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:  November 06, 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:

• Section 2(d) Refusal – Likelihood Of Confusion
• Advisory: Ownership Of Cited Registration
• Entity Clarification Required
• Amended Description Of Mark Required

 

SECTION 2(d) REFUSAL – LIKELIHOOD OF CONFUSION

Registration of the applied-for mark is refused because of a likelihood of confusion with the mark(s) in U.S. Registration No(s). 5223903.  Trademark Act Section 2(d), 15 U.S.C. §1052(d); see TMEP §§1207.01 et seq.  See the attached registration(s).

 

Applicant's mark is U UNIQERS with design for "Athletic apparel, namely, shirts, pants, jackets, footwear, hats and caps, athletic uniforms; Athletic footwear; Beach footwear; Business wear, namely, suits, jackets, trousers, blazers, blouses, shirts, skirts, dresses and footwear; Clothing for athletic use, namely, padded pants; Clothing for athletic use, namely, padded shirts; Clothing for athletic use, namely, padded shorts; Clothing for babies, toddlers and children, treated with fire and heat retardants, namely, pajamas, jackets, shirts, pants, jumpers; Clothing for wear in judo practices; Clothing for wear in wrestling games; Clothing, namely, wrap-arounds; Footwear; Footwear for men; Footwear for men and women; Footwear for track and field athletics; Footwear for women; Hats; Jackets; Jerseys; Ties as clothing; Tops as clothing; Knitted caps" in Class 25.

 

The registered mark is UNIQERS in standard characters for "Athletic apparel, namely, shirts, pants, jackets, footwear, hats and caps, athletic uniforms; Athletic footwear; Beach footwear; Business wear, namely, suits, jackets, trousers, blazers, blouses, shirts, skirts, dresses and footwear; Clothing for athletic use, namely, padded pants; Clothing for athletic use, namely, padded shirts; Clothing for athletic use, namely, padded shorts; Clothing for babies, toddlers and children, treated with fire and heat retardants, namely, pajamas, jackets, shirts, pants, jumpers; Clothing for wear in judo practices; Clothing for wear in wrestling games; Clothing items, namely, adhesive pockets that may be affixed directly to the body as a decorative piece of clothing with utility; Clothing items, namely, adhesive pockets that may be affixed directly to the inside of clothing for storage and safekeeping of personal items; Clothing items, namely, blindfolds worn over the eyes; Clothing items, namely, gags worn over the mouth; Clothing shields, namely, pads applied to the underarms of shirts, blouses and sweaters; Clothing, namely, arm warmers; Clothing, namely, athletic sleeves; Clothing, namely, base layers; Clothing, namely, cowls and smoke ring scarves; Clothing, namely, crops; Clothing, namely, folk costumes; Clothing, namely, hand-warmers; Clothing, namely, khakis; Clothing, namely, knee warmers; Clothing, namely, maternity bands; Clothing, namely, neck tubes; Clothing, namely, neck warmers; Clothing, namely, thobes; Clothing, namely, wrap-arounds; Footwear; Footwear for men; Footwear for men and women; Footwear for track and field athletics; Footwear for women; Headgear, namely, hats and caps; Hoods; Jackets; Jerseys; Ties; Tops" in Class 25.

 

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 the 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).

 

Applicant's mark is U UNIQERS with design.  Registrant's mark is UNIQERS in standard characters.  Applicant's mark is similar to registrant's mark because applicant incorporates the entirety of registrant's mark into its own.

 

Incorporating the entirety of one mark within another does not obviate the similarity between the compared marks, as in the present case, nor does it overcome a likelihood of confusion under Section 2(d).  See Wella Corp. v. Cal. Concept Corp., 558 F.2d 1019, 1022, 194 USPQ 419, 422 (C.C.P.A. 1977) (finding CALIFORNIA CONCEPT and surfer design and CONCEPT confusingly similar); Coca-Cola Bottling Co. v. Jos. E. Seagram & Sons, Inc., 526 F.2d 556, 557, 188 USPQ 105, 106 (C.C.P.A. 1975) (finding BENGAL LANCER and design and BENGAL confusingly similar); In re Integrated Embedded, 120 USPQ2d 1504, 1513 (TTAB 2016) (finding BARR GROUP and BARR confusingly similar); In re Mr. Recipe, LLC, 118 USPQ2d 1084, 1090 (TTAB 2016) (finding JAWS DEVOUR YOUR HUNGER and JAWS confusingly similar); TMEP §1207.01(b)(iii).  In the present case, the marks are identical in part.

 

Although applicant's mark is stylized, when evaluating a composite mark consisting of words and a design, the word portion is normally accorded greater weight because it is likely to make a greater impression upon purchasers, be remembered by them, and be used by them to refer to or request the goods and/or services.  In re Aquitaine Wine USA, LLC, 126 USPQ2d 1181, 1184 (TTAB 2018) (citing In re Viterra Inc., 671 F.3d 1358, 1362, 101 USPQ2d 1905, 1908 (Fed. Cir. 2012)); TMEP §1207.01(c)(ii).  Thus, although marks must be compared in their entireties, the word portion is often considered the dominant feature and is accorded greater weight in determining whether marks are confusingly similar, even where the word portion has been disclaimed.  In re Viterra Inc., 671 F.3d at 1366-67, 101 USPQ2d at 1911 (citing Giant Food, Inc. v. Nation’s Foodservice, Inc., 710 F.2d 1565, 1570-71, 218 USPQ2d 390, 395 (Fed. Cir. 1983)).

 

Additionally, registrant's mark is in standard characters and may be shown in various lettering styles, including a style similar to applicant's mark.  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”).

 

For the foregoing reasons, the marks are considered similar for likelihood of confusion purposes.

 

Comparison 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).

 

Applicant's goods are:  "Athletic apparel, namely, shirts, pants, jackets, footwear, hats and caps, athletic uniforms; Athletic footwear; Beach footwear; Business wear, namely, suits, jackets, trousers, blazers, blouses, shirts, skirts, dresses and footwear; Clothing for athletic use, namely, padded pants; Clothing for athletic use, namely, padded shirts; Clothing for athletic use, namely, padded shorts; Clothing for babies, toddlers and children, treated with fire and heat retardants, namely, pajamas, jackets, shirts, pants, jumpers; Clothing for wear in judo practices; Clothing for wear in wrestling games; Clothing, namely, wrap-arounds; Footwear; Footwear for men; Footwear for men and women; Footwear for track and field athletics; Footwear for women; Hats; Jackets; Jerseys; Ties as clothing; Tops as clothing; Knitted caps" in Class 25.

 

Registrant's goods are: "Athletic apparel, namely, shirts, pants, jackets, footwear, hats and caps, athletic uniforms; Athletic footwear; Beach footwear; Business wear, namely, suits, jackets, trousers, blazers, blouses, shirts, skirts, dresses and footwear; Clothing for athletic use, namely, padded pants; Clothing for athletic use, namely, padded shirts; Clothing for athletic use, namely, padded shorts; Clothing for babies, toddlers and children, treated with fire and heat retardants, namely, pajamas, jackets, shirts, pants, jumpers; Clothing for wear in judo practices; Clothing for wear in wrestling games; Clothing items, namely, adhesive pockets that may be affixed directly to the body as a decorative piece of clothing with utility; Clothing items, namely, adhesive pockets that may be affixed directly to the inside of clothing for storage and safekeeping of personal items; Clothing items, namely, blindfolds worn over the eyes; Clothing items, namely, gags worn over the mouth; Clothing shields, namely, pads applied to the underarms of shirts, blouses and sweaters; Clothing, namely, arm warmers; Clothing, namely, athletic sleeves; Clothing, namely, base layers; Clothing, namely, cowls and smoke ring scarves; Clothing, namely, crops; Clothing, namely, folk costumes; Clothing, namely, hand-warmers; Clothing, namely, khakis; Clothing, namely, knee warmers; Clothing, namely, maternity bands; Clothing, namely, neck tubes; Clothing, namely, neck warmers; Clothing, namely, thobes; Clothing, namely, wrap-arounds; Footwear; Footwear for men; Footwear for men and women; Footwear for track and field athletics; Footwear for women; Headgear, namely, hats and caps; Hoods; Jackets; Jerseys; Ties; Tops" in Class 25.

 

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 registration are identical.  Specifically, the goods for "Athletic apparel, namely, shirts, pants, jackets, footwear, hats and caps, athletic uniforms; Athletic footwear; Business wear, namely, suits, jackets, trousers, blazers, blouses, shirts, skirts, dresses and footwear; Clothing for athletic use, namely, padded pants; Clothing for athletic use, namely, padded shirts; Clothing for athletic use, namely, padded shorts; Clothing for babies, toddlers and children, treated with fire and heat retardants, namely, pajamas, jackets, shirts, pants, jumpers; Clothing for wear in judo practices; Clothing for wear in wrestling games; Clothing, namely, wrap-arounds; Footwear; Footwear for men; Footwear for men and women; Footwear for track and field athletics; Footwear for women; Jackets; Jerseys; Ties as clothing; Tops as clothing; Beach footwear."  Therefore, it is presumed that the channels of trade and class(es) of purchasers are the same for these goods and/or services.  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 registrant’s goods are related.  

 

Additionally, the registration uses broad wording to describe "Headgear, namely, hats and caps," which presumably encompasses all goods of the type described, including applicant’s more narrow "hats" and "knitted caps."  See, e.g., In re Solid State Design Inc., 125 USPQ2d 1409, 1412-15 (TTAB 2018); Sw. Mgmt., Inc. v. Ocinomled, Ltd., 115 USPQ2d 1007, 1025 (TTAB 2015).  Thus, applicant’s and registrant’s goods are legally identical.  See, e.g., In re i.am.symbolic, llc, 127 USPQ2d 1627, 1629 (TTAB 2018) (citing Tuxedo Monopoly, Inc. v.Gen. Mills Fun Grp., Inc., 648 F.2d 1335, 1336, 209 USPQ 986, 988 (C.C.P.A. 1981); Inter IKEA Sys. B.V. v. Akea, LLC, 110 USPQ2d 1734, 1745 (TTAB 2014); Baseball Am. Inc. v. Powerplay Sports Ltd., 71 USPQ2d 1844, 1847 n.9 (TTAB 2004)).

 

Additionally, the goods of the parties have no restrictions as to nature, type, channels of trade, or classes of purchasers and are “presumed to travel in the same channels of trade to the same class of purchasers.”  In re Viterra Inc., 671 F.3d 1358, 1362, 101 USPQ2d 1905, 1908 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (quoting Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Packard Press, Inc., 281 F.3d 1261, 1268, 62 USPQ2d 1001, 1005 (Fed. Cir. 2002)).  Thus, applicant’s and registrant’s goods are related.

 

Therefore, as these goods originate from the same sources, these goods are related for likelihood of confusion purposes. 

 

Thus, as the marks are similar and the goods are related, there is a likelihood of confusion between the marks.  Therefore, registration is refused pursuant to Section 2(d) of the Trademark Act. 

 

ADVISORY: OWNERSHIP OF CITED REGISTRATION

 

If the mark in the cited registration is owned by applicant, applicant may provide evidence of ownership of the mark by satisfying one of the following:

 

(1)        Record the assignment with the USPTO’s Assignment Recordation Branch (ownership transfer documents such as assignments can be filed online at http://etas.uspto.gov) and promptly notify the trademark examining attorney that the assignment has been duly recorded.

 

(2)        Submit copies of documents evidencing the chain of title.

 

(3)        Submit the following statement, verified with an affidavit or signed declaration under 37 C.F.R. §2.20:  “Applicant is the owner of U.S. Registration No. 5223903.”  To provide this statement using the Trademark Electronic Application System (TEAS), use the “Response to Office Action” form; answer “yes” to wizard questions #3 and #10; then, continuing on to the next portion of the form, in the “Additional Statement(s)” section, find “Active Prior Registration(s)” and insert the U.S. registration numbers in the data fields; and follow the instructions within the form for signing.  The form must be signed twice; a signature is required both in the “Declaration Signature” section and in the “Response Signature” section.

 

TMEP §812.01; see 15 U.S.C. §1060; 37 C.F.R. §§2.193(e)(1), 3.25, 3.73(a)-(b); TMEP §502.02(a).

 

Recording a document with the Assignment Recordation Branch does not constitute a response to an Office action.  TMEP §503.01(d).

 

Response to Section 2(d) Refusal

 

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(s) set forth below.

 

ENTITY CLARIFICATION REQUIRED

 

Applicant’s business name includes the foreign business designation “Co. Ltd.”; however, applicant set forth “Corporation” as the legal entity in the application.  This business designation is generally considered the equivalent of a "Limited Company" or "Limited Liability Company."  See TMEP app. D.  Therefore, applicant must clarify the entity type in the application.  See 37 C.F.R. §§2.32(a)(3), 2.61(b); TMEP §803.03(i).  Applicant may satisfy this requirement by amending the legal entity to one of those immediately listed above from Appendix D of the Trademark Manual of Examining Procedure (TMEP) for this business designation, as appropriate.  See TMEP §803.03(i). 

 

Alternatively, if applicant maintains that the legal entity in the application properly identifies applicant’s entity type, applicant must provide an explanation as to why the identified entity type is more similar to a "corporation" in this instance than to the legal entities listed in TMEP Appendix D.  See id.

 

If, in response to the above request, applicant provides information indicating that it is not the owner of the mark, registration will be refused because the application was void as filed.  See 37 C.F.R. §2.71(d); TMEP §§803.06, 1201.02(b).  An application must be filed by the party who owns or is entitled to use the mark as of the application filing date.  See 37 C.F.R. §2.71(d); TMEP §1201.02(b).

 

AMENDED DESCRIPTION OF MARK REQUIRED

 

Applicant must submit an amended description of the mark because the current one is incomplete and does not describe all the significant aspects of the mark.  37 C.F.R. §2.37; see TMEP §§808.01, 808.02.  Descriptions must be accurate and identify all the literal and design elements in the mark.  See 37 C.F.R. §2.37; TMEP §§808 et seq. 

 

The following description is suggested, if accurate:  The mark consists of the letter "U" in a block form containing the wording "UNIQERS
 within, with the letters "UNI" and a stylized "Q" along a bottom of the block and the lettering "ERS" bent upward along the right side of the block.

 

RESPONSE

 

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  

 

 

/Megan M. Hartnett/

Megan M. Hartnett

Trademark Examining Attorney

Law Office 123

571-270-1977

megan.hartnett@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 November 06, 2019 for

U.S. Trademark Application Serial No. 88565393

 

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. 

 

 

/Megan M. Hartnett/

Megan M. Hartnett

Trademark Examining Attorney

Law Office 123

571-270-1977

megan.hartnett@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 November 06, 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.”