To: | Xu, Ming (docket2@remarkable.legal) |
Subject: | U.S. Trademark Application Serial No. 88570941 - MATE 12 - N/A |
Sent: | January 13, 2020 06:21:43 PM |
Sent As: | ecom105@uspto.gov |
Attachments: |
United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO)
Office Action (Official Letter) About Applicant’s Trademark Application
U.S. Application Serial No. 88570941
Mark: MATE 12
|
|
Correspondence Address: |
|
Applicant: Xu, Ming
|
|
Reference/Docket No. N/A
Correspondence Email Address: |
|
SUSPENSION NOTICE
No Response Required
Issue date: January 13, 2020
The application is suspended for the reason(s) specified below. See 37 C.F.R. §2.67; TMEP §§716 et seq.
The pending application(s) below has an earlier filing date or effective filing date than applicant’s application. If the mark 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 application(s) below either registers or abandons. 37 C.F.R. §2.83(c). Information relevant to the application(s) below was sent previously.
- U.S. Application Serial No(s). 88570672, 88524844, and 88214350
Refusal(s) and/or requirement(s) resolved and maintained and continued.
The following refusal(s) and/or requirement(s) is/are maintained and continued:
• Section 2(d) Likelihood of Confusion Refusal with respect to 5585893, 5747926 and 5705872
SECTION 2(d) LIKELIHOOD OF CONFUSION REFUSAL
The applicant has argued that no likelihood of confusion exists because the marks are not similar in sound, appearance and connotation due to the applicant’s addition of the number 12 to the mark. The trademark examining attorney respectfully disagrees. In this case, the first word of the mark is the dominant feature of the mark. Consumers are generally more inclined to focus on the first word, prefix, or syllable in any trademark or service mark. See Palm Bay Imps., Inc. v. Veuve Clicquot Ponsardin Maison Fondee En 1772, 396 F.3d 1369, 1372, 73 USPQ2d 1689, 1692 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (finding similarity between VEUVE ROYALE and two VEUVE CLICQUOT marks in part because “VEUVE . . . remains a ‘prominent feature’ as the first word in the mark and the first word to appear on the label”); Century 21 Real Estate Corp. v. Century Life of Am., 970 F.2d 874, 876, 23 USPQ2d 1698, 1700 (Fed Cir. 1992) (finding similarity between CENTURY 21 and CENTURY LIFE OF AMERICA in part because “consumers must first notice th[e] identical lead word”); see also In re Detroit Athletic Co., 903 F.3d 1297, 1303, 128 USPQ2d 1047, 1049 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (finding “the identity of the marks’ two initial words is particularly significant because consumers typically notice those words first”). Given that the first word of all the marks is the word MATE, the dominant feature is the same and therefore the marks have a similar commercial impression.
See id. These refusal(s) and/or requirement(s) will be made final once this application is removed from suspension, unless a new issue arises. See TMEP §716.01.
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.
No response required. Applicant may file a response, but is not required to do so.
Lewis, Lakeisha M.
/Lakeisha S. Munn Lewis/
Trademark Examining Attorney
Law Office 105
(571)272-1910
Lakeisha.Lewis@uspto.gov