United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO)
Office Action (Official Letter) About Applicant’s Trademark Application
U.S. Application Serial No. 88566857
Mark: PLAYSAVVY
|
|
Correspondence Address: RACHEL BRANDEIS-DANIELOV, ESQ. LAW OFFICES OF BRANDEIS & ASSOCIATES, LL
|
|
Applicant: LK Superdeals Inc
|
|
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: November 09, 2019
On August 13, 2019 applicant filed a Voluntary Amendment. In this Voluntary Amendment, applicant amended the owner's street address. The amended street address is acceptable and has been entered.
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). 5435752. 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 PLAYSAVVY in standard characters for "Toy guns; Children's educational toys for developing fine motor and cognitive skills" in Class 28.
The registered mark is SAVVY in standard characters for "card games" in Class 28.
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 PLAYSAVVY in standard characters. Registrant's mark is SAVVY in standard characters.
Additionally, 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 Detroit Athletic Co., 903 F.3d 1297, 1305, 128 USPQ2d 1047, 1050 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (citing In re Dixie Rests., 105 F.3d 1405, 1407, 41 USPQ2d 1531, 1533-34 (Fed. Cir. 1997)); TMEP §1207.01(b)(viii), (c)(ii). Matter that is descriptive of or generic for a party’s goods and/or services is typically less significant or less dominant in relation to other wording in a mark. See Anheuser-Busch, LLC v. Innvopak Sys. Pty Ltd., 115 USPQ2d 1816, 1824-25 (TTAB 2015) (citing In re Chatam Int’l Inc., 380 F.3d 1340, 1342-43, 71 USPQ2d 1944, 1946 (Fed. Cir. 2004)).
In the present case, the attached evidence shows that the wording "PLAY" in the applied-for mark is merely descriptive of or generic for applicant’s goods. Specifically, this word is descriptive of a purpose of the goods, such as to use for play purposes. The word "PLAY" is defined as "[t]o occupy oneself in an activity for amusement or recreation: children playing with toys." See http://www.ahdictionary.com/word/search.html?q=play. And other entities use similar wording to describe similar goods. See, e.g., http://busytoddler.com/best-toys-for-kids/ ("Play is the work of childhood and toys are the tools for play."); http://www.gryphonhouse.com/educational-toys ("Our educational toys and tools offer play for cognitive, creative, physical, and social-emotional development for kids of all ages."); http://www.kaplanco.com/kaplan-toys ("Kaplan Toys offers a wide selection of toys for young children, toddlers and infants, including dress up costumes, play kitchens" and "Shop Active Play"). Thus, this wording is less significant in terms of affecting the mark’s commercial impression, and renders the wording "SAVVY" the more dominant element of the mark.
For the foregoing reasons, the marks are considered similar for likelihood of confusion purposes.
Comparison of the Goods
Applicant's goods are: "Toy guns; Children's educational toys for developing fine motor and cognitive skills" in Class 28.
Registrant's goods are: "card games" in Class 28.
The attached Internet evidence establishes that the same entity commonly produces the relevant goods and markets the goods under the same mark. See attached evidence from http://www.fatbraintoys.com/; http://www.melissaanddoug.com/; http://www.schylling.com/. This evidence establishes that entities that produce toy guns and educational toys also produce card games under the same mark.
Thus, applicant’s and registrant’s goods are considered related 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).
The trademark examining attorney has attached evidence from the USPTO’s X-Search database consisting of a number of third-party marks registered for use in connection with the same or similar goods and/or services as those of both applicant and registrant in this case. This evidence shows that the goods and/or services listed therein, namely toy guns, educational toys, and card games, are of a kind that may emanate from a single source under a single mark. See In re I-Coat Co., 126 USPQ2d 1730, 1737 (TTAB 2018) (citing 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 attached Registration Nos. are: 4781985, 5288800, 5549499, 5587719, 5681928, 5698907, 5648044, 5867166, 5819845, 5828361, 5903654.
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.
Response to Section 2(d) Refusal
RESPONSE
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