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 19, 2019

 

 

The referenced application has been reviewed by the assigned trademark examining attorney.  The 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.

 

1.        Likelihood-of-confusion refusal.

As an initial matter, it is noted that the cited registrant and applicant herein share the same street address and attorney.

A new owner can file an assignment and/or other documents affecting an applicant’s title online using the Electronic Trademark Assignment System (ETAS).  To record a change in ownership and/or name, a new owner must submit the ownership transfer or name change documents along with a cover sheet and the required fees.  37 C.F.R. §§3.28, 3.41(a); see TMEP §§503.03 et seq.  The USPTO charges $40.00 for recording the first mark in a document and $25.00 for each additional mark in the same document.  37 C.F.R. §2.6(b)(6). 

For recording, the USPTO will accept a copy of an original document, a copy of an extract from the document evidencing the effect on title, or a statement signed by both the party conveying the interest and the party receiving the interest explaining how the conveyance affects title.  37 C.F.R. §3.25(a), (c); TMEP §503.03(b).  The new owner should not submit original documents for recording; the USPTO will not return those documents.  37 C.F.R. §3.25(c)(2); TMEP §503.03(b).

In the mean time:

Registration of the applied-for mark is refused because of a likelihood of confusion with the marks in U.S. Registration Nos. 3209992 and 3102674.  Trademark Act Section 2(d), 15 U.S.C. §1052(d); see TMEP §§1207.01 et seq.  See the referenced registrations (attached).

Trademark Act Section 2(d) bars registration of an applied-for mark that so resembles a registered mark that it is likely a potential consumer would be confused, mistaken, or deceived as to the source of the goods and/or services of the applicant and registrant.  See 15 U.S.C. §1052(d).  A determination of likelihood of confusion under Section 2(d) is made on a case-by-case basis and 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) aid in this determination.  Citigroup Inc. v. Capital City Bank Grp., Inc., 637 F.3d 1344, 1349, 98 USPQ2d 1253, 1256 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (citing On-Line Careline, Inc. v. Am. Online, Inc., 229 F.3d 1080, 1085, 56 USPQ2d 1471, 1474 (Fed. Cir. 2000)).  Not all the du Pont factors, however, are necessarily relevant or of equal weight, and any one of the factors may control in a given case, depending upon the evidence of record.  Citigroup Inc. v. Capital City Bank Grp., Inc., 637 F.3d at 1355, 98 USPQ2d at 1260; In re Majestic Distilling Co., 315 F.3d 1311, 1315, 65 USPQ2d 1201, 1204 (Fed. Cir. 2003); see In re E. I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., 476 F.2d at 1361-62, 177 USPQ at 567.

In any likelihood of confusion determination, two key considerations are similarity of the marks and similarity or relatedness of the goods and/or services.  In re Fat Boys Water Sports LLC, 118 USPQ2d 1511, 1516 (TTAB 2016) (citing Federated Foods, Inc. v. Fort Howard Paper Co., 544 F.2d 1098, 1103, 192 USPQ 24, 29 (C.C.P.A. 1976)); see TMEP §1207.01.  That is, the marks are compared in their entireties for similarities in appearance, sound, connotation, and commercial impression.  In re Viterra Inc., 671 F.3d 1358, 1362, 101 USPQ2d 1905, 1908 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (quoting In re E. I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., 476 F.2d 1357, 1361, 177 USPQ 563, 567 (C.C.P.A. 1973)); TMEP §1207.01(b)-(b)(v).  Additionally, the goods and/or services are compared to determine whether they are similar or 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, (a)(vi).

 

            a.        Comparison of 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 Davia, 110 USPQ2d 1810, 1812 (TTAB 2014) (citing In re 1st USA Realty Prof’ls, Inc., 84 USPQ2d 1581, 1586 (TTAB 2007)); In re White Swan Ltd., 8 USPQ2d 1534, 1535 (TTAB 1988)); TMEP §1207.01(b).

In the instant case, the applicant’s mark—a stylized P followed by PANDA KITCHEN AND BATH—

• is virtually identical to Reg. No. 3209992, which likewise consists of the identical stylized P followed by PANDA KITCHEN AND BATH; and
• has the identical stylized P that constitutes the entire mark in Reg. No. 3102674.

Thus the respective parties’ marks share a common appearance, sound, connotation, and overall commercial impression.  Any differences in the marks would do nothing to dispel consumer confusion as to the source of the goods/services.

 

            b.        Comparison of goods/services.

Where the marks of the respective parties are identical or virtually identical, as in this case, the degree of similarity or relatedness between the goods and/or services needed to support a finding of likelihood of confusion declines.  See In re i.am.symbolic, llc, 116 USPQ2d 1406, 1411 (TTAB 2015) (citing In re Shell Oil Co., 992 F.2d 1204, 1207, 26 USPQ2d 1687, 1689 (Fed. Cir. 1993)); TMEP §1207.01(a).

The goods and/or services of the parties 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) (“even if the goods in question are different from, and thus not related to, one another in kind, the same goods can be related in the mind of the consuming public as to the origin of the goods”); TMEP §1207.01(a)(i). 

The respective goods and/or services 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 the instant case, the applicant’s goods/services…

• [furniture, namely] cabinet[s]
• wholesale distributorships and retail store services and online wholesale and retail s[tor]es featuring [furniture, namely] cabinetry and its accessories for kitchens and bathrooms
• installation,… repair and refacing of [furniture, namely] kitchen and bathroom cabinets
• [furniture-making, namely] cabinet making

…are, on their face, sufficiently related to certain of the registrant’s goods/services…

• [furniture, namely] cabinets
• wholesale distributorships and retail store services featuring [furniture, namely] cabinets
• custom [furniture-making, namely] cabinet making

and

• furniture for house, office and garden, namely, cabinets, cabinet work and units, kitchen cabinets, sink cabinets, wall cabinets, base cabinets, broom cabinets, mirrored cabinets, shoe cabinets, linen cabinets, cabinet fillers, filing cabinets; bathroom vanities, bathroom and shaving mirrors; medicine cabinets; hospital beds; bedroom furniture and cupboards
• export and import agency services [presumably including furniture, namely cabinets]

…that the respective parties’ goods and services would travel through the same channels of trade to the same classes of purchasers. 

 

The overriding concern is not only to prevent buyer confusion as to the source of the goods and/or services, but to protect the registrant from adverse commercial impact due to use of a similar mark by a newcomer.  See In re Shell Oil Co., 992 F.2d 1204, 1208, 26 USPQ2d 1687, 1690 (Fed. Cir. 1993).  Therefore, any doubt regarding a likelihood of confusion determination is resolved in favor of the registrant.  TMEP §1207.01(d)(i); see Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Packard Press, Inc., 281 F.3d 1261, 1265, 62 USPQ2d 1001, 1003 (Fed. Cir. 2002); In re Hyper Shoppes (Ohio), Inc., 837 F.2d 463, 464-65, 6 USPQ2d 1025, 1026 (Fed. Cir. 1988).

 

Accordingly, because confusion as to source is likely in the instant case, registration is refused under Trademark Act §2(d).  Although the examining attorney has refused registration, the applicant may respond to the refusal to register by submitting evidence and arguments in support of registration. 

If the applicant responds to the above refusal to register, the applicant must also respond to the following.

 

2.         Identification of goods/services.

An application’s identification of goods/services must be specific, definite, clear, accurate and concise.  See In re Societe Generale des Eaux Minerales de Vittel S.A., 1 USPQ2d 1296 (TTAB 1986), rev'd on other grounds, 824 F.2d 957, 3 USPQ2d 1450 (Fed. Cir. 1987); Procter & Gamble Co. v. Economics Laboratory, Inc., 175 USPQ 505 (TTAB 1972), modified without opinion, 498 F.2d 1406, 181 USPQ 722 (C.C.P.A. 1974); In re Cardinal Laboratories, Inc., 149 USPQ 709 (TTAB 1966); California Spray-Chemical Corp. v. Osmose Wood Preserving Co. of America, Inc., 102 USPQ 321 (Comm'r Pats. 1954); Ex parte A.C. Gilbert Co., 99 USPQ 344 (Comm'r Pats. 1953); TMEP §1402.01. 

In the instant case, the identification of goods/services is unacceptable as containing indefinite wording.  Specifically, “sales” is a self-serving activity rather than a cognizable service (but “stores” would be an acceptable replacement), and “construction” of goods (as opposed to of structures) is a custom Class 40 (not 37) service.

Accordingly, the applicant must clarify along the lines indicated below.  The applicant may adopt the following identification (to the extent accurate):

Class 20—cabinets

Class 35—wholesale distributorships and retail store services and online wholesale and retail stores, all featuring cabinetry and its accessories for kitchens and bathrooms

Class 37—installation, construct, repair and refacing of kitchen and bathroom cabinets

Class 40—cabinet making; custom construction of kitchen and bathroom cabinets

An applicant may amend an identification of goods and services only to clarify or limit the goods and services; adding to or broadening the scope of the goods and/or services is not permitted.  37 C.F.R. §2.71(a); see TMEP §§1402.06 et seq., 1402.07 et seq.

For assistance with identifying and classifying goods and services in trademark applications, please see the USPTO’s online searchable U.S. Acceptable Identification of Goods and Services Manual at http://tmidm.uspto.gov.  See TMEP §1402.04.

 

3.         Disclaimer.

The applicant must—as shown below—insert a disclaimer of the wording “KITCHEN AND BATH” apart from the mark because the wording merely describes an ingredient, quality, characteristic, function, feature, purpose, or use of the applicant’s goods and services:

[kitchen and bathroom] cabinet[s]

wholesale distributorships and retail store services and online wholesale and retail s[tor]es featuring cabinetry and its accessories for kitchens and bathrooms

installation,… repair and refacing of kitchen and bathroom cabinets

[kitchen and bathroom] cabinet making

See 15 U.S.C. §§1052(e)(1), 1056(a); In re Steelbuilding.com, 415 F.3d 1293, 1297, 75 USPQ2d 1420, 1421 (Fed. Cir. 2005); In re Gyulay, 820 F.2d 1216, 1217-18, 3 USPQ2d 1009, 1010 (Fed. Cir. 1987); TMEP §§1213, 1213.03(a). 

The computerized printing format for the Office’s Official Gazette requires a standardized format for a disclaimer.   TMEP §1213.08(a)(i).  The following is the standard format used by the Office:

No claim is made to the exclusive right to use “KITCHEN AND BATH” apart from the mark as shown.

TMEP §1213.08(a)(i); see In re Owatonna Tool Co., 231 USPQ 493 (Comm’r Pats. 1983).

Under Trademark Act Section 2(e), the Office can refuse registration of an entire mark if the entire mark is merely descriptive, deceptively misdescriptive, or primarily geographically descriptive of the goods and/or services.  15 U.S.C. §1052(e).  Thus, the Office may require an applicant to enter a disclaimer of a portion of a mark that, when used in connection with the goods and/or services, is merely descriptive, deceptively misdescriptive, primarily geographically descriptive, or otherwise unregistrable (e.g., generic).  See TMEP §§1213, 1213.03.

A “disclaimer” is a statement that the applicant does not claim exclusive rights to an unregistrable component of a mark.  It does not affect the appearance of the mark; that is, a disclaimer does not physically remove the disclaimed matter from the mark.  See Schwarzkopf v. John H. Breck, Inc., 340 F.2d 978, 978, 144 USPQ 433, 433 (C.C.P.A. 1965); TMEP §1213.  If the applicant does not provide the required disclaimer, the USPTO may refuse to register the entire mark.  See In re Stereotaxis Inc., 429 F.3d 1039, 1040-41, 77 USPQ2d 1087, 1088-89 (Fed. Cir. 2005); TMEP §1213.01(b).

The following cases further explain the disclaimer requirement:  Dena Corp. v. Belvedere Int’l Inc., 950 F.2d 1555, 21 USPQ2d 1047 (Fed. Cir. 1991); In re Brown-Forman Corp., 81 USPQ2d 1284 (TTAB 2006); In re Kraft, Inc., 218 USPQ 571 (TTAB 1983).

 

 

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  

 

 

      

/J. Brendan Regan/

Examining Attorney, Law Office 113

571-272-9212

brendan.regan@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 19, 2019 for

U.S. Trademark Application Serial No. 88574910

 

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. 

 

 

      

/J. Brendan Regan/

Examining Attorney, Law Office 113

571-272-9212

brendan.regan@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 19, 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.”