HERA”, for use with, in relevant part:
Class 11: Electric lamps and light fixtures for furniture, living spaces, workrooms, sports halls, exhibition and conference rooms; and indoor and outdoor lighting of buildings and walkways
U.S. Registration No. 5637206 “HERA” and design, for use with:
Class 24: Bath linen; Bed covers; Bed linen; Bed skirts; Bedspreads; Face towels of textile; Fustian; Handkerchiefs of textile; Lightweight cotton cloth in the nature of a wash cloth designed to clean the external ear and the visible ear canal by removing crusted ear wax, dirt, dried skin, and soap residue; Table napkins of textile; Textile place mats; Towels; Turkish towel; Washcloths; Bed sheets
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 [or services] and differences in the marks.”); TMEP §1207.01.
In this case, the following factors are the most relevant: similarity of the marks, similarity and nature of the goods, and similarity of the trade channels of the goods. See In re Viterra Inc., 671 F.3d 1358, 1361-62, 101 USPQ2d 1905, 1908 (Fed. Cir. 2012); In re Dakin’s Miniatures Inc., 59 USPQ2d 1593, 1595-96 (TTAB 1999); TMEP §§1207.01 et seq.
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).
As Compared to the Marks in U.S. Registration Nos. 3079922 and 3001801 “HERA” (same owner)
In the present case, applicant’s mark is “HERA” and registrant’s mark is “HERA”. 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. Id.
Therefore, the marks are confusingly similar.
As Compared to the Mark in U.S. Registration No. 5637206 “HERA” and design
Because the wording in the marks is 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.
Therefore, the marks are confusingly similar.
Comparison of 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 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).
Applicant's Goods as Compared to Goods in U.S. Registration Nos. 3079922 and 3001801 “HERA” (same owner)
Applicant's goods include mirrors, furniture, and beds, and the registrant's goods include lighting fixtures (U.S. Registration No. 3001801) and electric lamps and light fixtures for furniture, living spaces, workrooms, sports halls, exhibition and conference rooms, and indoor and outdoor lighting for buildings and walkways (U.S. Registration No. 3079922). Applicant's and the registrant's goods are related because the goods of the respective parties are of a type that are commonly provided by a single source under the same mark. See attached evidence from Anthropolgie, West Elm, and Restoration Hardware showing mirrors, furniture, beds, lighting fixtures, electric lamps, light fixtures for furniture, living spaces, workrooms, sports halls, exhibition and conference rooms, and indoor and outdoor lighting for buildings and walkways provided by a single source under the same mark. Therefore, consumers familiar with the registrant's goods will also expect applicant's goods to be provided by the registrant.
Applicant's Goods as Compared to Goods in U.S. Registration No. 5637206 “HERA” and design
Applicant's goods include mirrors, furniture, and beds, and the registrant's goods include bath linen, bed linen, and textile table napkins. Applicant's and the registrant's goods are related because the goods of the respective parties are of a type that are commonly provided by a single source under the same mark. See attached evidence from Restoration Hardware, Anthropologie showing include mirrors, furniture, beds, bath linen, bed linen, and textile table napkins provided by a single source under the same mark. Therefore, consumers familiar with the registrant's goods will also expect applicant's goods to be provided by the registrant.
Conclusion
The relatedness of the goods here, coupled with the similar and identical marks at issue, requires registration of the applied-for mark to be refused under Section 2(d) of the Trademark Act.
Although applicant’s mark has been refused registration, applicant may respond to the refusal(s) by submitting evidence and arguments in support of registration. However, if applicant responds to the refusal(s), applicant must also respond to the requirement which follows the advisory below.
PRIOR-FILED APPLICATION—ADVISORY
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.
Applicant must additionally respond to the requirement below.
FOREIGN PRO SE APPLICANT—U.S.-LICENSED ATTORNEY REQUIRED
Applicant must be represented by a U.S.-licensed attorney. An applicant whose domicile is located outside of the United States or its territories is foreign-domiciled and must be represented at the USPTO by an attorney who is an active member in good standing of the bar of the highest court of a U.S. state or territory. 37 C.F.R. §§2.11(a), 11.14; Requirement of U.S.-Licensed Attorney for Foreign-Domiciled Trademark Applicants & Registrants, Examination Guide 4-19, at I.A. (Rev. Sept. 2019) An individual applicant’s domicile is the place a person resides and intends to be the person’s principal home. 37 C.F.R. §2.2(o); Examination Guide 4-19, at I.A. A juristic entity’s domicile is the principal place of business; i.e., headquarters, where a juristic entity applicant’s senior executives or officers ordinarily direct and control the entity’s activities. 37 C.F.R. §2.2(o); Examination Guide 4-19, at I.A. Because applicant is foreign-domiciled, applicant must appoint such a U.S.-licensed attorney qualified to practice under 37 C.F.R. §11.14 as its representative before the application may proceed to registration. 37 C.F.R. §2.11(a). See Hiring a U.S.-licensed trademark attorney for more information.
To appoint a U.S.-licensed attorney. To appoint an attorney, applicant should submit a completed Trademark Electronic Application System (TEAS) Revocation, Appointment, and/or Change of Address of Attorney/Domestic Representative form. The newly-appointed attorney must submit a TEAS Response to Examining Attorney Office Action form indicating that an appointment of attorney has been made and address all other refusals or requirements in this action, if any. Alternatively, if applicant retains an attorney before filing the response, the attorney can respond to this Office action by using the appropriate TEAS response form and provide his or her attorney information in the form and sign it as applicant’s attorney. See 37 C.F.R. §2.17(b)(1)(ii).
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.
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
/Justine N. Burke/
Justine N. Burke
Trademark Examining Attorney
Law Office 121
571-270-1631
Justine.Burke@uspto.gov
RESPONSE GUIDANCE
