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:  February 14, 2020

 

This Office action is in response to applicant’s communication filed on January 18, 2020.

 

This Office action is supplemental to and supersedes the previous Office action issued on September 11, 2019, in connection with this application. The assigned trademark examining attorney inadvertently failed to include all of the applicant’s relevant goods in the Trademark Act Section 2(d) refusal in the previous Office action.  See TMEP §§706, 711.02.  In other words, the previously cited registration is grounds for refusing registration for additional goods listed in applicant’s identification of goods.

 

The trademark examining attorney apologizes for any inconvenience caused by the delay in raising this issue(s). 

 

The issue(s) raised in the previous September 11, 2019 Office action is/are as follow: the Section 2(d) likelihood of confusion refusal and the requirement for domestic counsel. The issue relating to domestic counsel has been satisfied. 

 

Thus, the following is a SUMMARY OF ISSUES that applicant must address:

 

            • Section 2(d) Refusal – Likelihood of Confusion – Partial

 

Applicant must respond to all issues raised in this Office action and in the September 11, 2019 Office action within six (6) months of the date of issuance of this Office action.  37 C.F.R. §2.62(a); see TMEP §711.02.  If applicant does not respond within this time limit, the application will be abandoned.  37 C.F.R. §2.65(a).

 

SECTION 2(d) REFUSAL – LIKELIHOOD OF CONFUSION – PARTIAL

 

THIS PARTIAL REFUSAL APPLIES ONLY TO THE GOODS SPECIFIED THEREIN

 

Registration of the applied-for mark is refused because of a likelihood of confusion with the mark in U.S. Registration No. 5695079.  Trademark Act Section 2(d), 15 U.S.C. §1052(d); see TMEP §§1207.01 et seq.  See the previously attached registration.

 

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.

 

Summary of the Marks

 

Of note, the wording “picture frames” was also refused in the previous Office action but was not deleted from the identification of goods.

 

The applied-for mark is COSYROOM in standard characters for the following refused goods: “Clothes hangers; Coat racks; Cushions; Jewelry organizer displays; Picture frames; Seat cushions; Shoe Racks; Slumber bags; Sofas; Storage racks” in International Class 20.

 

U.S. Registration No. 5695079 is COZYROOM in stylized characters for “Apparel for dancers, namely, tee shirts, sweatshirts, pants, leggings, shorts and jackets; Belts; Blazers; Boots; Caps being headwear; Coats; Dresses; Flip flops; Gloves; Graphic T-shirts; Hats; Jackets; Jeans; Leggings; Neckwear; Pants; Pullovers; Sandals; Scarves; Shawls; Shirts; Shoes; Shorts; Skirts; Sneakers; Socks; Stockings; Suits; Suspenders; Sweaters; Sweatshirts; T-shirts; Vests; Athletic apparel, namely, shirts, pants, jackets, footwear, hats and caps, athletic uniforms; Children's and infant's apparel, namely, jumpers, overall sleepwear, pajamas, rompers and one-piece garments” in International Class 25.

 

Similarity of the Marks

 

The marks are similar for the same reasons stated in the previous Office action, which are repeated below.

 

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).

 

The marks are essentially phonetic equivalents and thus sound similar.  Similarity in sound alone may be sufficient to support a finding that the marks are confusingly similar.  In re White Swan Ltd., 8 USPQ2d 1534, 1535 (TTAB 1988); see In re 1st USA Realty Prof’ls, Inc., 84 USPQ2d 1581, 1586 (TTAB 2007); TMEP §1207.01(b)(iv).

 

Further, the wording in the marks is identical other than one letter, making the marks similar in appearance. The stylization in the registered mark does not obviate this similarity because the applied-for mark is in standard characters. A mark in typed or standard characters may be displayed in any lettering style; the rights reside in the wording or other literal element and not in any particular display or rendition.  See In re Viterra Inc., 671 F.3d 1358, 1363, 101 USPQ2d 1905, 1909 (Fed. Cir. 2012); In re Mighty Leaf Tea, 601 F.3d 1342, 1348, 94 USPQ2d 1257, 1260 (Fed. Cir. 2010); 37 C.F.R. §2.52(a); TMEP §1207.01(c)(iii).  Thus, a mark presented in stylized characters and/or with a design element generally will not avoid likelihood of confusion with a mark in typed or standard characters because the word portion could be presented in the same manner of display.  See, e.g., In re Viterra Inc., 671 F.3d at 1363, 101 USPQ2d at 1909; Squirtco v. Tomy Corp., 697 F.2d 1038, 1041, 216 USPQ 937, 939 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (stating that “the argument concerning a difference in type style is not viable where one party asserts rights in no particular display”).

 

Finally, the marks are similar in commercial impression because the words “COZY” (as spelled in the registered mark) and “COSY” (as used in the applied-for mark) are merely alternate spellings of the same word, as shown by the previously attached evidence, linked below. Thus, the wording in the marks have identical meaning, making the marks similar in commercial impression.

 

Cambridge Dictionary: http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/essential-british-english/cosy

 

            Grammarist: http://grammarist.com/spelling/cosy-cozy/

 

For those reasons, the marks are confusingly similar.

 

Similarity of the Goods

 

The goods and/or services are compared to determine whether they are similar, commercially related, or travel in the same trade channels.  See Coach Servs., Inc. v. Triumph Learning LLC, 668 F.3d 1356, 1369-71, 101 USPQ2d 1713, 1722-23 (Fed. Cir. 2012); Herbko Int’l, Inc. v. Kappa Books, Inc., 308 F.3d 1156, 1165, 64 USPQ2d 1375, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2002); TMEP §§1207.01, 1207.01(a)(vi).

 

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).

 

In this case, the attached and previously attached Internet evidence, consisting of screenshots from the webpages below, establishes that entities that make and/or sell the relevant goods, i.e., clothes hangers, coat racks, cushions, jewelry organizer displays, picture frames, seat cushions, shoe racks, slumber bags, sofas, and storage racks, commonly also make and sell clothing, like the registrant. In other words, consumers are accustomed to seeing the same brands producing and/or selling both applicant’s and registrant’s goods. As a result, the use of confusingly similar marks on both applicant’s and registrant’s goods is likely to result in consumer confusion regarding the source of those goods. Thus, applicant’s aforementioned goods are considered related to registrant’s goods 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).

 

Ralph Lauren: http://www.ralphlauren.com/search?q=frame&lang=en_US; http://www.ralphlauren.com/men?webcat=men; http://www.ralphlauren.com/home-decor-decorative-accessories/jacqueline-jewelry-box/0036818276.html;

 

Anthropologie: http://www.anthropologie.com/search?q=frame; http://www.anthropologie.com/?ref=logo; http://www.anthropologie.com/jewelry-boxes-stands; http://www.anthropologie.com/search?q=cushion; http://www.anthropologie.com/shop/brooke-boot-tray?category=SEARCHRESULTS&color=070; http://www.anthropologie.com/search?q=hanger; http://www.anthropologie.com/storage-hardware-entryway; http://www.anthropologie.com/shop/provincial-basket-storage-rack?color=014&q=Provincial%20Basket%20Storage%20Rack&quantity=1&size=One%20Size&type=STANDARD; http://www.anthropologie.com/sofas-settees-sectionals   

 

Tommy Bahama: http://www.tommybahama.com/; http://www.tommybahama.com/en/5%22x7%22-Silk-Abaca-Frame/p/TH312367-042

 

Urban Outfitters: http://www.urbanoutfitters.com/jewelry-organizers; http://www.urbanoutfitters.com/search?q=cushion; http://www.urbanoutfitters.com/search?q=shoe+rack; http://www.urbanoutfitters.com/mens-clothing; http://www.urbanoutfitters.com/search?q=storage+rack; http://www.urbanoutfitters.com/shop/devon-coat-rack?color=010&q=Devon%20Coat%20Rack&quantity=1&size=ONE%20SIZE&type=REGULAR; http://www.urbanoutfitters.com/search?q=sofa   

 

H&M: http://www2.hm.com/en_us/productpage.0794861001.html; http://www2.hm.com/en_us/productpage.0680065002.html; http://www2.hm.com/en_us/productpage.0629223002.html; http://www2.hm.com/en_us/women.html; http://www2.hm.com/en_us/productpage.0650848002.html  

 

Marmot: http://www.rei.com/b/marmot/c/sleeping-bags-and-accessories?ir=category%3Asleeping-bags-and-accessories&r=c%3Bb; http://www.rei.com/search?q=marmot

 

REI Co-op: http://www.rei.com/b/marmot/c/sleeping-bags-and-accessories?ir=category%3Asleeping-bags-and-accessories&r=c%3Bb; http://www.rei.com/b/rei-co-op/c/mens-clothing?ir=category%3Amens-clothing&r=c%3Bb

 

Mammut: http://www.rei.com/b/mammut/c/sleeping-bags-and-accessories?ir=category%3Asleeping-bags-and-accessories&r=c%3Bb; http://www.rei.com/b/mammut/c/mens-clothing?ir=category%3Amens-clothing&r=c%3Bb  

 

Conclusion

 

For the reasons above, registration of the applied-for mark is refused because of a likelihood of confusion with the mark in U.S. Registration No. 5695079.

 

HOW TO RESPOND

 

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.

 

If applicant does not timely respond to this Office action, the following goods will be deleted from the application: 

 

International Class 20: Clothes hangers; Coat racks; Cushions; Jewelry organizer displays; Picture frames; Seat cushions; Shoe Racks; Slumber bags; Sofas; Storage racks. 

 

See 37 C.F.R. §2.65(a); TMEP §718.02(a). 

 

In such case, the application will then proceed with the following goods only: 

 

International Class 20: Computer furniture; Crate covers for pets; Display stands; Hand-operated, non-metal retractable reels for hanging signs, pictures and mobiles; Kennels for household pets; Office tables; Pet crates; Pet cushions; Portable beds for pets; Shoe cabinets; Television stands. 

 

See TMEP §718.02(a). 

 

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 

 

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. 

 

/Robert Ratcliffe/

Examining Attorney        

Law Office 109

Phone: (571) 272-5257

Fax: (571) 273-5562

robert.ratcliffe@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 February 14, 2020 for

U.S. Trademark Application Serial No. 88544124

 

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. 

 

 

/Robert Ratcliffe/

Examining Attorney        

Law Office 109

Phone: (571) 272-5257

Fax: (571) 273-5562

robert.ratcliffe@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 February 14, 2020, 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.”