Offc Action Outgoing

United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO)

Office Action (Official Letter) About Applicant’s Trademark Application

FINAL 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) and/or Electronic System for Trademark Trials and Appeals (ESTTA).  A link to the appropriate TEAS response form and/or to ESTTA for an appeal appears at the end of this Office action. 

Issue date:  January 23, 2020

This Office Action is in response to applicant’s communication filed on January 21, 2020.

INTRODUCTION

Registration was refused under Trademark Act Section 2(d), 15 U.S.C. Section 1052(d), because the mark for which registration is sought so resembles the mark shown in U.S. Registration No. 3101658 as to be likely, when used on the identified goods, to cause confusion, or to cause mistake, or to deceive.  The examining attorney has considered the applicant’s arguments carefully but has found them unpersuasive.  Therefore, for the reasons set forth below, the refusal under Trademark Act Section 2(d) is now made FINAL with respect to U.S. Registration No. 3101658.  See 15 U.S.C. §1052(d); 37 C.F.R. §2.63(b).

TRADEMARK ACT SECTION 2(d) REFUSAL – LIKELIHOOD OF CONFUSION – FINAL REFUSAL

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.

Applicant’s mark is FAHRENHEIT (stylized) for “Men's socks, namely, thermal socks; Men's underwear, namely, thermal underwear; Women's underwear, namely, thermal underwear” in International Class 025.

Registrant’s mark is FAHRENHEIT HEADWEAR COMPANY (standard characters) for “Headware” in International Class 025.

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 the initial Office Action issued on December 8, 2019, examining attorney found applicant’s mark, FAHRENHEIT, to be highly similar to registrant’s mark, FAHRENHEIT HEADWEAR COMPANY, where both marks share the wording FAHRENHEIT as the dominant and first feature of registrant’s mark, and the wording wholly comprises applicant’s mark.  Given the similarities between the marks, particularly where the marks are similar in sound, appearance and commercial impression, examining attorney found that any differences, such as the stylization of applicant’s mark or the addition of descriptive and disclaimed wording in registrant’s mark, do not significantly distinguish the applied-for mark from the cited registration.

In applicant’s Response to Office Action filed on January 21, 2020, applicant argues that its mark, FAHRENHEIT, is dissimilar in nature from registrant’s mark, FAHRENHEIT HEADWEAR COMPANY.  Specifically, applicant argues that the marks are dissimilar in appearance and sound.

Examining attorney respectfully disagrees with applicant’s arguments.

First, applicant’s argument that the respective marks are dissimilar in appearance and sound due to the stylization of applicant’s mark, is not persuasive.

Specifically, the slight stylization of applicant’s mark, namely, the reversed first letter “E” in the mark, is not enough to overcome a likelihood of confusion, as this stylization does not change how the mark is perceived or pronounced, nor does it change the overall commercial impression.  See also, applicant’s statement in Response to Office Action filed on January 21, 2020 (admitting that applicant’s mark, FAHRENHEIT, will likely be pronounced the same as the first part of registrant’s mark, FAHRENHEIT, namely, as “far-uh n-hahyt”).

Additionally, 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, such as applicant’s mark, generally will not avoid likelihood of confusion with a mark in typed or standard characters, such as registrant’s mark, 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”).

Further, when evaluating a composite mark consisting of words and a design [or stylization], the word portion is normally accorded greater weight because it is likely to make a greater impression upon purchasers, be remembered by them, and be used by them to refer to or request the goods.  In re Aquitaine Wine USA, LLC, 126 USPQ2d 1181, 1184 (TTAB 2018) (citing In re Viterra Inc., 671 F.3d 1358, 1362, 101 USPQ2d 1905, 1908 (Fed. Cir. 2012)); TMEP §1207.01(c)(ii).  Thus, although marks must be compared in their entireties, the word portion is often considered the dominant feature and is accorded greater weight in determining whether marks are confusingly similar, even where the word portion has been disclaimed.  In re Viterra Inc., 671 F.3d at 1366-67, 101 USPQ2d at 1911 (citing Giant Food, Inc. v. Nation’s Foodservice, Inc., 710 F.2d 1565, 1570-71, 218 USPQ2d 390, 395 (Fed. Cir. 1983)).

Finally, applicant’s argument that the respective marks are dissimilar in appearance and sound due to the additional wording in registrant’s mark, is not compelling.

Here, the additional wording in registrant’s mark, namely, HEADWEAR COMPANY, comprises wording that is descriptive/generic of registrant’s goods, namely, HEADWEAR, as well as an entity designation, namely, COMPANY, which has no source-indicating capacity.  Disclaimed matter that is descriptive of or generic for a party’s goods is typically less significant or less dominant when comparing marks.  In re Detroit Athletic Co., 903 F.3d 1297, 1305, 128 USPQ2d 1047, 1050 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (citing In re Dixie Rests., Inc., 105 F.3d 1405, 1407, 41 USPQ2d 1531, 1533-34 (Fed. Cir. 1997)); TMEP §1207.01(b)(viii), (c)(ii).

As such, 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 Viterra Inc., 671 F.3d 1358, 1362, 101 USPQ2d 1905, 1908 (Fed. Cir. 2012); In re Nat’l Data Corp., 753 F.2d 1056, 1058, 224 USPQ 749, 751 (Fed. Cir. 1985); TMEP §1207.01(b)(viii), (c)(ii).  In the present case, that feature is FAHRENHEIT, which is the dominant and first feature of registrant’s mark, and is the sole feature of applicant’s mark.

Further, although applicant’s mark does not contain the entirety of the registered mark, applicant’s mark is likely to appear to prospective purchasers as a shortened form of registrant’s mark.  See In re Mighty Leaf Tea, 601 F.3d 1342, 1348, 94 USPQ2d 1257, 1260 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (quoting United States Shoe Corp., 229 USPQ 707, 709 (TTAB 1985)).  Thus, merely omitting some of the wording from a registered mark may not overcome a likelihood of confusion.  See In re Mighty Leaf Tea, 601 F.3d 1342, 94 USPQ2d 1257; In re Optica Int’l, 196 USPQ 775, 778 (TTAB 1977); TMEP §1207.01(b)(ii)-(iii).  In this case, applicant’s mark does not create a distinct commercial impression from the registered mark because it contains some of the wording in the registered mark and does not add any wording that would distinguish it from that mark.

As such, applicant’s mark is confusingly similar in nature with the cited registered mark.

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).

In the initial Office Action issued on December 8, 2019, examining attorney found that applicant’s goods are closely related to registrant’s goods, where applicant provides socks and underwear for men and women, and registrant provides headwear.  To this point, examining attorney provided evidence to show that because the goods are commercially related and likely to be encountered together in the marketplace, consumers are likely to be confused and mistakenly believe that the goods originate from a common source.

In applicant’s Response to Office Action filed on January 21, 2020, applicant argues that applicant’s and registrant’s goods are not related.  Specifically, applicant argues that the goods are not related because (1) the trade channels of the goods are different, (2) the examiner’s reliance on evidence from the USPTO’s X-Search database is misplaced, and (3) applicant has now amended the identification of goods to specifically state that the socks and underwear are thermal.

Examining attorney respectfully disagrees with applicant’s arguments.

First, applicant’s argument that the goods are not related because the trade channels differ, is not convincing.

Neither the application nor the registration contain any limitations regarding trade channels for the goods and therefore it is assumed that registrant’s and applicant’s goods are sold everywhere that is normal for such items, i.e., clothing and department stores.  Thus, it can also be assumed that the same classes of purchasers shop for these items and that consumers are accustomed to seeing them sold under the same or similar marks.  See Kangol Ltd. v. KangaROOS U.S.A., Inc., 974 F.2d 161, 23 USPQ2d 1945 (Fed. Cir. 1992); In re Smith & Mehaffey, 31 USPQ2d 1531 (TTAB 1994); TMEP §1207.01(a)(iii).

Further, decisions regarding likelihood of confusion in the clothing field have found many different types of apparel to be related goods.  Cambridge Rubber Co. v. Cluett, Peabody & Co., 286 F.2d 623, 624, 128 USPQ 549, 550 (C.C.P.A. 1961) (women’s boots related to men’s and boys’ underwear); Jockey Int’l, Inc. v. Mallory & Church Corp., 25 USPQ2d 1233, 1236 (TTAB 1992) (underwear related to neckties); In re Melville Corp., 18 USPQ2d 1386, 1388 (TTAB 1991) (women’s pants, blouses, shorts and jackets related to women’s shoes); In re Pix of Am., Inc., 225 USPQ 691, 691-92 (TTAB 1985) (women’s shoes related to outer shirts); In re Mercedes Slacks, Ltd., 213 USPQ 397, 398-99 (TTAB 1982) (hosiery related to trousers); In re Cook United, Inc., 185 USPQ 444, 445 (TTAB 1975) (men’s suits, coats, and trousers related to ladies’ pantyhose and hosiery); Esquire Sportswear Mfg. Co. v. Genesco Inc., 141 USPQ 400, 404 (TTAB 1964) (brassieres and girdles related to slacks for men and young men).

Secondly, applicant’s argument that the examiner’s reliance on evidence from the USPTO’s X-Search database is misplaced, is flawed, as the examiner did not rely on or include any 3^rd-party registrations from the USPTO’s X-Search database to support the refusal.  Rather, in the initial Office Action issued on December 8, 2019, the examiner included relevant Internet evidence from various sources to establish that (1) the same entity commonly manufactures/produces/provides the relevant goods and markets the goods under the same mark, (2) 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, and/or (3) the goods are similar or complementary in terms of purpose or function.  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).

For purposes of evaluating a trademark, material obtained from the Internet is generally accepted as competent evidence.  See In re Bayer Aktiengesellschaft, 488 F.3d 960, 966, 82 USPQ2d 1828, 1833 (Fed. Cir. 2007); In re Reed Elsevier Props., Inc., 482 F.3d 1376, 1380, 82 USPQ2d 1378, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2007); TBMP §1208.03; TMEP §710.01(b).

Finally, applicant’s amendment to the identification of goods, specifying that the goods are specifically thermal, is not enough to overcome this refusal, as restricting or limiting the identification of goods in this case does not change the overall essence and nature of applicant’s goods, namely, socks and underwear for men and/or women.

Further, the attached additional Internet evidence from Heat Holders, Debra Weitzner, L.L. Bean, Lands’ End, and The Buffalo Wool Co. further establishes that applicant’s goods as amended, namely, thermal socks and underwear for men and/or women, are still highly related to registrant’s goods, namely headwear.  See attached.

Because the marks are similar and the goods are related, it is likely that consumers would believe that the goods emanate from a common source.

The overriding concern is not only to prevent buyer confusion as to the source of the goods, 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).

Therefore, for the reasons discussed above, the refusal to register under Trademark Act Section 2(d) is maintained and now made FINAL.

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 request for reconsideration of this final Office action that fully resolves all outstanding requirements and refusals and/or click to file a timely appeal to the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB) with the required filing fee(s).

/Adetayo J. Adeyiga/

Trademark Examining Attorney

Law Office 114

(571) 272-7089

adetayo.adeyiga@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 January 23, 2020 for

U.S. Trademark Application Serial No. 88597075

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. 

/Adetayo J. Adeyiga/

Trademark Examining Attorney

Law Office 114

(571) 272-7089

adetayo.adeyiga@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 January 23, 2020, 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.”