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:  December 16, 2019

 

The referenced application has been reviewed by the assigned trademark examining attorney.  Applicant must respond timely and completely to the issues 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
• Specimen Refusal
• Information About Specimen Required
• Trademark Attorney Advisory

 

SECTION 2(d) REFUSAL – LIKELIHOOD OF CONFUSION

Registration of the applied-for mark is refused because of a likelihood of confusion with the marks in U.S. Registration Nos. 5251493, 3946020 and 4415020.  Trademark Act Section 2(d), 15 U.S.C. §1052(d); see TMEP §§1207.01 et seq.  See the attached registrations.

 

The applicant has applied to register the mark CHAMPION in standard character format for “Area rugs; Bath mats; Bathroom mats; Carpet underlays, namely, rug grippers; Door mats; Floor mats for vehicles; Shower mats” in class 027.

 

The mark in Registration No. 5251493 is CHAMPION in a stylized font for “Blankets for outdoor use; Fleece blankets; Throws” in class 024.

 

The mark in Registration No. 3946020 is CHAMPION in a stylized format with a bow tie design for “Filters for vehicles, namely, fuel filters, oil filters, air filters for vehicle motors and engines” in class 007.

 

The mark in Registration No. 4415020 is CHAMPION in a stylized format with a bow tie design for “Filters for vehicles, namely, air filters for use in vehicle heating, ventilation and air conditioning systems” in class 011.

 

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 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. 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).

 

In this case, applicant’s mark CHAMPION is confusingly similar to the marks CHAMPION in Registration Nos. 5251493, 3946020 and 4415020. Specifically, CHAMPION in applicant’s mark is highly similar in sound and appearance to the CHAMPION in registrants’ marks in Registration Nos. 5251493, 3946020 and 4415020. Further, this shared word means “One that wins first place or first prize in a competition.” See http://www.ahdictionary.com/word/search.html?q=champion.

 

Moreover, applicant’s mark CHAMPION is in standard character format, which means applicant can put their mark in any design, therefore, registrants’ design elements in Registration Nos. 5251493, 3946020 and 4415020 do not rule out the similarity of the word CHAMPION in the marks. 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”). Therefore, the marks share the identical word CHAMPION.

 

In summary, because of the contemporaneous use of the distinctive word CHAMPION, it follows that purchasers are likely to believe that the marks identify the same source for area rug, bath mat, bathroom mat, rug gripper, door mat, vehicle floor mat, shower mat, throw, vehicle fuel filter and air filter goods. Thus, the marks are confusingly similar.

 

Comparison of the Goods

 

The compared goods 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); TMEP §1207.01(a)(i).  They 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] 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).

 

The applicant’s goods are “Area rugs; Bath mats; Bathroom mats; Carpet underlays, namely, rug grippers; Door mats; Floor mats for vehicles; Shower mats” in class 027.

 

The registrant’s goods in Registration No. 5251493 are “Blankets for outdoor use; Fleece blankets; Throws” in class 024.

 

The registrant’s goods in Registration No. 3946020 are “Filters for vehicles, namely, fuel filters, oil filters, air filters for vehicle motors and engines” in class 007.

 

The registrant’s goods in Registration No. 4415020 are “Filters for vehicles, namely, air filters for use in vehicle heating, ventilation and air conditioning systems” in class 011.

 

As the attached evidence shows, the applicant's area rug, bath mat, bathroom mat, rug gripper, door mat, vehicle floor mat and shower mat goods, registrant’s throw goods in Registration No. 5251493 and registrant’s vehicle fuel filter and air filter goods in Registration Nos. 3946020 and 4415020 are commercially related, because many companies provide these types of goods.

 

The attached Internet evidence consists of screenshots from Aki-Home, Serena & Lily, L.L. Bean, Advance Auto Parts, Auto Zone and O’Reilly Auto Parts. See http://aki-home.com/collections/throws, http://aki-home.com/collections/throws, http://aki-home.com/collections/door-mats, http://aki-home.com/collections/bath-rugs, http://aki-home.com/products/carpet-tape?variant=7641650364444, http://www.serenaandlily.com/bedroom-bath-bath-rugs/, http://www.serenaandlily.com/rugs-natural-rugs/, http://www.serenaandlily.com/new-rug-pads/, http://www.serenaandlily.com/sailors-knot-doormat/m12459.html#q=doormat&start=2, http://www.serenaandlily.com/throws/, http://www.llbean.com/llb/shop/113222?page=classic-cotton-bath-mat&bc=31-900&feat=900-GN1&csp=f, http://www.llbean.com/llb/shop/514001?page=rugs&csp=f&nav=gnro-113222, http://www.llbean.com/llb/shop/1157?page=blankets-and-throws&csp=f&bc=31-131&start=1&viewCount=48&nav=ln-131&newPla=1, http://www.llbean.com/llb/shop/110935?feat=sr&term=rug+grip&csp=a,  http://shop.advanceautoparts.com/, http://shop.advanceautoparts.com/c3/floor-mats/15483, http://www.autozone.com/floor-liners-floor-mats-and-carpet/floor-mat, http://www.autozone.com/parts/filters-and-pcv, http://www.oreillyauto.com/shop/b/accessories-16449/accessories---interior-16768/floor---cargo-mats-liners-16566/floor-mats--custom-fit--11139/234f18216675 and http://www.oreillyauto.com/shop/b/filters-16470/a33cc96e8cbd. This evidence establishes that the same entity commonly provides the relevant goods and markets the goods under the same mark and the relevant goods are sold or provided through the same trade channels and used by the same classes of consumers in the same fields of use. Thus, applicant’s and registrants’ 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). Accordingly, purchasers are likely to be confused as to the source of the goods when they encounter area rug, bath mat, bathroom mat, rug gripper, door mat, vehicle floor mat, shower mat, throw, vehicle fuel filter and air filter goods offered under highly similar marks. Therefore, applicant's goods and registrant's goods are considered related for likelihood of confusion purposes.

 

In summary, the marks are confusingly similar and the goods are related.  Therefore, purchasers are likely to be confused as to the source of the goods. Thus, registration is refused pursuant to Section 2(d) of the Trademark Act.

 

Applicant should note the following additional ground for refusal.

 

SPECIMEN REFUSAL

 

Specimen refused.  Registration is refused because the specimen in International Class 027 appears to consist of a mock-up of the mark on the goods and does not show the applied-for mark in actual use in commerce. Trademark Act Sections 1 and 45, 15 U.S.C. §§1051, 1127; 37 C.F.R. §§2.34(a)(1)(iv), 2.56(a); TMEP §§904, 904.07(a). 

 

An application based on Trademark Act Section 1(a) must include a specimen showing the applied-for mark in use in commerce for each international class of goods identified in the application.  15 U.S.C. §1051(a)(1); 37 C.F.R. §§2.34(a)(1)(iv), 2.56(a); TMEP §§904, 904.07(a).  “Use in commerce” means (1) a bona fide use of the applied-for mark in the ordinary course of trade (and not merely to reserve a right in the mark), (2) the mark is placed in any manner on the goods, packaging, tags or labels affixed to the goods, or displays that directly associate the mark with the goods and have a point-of-sale nature, and (3) the goods are actually sold or transported in commerce.  See 15 U.S.C. §1127.

 

An image of a product or packaging that has been digitally created or otherwise altered to include the mark does not show actual use of the mark in commerce. See 15 U.S.C. §1127; TMEP §§904.04(a), 904.07(a); cf. In re Chica, Inc., 84 USPQ2d 1845, 1848 (TTAB 2007) (holding that “a mere drawing of the goods with an illustration of how the mark may be displayed” was not an acceptable specimen because it did not show actual use in commerce); In re The Signal Cos., 228 USPQ 956, 957-58 n.4 (TTAB 1986) (noting that a printer’s proof of an advertisement would not be an acceptable specimen because it does not show actual use in commerce).

 

In this case, the specimen appears to consist of a mock-up of the mark on the goods, because the specimen is a picture of an area rug with the applied-for mark on what appears to be a white piece of paper affixed to the back of the area rug, which does not show the applied-for mark in actual use in commerce. Therefore, the submitted specimen cannot be accepted.

 

Response options.  Applicant may respond to the refusal of registration due to the specimen’s failure to show actual use in commerce by amending the filing basis to allege intent to use the mark in commerce, for which no specimen is required now.  See 37 C.F.R. §2.34.  This option will later necessitate an additional fee and filing requirements such as providing a specimen. 

 

Alternatively, applicant may also respond to the refusal by submitting a different specimen (a “verified substitute specimen”) that (a) was in actual use in commerce at least as early as the filing date of the application and (b) shows the mark in actual use in commerce for the goods identified in the application. A “verified substitute specimen” is a specimen that is accompanied by the following statement made in a signed affidavit or supported by a declaration under 37 C.F.R. §2.20:  “The substitute (or new, or originally submitted, if appropriate) specimen(s) was/were in use in commerce at least as early as the filing date of the application.”  The substitute specimen cannot be accepted without this statement.

 

For an overview of these response options and instructions on how to satisfy either option online using the Trademark Electronic Application System (TEAS) form, see the Specimen webpage.

 

If applicant submits a verified substitute specimen, applicant must also fully respond to the requirement for information and documentation below. However, amending the application filing basis to intent-to-use under Section 1(b) will resolve the requirement for information and documentation below.

 

Although applicant’s mark has been refused registration, applicant may respond to the refusals by submitting evidence and arguments in support of registration. However, if applicant responds to the refusals, applicant must also respond to the requirement set forth below.

 

INFORMATION ABOUT SPECIMEN REQUIRED

 

Additional information/documentation required. To permit proper examination of the application record for compliance with use in commerce requirements, applicant must respond to the following requests for information and documentation about the specimen.  See 37 C.F.R. §2.61(b); TMEP §814. Answer for each specimen/photograph/image previously provided.  For any website source submitted as supporting evidence, provide a digital copy of the entire webpage from top to bottom, as rendered in an Internet browser that includes the URL and access or print date.  TMEP §710.01(b) (citing In re I-Coat Co., 126 USPQ2d 1730, 1733 (TTAB 2018)).

 

(1)             Identify the particular goods listed in the application for which the specimen was submitted to show use of the mark.

 

(2)             Was the specimen created for submission with this application?  If so, specify the date each specimen was created. If applicant obtained the image of the goods shown in the specimen from a third-party website, provide the URL of the website and a digital copy of relevant webpage for each image.

 

(3)             Provide information about and examples of how applicant’s goods appear in the actual sales environment.

 

(a)             If sold in stores, provide a representative sample of the names of the stores and of photographs showing the goods for sale in the named stores, such as photographs of the sales displays or goods on shelves with the mark. 

(b)             If sold online, provide a representative sample of the names of the online retailers, the website URLs for each named retailer, and a digital copy of the webpages showing the goods for sale on the named website.

(c)             If sold in another type of sales environment (e.g., catalogs, trade shows), identify the environment and provide photographs and/or documentation showing the goods for sale in that environment. 

 

(4)             If the information in question (3) about how the goods appear in the actual sales environment is not available to applicant, please describe how applicant’s goods are sold or transported and provide photographs and other documentation showing how applicant’s mark appears on the goods and/or its packaging when the goods are sold or transported to or within the United States.

 

(5)             For each category of sales environment specified in response to questions (3) and (4), specify when the goods bearing the mark were first available for purchase within the United States, the date of the first sale of the goods to or within the United States, and whether the goods are still for sale to or within the United States in that environment.

 

(6)             For the goods identified in response to question (1), specify the dollar amount of sales with or within the United States and provide at least three invoices or other supporting documentation that show payments or other consideration made, redacting personal or private information of buyers as necessary.

 

Failure to comply with a requirement to furnish information is grounds for refusing registration.  In re Harley, 119 USPQ2d 1755, 1757-58 (TTAB 2016); TMEP §814.  Merely stating that evidence is available on applicant’s or a third party website or providing a hyperlink of such a website is an insufficient response and will not make the additional information or materials of record.  See In re Planalytics, Inc., 70 USPQ2d 1453, 1457-58 (TTAB 2004). 

 

TRADEMARK ATTORNEY ADVISORY

 

Because of the legal technicalities and strict deadlines of the trademark application process, applicant may wish to hire a private attorney who specializes in trademark matters to assist in the process. The assigned trademark examining attorney can provide only limited assistance explaining the content of an Office action and the application process.  USPTO staff cannot provide legal advice or statements about an applicant’s legal rights.  TMEP §§705.02, 709.06. See Hiring a U.S.-licensed trademark attorney for more information.

 

RESPONSE GUIDELINES

 

For this application to proceed, applicant must explicitly address each refusal and/or requirement in this Office action.  For a refusal, applicant may provide written arguments and evidence against the refusal, and may have other response options if specified above.  For a requirement, applicant should set forth the changes or statements.  Please see “Responding to Office Actions” and the informational video “Response to Office Action” for more information and tips on responding.

 

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 refusals and requirement 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.  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.    

 

 

/Rebecca Lee/

Examining Attorney

Law Office 122

(571) 272 - 7809

Rebecca.Lee1@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 December 16, 2019 for

U.S. Trademark Application Serial No. 88595513

 

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. 

 

 

/Rebecca Lee/

Examining Attorney

Law Office 122

(571) 272 - 7809

Rebecca.Lee1@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 December 16, 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.”