United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO)
Office Action (Official Letter) About Applicant’s Trademark Application
U.S. Application Serial No. 88611342
Mark: RED ROVER
|
|
Correspondence Address:
|
|
Applicant: Little Unicorn, LLC
|
|
Reference/Docket No. 21750-0002
Correspondence Email Address: |
|
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 11, 2019
The referenced application has been reviewed by the assigned trademark examining attorney. 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.
SECTION 2(d) REFUSAL – LIKELIHOOD OF CONFUSION
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 and/or services. 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.
The proposed mark is RED ROVER (with design) for
Class 3 Baby shampoo; Baby hair conditioner; Baby hand soap; Bar soap; Bath soaps; Hair conditioner; Hair shampoo; Skin soap
Class 18 Diaper bags; All-purpose carrying bags for use by caretakers of babies, toddlers, and children; Tote bags
Class 24 Burp cloths; Towels; Washcloths; Baby bedding, namely, bundle bags, swaddling blankets, crib bumpers, fitted crib sheets, crib skirts, crib blankets, and diaper changing pad covers not of paper; Bath towels; Beach towels; Bed sheets; Children's towels; Children's bed sheets, pillow cases, and blankets; Cotton towels; Crib sheets; Face towels of textiles; Hand towels; Hooded towels; Terry towels
Class 25 Clothing for babies, toddlers and children, treated with fire and heat retardants, namely, pajamas, jackets, shirts, pants, jumpers; Hats for infants, babies, toddlers and children; Infant and toddler one piece clothing; Jackets; Pajamas; Pants; Shoes for babies, toddlers, and children; Sweatshirts; Sweatshirts for babies, toddlers, and children; Bottoms as clothing for babies, toddlers, and children; Children's and infant's apparel, namely, jumpers, overall sleepwear, pajamas, rompers and one-piece garments; Children's and infants' cloth bibs; Infants' shoes and boots; Tops as clothing for babies, toddlers, and children
The registered mark is RED ROVER for “Feeding utensils and accessories, namely, spoons and forks for children” in Class 8 and “Feeding utensils and accessories, namely, cups for children, bowls and plates for children; placemats, namely, placemats made of steel and placemats made of silicone; lunch kits comprised of lunch boxes and insulated containers for food or beverages” in Class 21.
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 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).
The marks are similar in overall commercial impression because they have in common the wording “RED ROVER.” The word portions of the marks are identical in appearance, sound, connotation, and commercial impression; therefore, the addition of a design element does not obviate the similarity of the marks in this case. See In re Shell Oil Co., 992 F.2d 1204, 1206, 26 USPQ2d 1687, 1688 (Fed. Cir. 1993); TMEP §1207.01(c)(ii).
COMPARISON OF GOODS
Due to the similarity of the marks and the relatedness of the goods, registration is refused under Section 2(d) of the Trademark Act.
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.
/Yatsye I. Lee/
Trademark Examining Attorney
Law Office 107
Phone: 571-272-3897
yatsye.lee@uspto.gov (for informal inquiries)
RESPONSE GUIDANCE