United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO)
Office Action (Official Letter) About Applicant’s Trademark Application
|
U.S. Application Serial No. 88543874
Mark: HONGYUN
|
|
|
Correspondence Address: |
|
|
Applicant: Shenzhen Youlika Technology Co., Ltd.
|
|
|
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: September 05, 2019
Likelihood of Confusion Refusals- As to Specified Goods
The proposed mark is HONGYUN for, in part, laces; ornamental ribbons made of textiles; rhinestones other than for making jewelry; shirt buttons; strap buckles; zippers.
The registered marks (having the same owner) are as follows:
RN 5431803 HENGYUN for backpacks; briefcases; key cases; leather shoulder belts; leather shoulder straps; pocket wallets; reusable shopping bags; rucksacks; slings for carrying infants; travelling trunks; umbrellas; vanity cases, not fitted.
RN 5431804 HENGYUN for babies' pants; bathing suits; caps being headwear; clothing layettes; dresses; gloves as clothing; hosiery; masquerade costumes; shoes; swimsuits; tops as clothing.
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.
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).
When comparing marks, “[t]he proper test is not a side-by-side comparison of the marks, but instead whether the marks are sufficiently similar in terms of their commercial impression such that [consumers] who encounter the marks would be likely to assume a connection between the parties.” Cai v. Diamond Hong, Inc., __ F.3d __, 127 USPQ2d 1797, 1801 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (quoting Coach Servs., Inc. v. Triumph Learning LLC, 668 F.3d 1356, 1368, 101 USPQ2d 1713, 1721 (Fed. Cir. 2012)); TMEP §1207.01(b). The proper focus is on the recollection of the average purchaser, who retains a general rather than specific impression of trademarks. In re Inn at St. John’s, LLC, 126 USPQ2d 1742, 1746 (TTAB 2018) (citing In re St. Helena Hosp., 774 F.3d 747, 750-51, 113 USPQ2d 1082, 1085 (Fed. Cir. 2014); Geigy Chem. Corp. v. Atlas Chem. Indus., Inc., 438 F.2d 1005, 1007, 169 USPQ 39, 40 (CCPA 1971)); TMEP §1207.01(b).
Comparison of Goods
Many entities that provide bags, umbrellas and the similar items listed in RN ‘803 and/or clothing like those listed in RN ‘804 also provide laces, ornamental ribbons made of textiles, rhinestones other than for making jewelry, shirt buttons, strap buckles and/or zippers like the applicant provides. Attached are copies of printouts from the USPTO X-Search database, which show third-party registrations of marks used in connection with the same or similar goods and/or services as those of applicant and registrant in this case. These printouts have probative value to the extent that they serve to suggest that the goods and/or services listed therein, like the kinds of goods that the applicant and the registrant provide, are of a kind that may emanate from a single source. In re Infinity Broad. Corp.,60 USPQ2d 1214, 1217-18 (TTAB 2001); In re Albert Trostel & Sons Co.,29 USPQ2d 1783, 1785-86 (TTAB 1993); In re Mucky Duck Mustard Co., 6 USPQ2d 1467, 1470 n.6 (TTAB 1988); TMEP §1207.01(d)(iii).
The overriding concern is not only to prevent buyer confusion as to the source of the goods and/or services, 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).
Given the similarity of the marks and the relatedness of the goods, this application is refused as to the specified goods because of a likelihood of confusion.
Specimen Refusal
An application based on Trademark Act Section 1(a) must include a specimen showing the applied-for mark in use in commerce for each international class of goods identified in the application or amendment to allege use. 15 U.S.C. §1051(a)(1); 37 C.F.R. §§2.34(a)(1)(iv), 2.56(a); TMEP §§904, 904.07(a). “Use in commerce” means (1) a bona fide use of the applied-for mark in the ordinary course of trade (and not merely to reserve a right in the mark), (2) the mark is placed in any manner on the goods, packaging, tags or labels affixed to the goods, or displays that directly associate the mark with the goods and have a point-of-sale nature, and (3) the goods are actually sold or transported in commerce. See 15 U.S.C. §1127.
An image of a product or packaging that has been digitally created or otherwise altered to include the mark does not show actual use of the mark in commerce. See 15 U.S.C. §1127; TMEP §§904.04(a), 904.07(a); cf. In re Chica, Inc., 84 USPQ2d 1845, 1848 (TTAB 2007) (holding that “a mere drawing of the goods with an illustration of how the mark may be displayed” was not an acceptable specimen because it did not show actual use in commerce); In re The Signal Cos., 228 USPQ 956, 957-58 n.4 (TTAB 1986) (noting that a printer’s proof of an advertisement would not be an acceptable specimen because it does not show actual use in commerce).
In this case, the text on the label, and the edges of the white label look slightly blurry and/or pixelated, making it seem like the applicant digitally added a label or mark to a photo of the laces. Also, the white label does not look like it appears on top of the laces or there is no three dimensionality to the label being on top of the laces. Rather, it looks like a label was digitally added to a photo of laces since there is no shadow, space between the label or three dimensionality at all. Additionally, it seems strange that the label is a pure white label with no other information on it. See the attached examples of laces with a label that has other information, size information, colors and more on the label, and not just a pure white label with only the mark and nothing else. Some of these examples also show a label and laces where there is three dimensionality or a shadow or visual depth, unlike the laces and label in the specimen. http://www.amazon.com/Converse-Inch-Flat-Shoelaces-White/dp/B01M1IUIXR/ref=sr_1_19?keywords=shoe+laces&qid=1567705630&s=gateway&sr=8-19; http://www.amazon.com/New-Balance-Flat-Tube-Bundles/dp/B0784P29QV/ref=sr_1_40?keywords=shoe+laces&qid=1567705681&s=gateway&sr=8-40; http://www.amazon.com/Ariat-Accessories-Unisex-Waxed-Shoelaces/dp/B00U898DE8/ref=sr_1_50?keywords=shoe+laces&qid=1567705729&s=gateway&sr=8-50; http://www.amazon.com/Dr-Martens-140CM-Round-8-10I-EA/dp/B00534HD58/ref=sr_1_106?keywords=shoe+laces&qid=1567705825&s=gateway&sr=8-106. Therefore, the submitted specimen cannot be accepted.
Additional information/documentation required
To permit proper examination of the application record for compliance with use in commerce requirements, applicant must respond to the following requests for information and documentation about the specimen(s). See 37 C.F.R. §2.61(b); TMEP §814. Answer for each specimen/photograph/image previously provided. For any website source submitted as supporting evidence, provide a digital copy of the entire webpage from top to bottom, as rendered in an Internet browser, that includes the URL and access or print date. TMEP §710.01(b) (citing In re I-Coat Co., 126 USPQ2d 1730, 1733 (TTAB 2018)).
(1) Identify the particular good(s) listed in the application for which the specimen(s) was submitted to show use of the mark.
(2) Was the specimen created for submission with this application? If so, specify the date each specimen was created. If applicant obtained the image(s) of the goods shown in the specimen(s) from a third-party website, provide the URL of the website and a digital copy of relevant webpage(s) for each image.
(3) Provide information about and examples of how applicant’s goods appear in the actual sales environment.
(a) If sold in stores, provide a representative sample of the name(s) of the stores and of photographs showing the goods for sale in the named stores, such as photographs of the sales displays or goods on shelves with the mark.
(b) If sold online, provide a representative sample of the name(s) of the online retailers, the website URL(s) for each named retailer, and a digital copy of the webpages showing the goods for sale on the named website.
(c) If sold in another type of sales environment (e.g., catalogs, trade shows), identify the environment and provide photographs and/or documentation showing the goods for sale in that environment.
(4) If the information in question (3) about how the goods appear in the actual sales environment is not available to applicant, please describe how applicant’s goods are sold or transported and provide photographs and other documentation showing how applicant’s mark appears on the goods and/or its packaging when the goods are sold or transported to or within the United States.
(5) For each category of sales environment specified in response to questions (3) and (4), specify when the goods bearing the mark were first available for purchase within the United States, the date of the first sale of the goods to or within the United States, and whether the goods are still for sale to or within the United States in that environment.
(6) For the goods identified in response to question (1), specify the dollar amount of sales with or within the United States and provide at least three invoices or other supporting documentation that show payments or other consideration made, redacting personal or private information of buyers as necessary.
Response options. Applicant may respond to the refusal of registration due to the specimen’s failure to show actual use in commerce by amending the filing basis to allege intent to use the mark in commerce, for which no specimen is required now. See 37 C.F.R. §2.34. This option will later necessitate additional fee(s) and filing requirements such as providing a specimen.
Alternatively, applicant may also respond to the refusal by submitting a different specimen (a “verified substitute specimen”) that (a) was in actual use in commerce at least as early as the filing date of the application or prior to the filing of an amendment to allege use and (b) shows the mark in actual use in commerce for the goods identified in the application or amendment to allege use. A “verified substitute specimen” is a specimen that is accompanied by the following statement made in a signed affidavit or supported by a declaration under 37 C.F.R. §2.20: “The substitute (or new, or originally submitted, if appropriate) specimen(s) was/were in use in commerce at least as early as the filing date of the application or prior to the filing of the amendment to allege use.” The substitute specimen cannot be accepted without this statement.
For an overview of these response options and instructions on how to satisfy either option online using the Trademark Electronic Application System (TEAS) form, see the Specimen webpage.
If applicant submits a verified substitute specimen, applicant must also fully respond to all the requirements for information and documentation. Failure to comply with a requirement to furnish information is grounds for refusing registration. In re Harley, 119 USPQ2d 1755, 1757-58 (TTAB 2016); TMEP §814. Merely stating that evidence is available on applicant’s or a third party website or providing a hyperlink of such a website is an insufficient response and will not make the additional information or materials of record. See In re Planalytics, Inc., 70 USPQ2d 1453, 1457-58 (TTAB 2004). However, amending the application filing basis to intent-to-use under Section 1(b) will resolve the requirements for information and documentation.
U.S. Attorney Required
Applicant must be represented by a U.S.-licensed attorney. The application record indicates that applicant’s domicile is outside of the United States in China, but no attorney who is an active member in good standing of the bar of the highest court of a U.S. State or territory has been appointed to represent the applicant in this matter. All applicants whose permanent legal residence or principal place of business is not within the United States or its territories must be represented by a U.S.-licensed attorney at the USPTO. 37 C.F.R. §§2.2(o), 2.11(a). Thus, applicant is required to be represented by a U.S.-licensed attorney and must appoint one. 37 C.F.R. §2.11(a). This application will not proceed to registration without such appointment and representation. See id. See Hiring a U.S.-licensed trademark attorney for more information.
To appoint or designate a U.S.-licensed attorney. To appoint an attorney, applicant should (1) submit a completed Trademark Electronic Application System (TEAS) Revocation, Appointment, and/or Change of Address of Attorney/Domestic Representative form and (2) promptly notify the trademark examining attorney that this TEAS form was submitted. Alternatively, if applicant has already retained an attorney, 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).
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
/Laurie Mayes/
Trademark Examining Attorney
Law Office 101
(571) 272-5874; FAX (571) 273-9101
laurie.mayes@uspto.gov (NOT for responses)
RESPONSE GUIDANCE
