To: | Make Up For Ever (ricketts-docket@fzlz.com) |
Subject: | U.S. Trademark Application Serial No. 88567924 - REBOOT - MUFE 1808743 |
Sent: | December 11, 2019 04:53:33 PM |
Sent As: | ecom116@uspto.gov |
Attachments: |
United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO)
Office Action (Official Letter) About Applicant’s Trademark Application
U.S. Application Serial No. 88567924
Mark: REBOOT
|
|
Correspondence Address: |
|
Applicant: Make Up For Ever
|
|
Reference/Docket No. MUFE 1808743
Correspondence Email Address: |
|
SUSPENSION NOTICE
No Response Required
Issue date: December 11, 2019
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.
This letter responds to applicant’s communication filed November 20, 2019 in which applicant argued against the refusal under Section 2(d). Applicant’s arguments have been considered and found unpersuasive. The likelihood of confusion refusal under Section 2(d) is maintained and continued. This refusal will be made final once this application is removed from suspension, unless a new issue arises. See TMEP §716.01.
The application is suspended for the reason specified below. See 37 C.F.R. §2.67; TMEP §§716 et seq.
The pending applications below have earlier filing dates or effective filing dates than applicant’s application. If the mark(s) in the application(s) below registers, the USPTO may refuse registration of applicant’s mark under Section 2(d) because of a likelihood of confusion with the registered mark(s). 15 U.S.C. §1052(d); see 37 C.F.R. §2.83; TMEP §§1208.02(c). Action on this application is suspended until the prior-filed applications below either register or abandon. 37 C.F.R. §2.83(c). Information relevant to the applications below was sent previously.
- U.S. Application Serial Nos. 88398983 and 87937006
Suspension process. The USPTO will periodically check this application to determine if it should remain suspended. See TMEP §716.04. As needed, the trademark examining attorney will issue a letter to applicant to inquire about the status of the reason for the suspension. TMEP §716.05.
SECTION 2(d) REFUSAL – LIKELIHOOD OF CONFUSION – MAINTAINED AND CONTINUED
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 Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit and the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board have recognized that marks deemed “weak” or merely descriptive are still entitled to protection under Section 2(d) against the registration by a subsequent user of a similar mark for closely related goods. TMEP §1207.01(b)(ix); see King Candy Co. v. Eunice King’s Kitchen, Inc., 496 F.2d 1400, 1401, 182 USPQ 108, 109 (C.C.P.A. 1974); In re Max Capital Grp. Ltd., 93 USPQ2d 1243, 1246 (TTAB 2010). Applicant’s mark is contained in its entirety in registrant’s mark and has no additional elements to distinguish it from registrant’s mark.
When confronted with closely related goods bearing highly similar marks, a consumer is likely to have the mistaken belief that the goods originate from the same source. Because this likelihood of confusion exists, the refusal to register is maintained and continued.
No response required. Applicant may file a response, but is not required to do so.
/Kristina Morris/
Kristina Morris
Examining Attorney
Law Office 116
571-272-5895
kristina.morris@uspto.gov (informal queries only)