To: | Rearden Ventures Inc. (jkf@prwlawfirm.com) |
Subject: | U.S. Trademark Application Serial No. 88615362 - KNOWME - KM9002 |
Sent: | December 13, 2019 11:39:30 AM |
Sent As: | ecom120@uspto.gov |
Attachments: | Attachment - 1 Attachment - 2 Attachment - 3 Attachment - 4 Attachment - 5 Attachment - 6 Attachment - 7 Attachment - 8 Attachment - 9 Attachment - 10 Attachment - 11 Attachment - 12 Attachment - 13 Attachment - 14 Attachment - 15 Attachment - 16 Attachment - 17 Attachment - 18 Attachment - 19 Attachment - 20 Attachment - 21 |
United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO)
Office Action (Official Letter) About Applicant’s Trademark Application
U.S. Application Serial No. 88615362
Mark: KNOWME
|
|
Correspondence Address: 4001 SOUTH 700 EAST, SUITE 500
|
|
Applicant: Rearden Ventures Inc.
|
|
Reference/Docket No. KM9002
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 13, 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.
SECTION 2(d) REFUSAL – LIKELIHOOD OF CONFUSION – CLASSES 9 & 42
Note: This refusal pertains to Classes 9 & 42 only; applicant’s Class 16 goods are not affected by this refusal.
Registration of the applied-for mark is refused because of a likelihood of confusion with the mark in U.S. Registration Nos. 4,782,767, 5,041,538, 5,137,875, and 5,137,876. Trademark Act Section 2(d), 15 U.S.C. §1052(d); see TMEP §§1207.01 et seq. See the attached registrations.
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 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.
SIMILARITIES BETWEEN 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).
Applicant’s applied-for mark is “KNOWME” for “Downloadable computer software for creating, displaying, and sharing multimedia presentations that include text, photographs, video recordings, and audio recordings pertaining to personal life histories” in International Class 9 and “Providing temporary use of non-downloadable cloud-based software for hosting, creating, displaying, sharing, printing, and storing multimedia presentations that include text, photographs, video recordings, and audio recordings pertaining to personal life histories” in International Class 42.
Registrant’s marks are all “KNOWME” for “Computer software for mobile devices and computer devices to enable uploading, creating, posting, editing, showing, displaying, blogging, sharing and transmitting of electronic media, videos, or information over the Internet and other communications networks; downloadable software to enable uploading, creating, posting, editing, showing, displaying, blogging, sharing and transmitting of electronic media, videos, or information over the Internet and other communications networks” in International Class 9; “Provision of access to an online community forum for users to share information, audio and video content, to form virtual communities, and to engage in social networking” in International Class 38; “Providing temporary use of online non-downloadable software to enable uploading, creating, posting, editing, showing, displaying, blogging, sharing and transmitting of electronic media, videos, or information; creating an online community for registered users to engage in social networking” in International Class 42; and “online social networking services; providing a social networking website for entertainment purposes; Internet-based social networking services allowing users to communicate and share, store, transmit, view, and download text, images, audio and video content, and other multimedia materials” in International Class 45.
In a likelihood of confusion determination, the marks in their entireties are compared for similarities in appearance, sound, connotation, and commercial impression. In re i.am.symbolic, llc, 866 F.3d 1315, 1323, 123 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2017); 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)); 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).
In the present case, applicant’s mark is “KNOWME” and registrant’s marks are all “KNOWME”. These marks are identical in appearance, sound, and meaning, “and have the potential to be used . . . in exactly the same manner.” In re i.am.symbolic, llc, 116 USPQ2d 1406, 1411 (TTAB 2015), aff’d, 866 F.3d 1315, 123 USPQ2d 1744 (Fed. Cir. 2017). Additionally, because they are identical, these marks are likely to engender the same connotation and overall commercial impression when considered in connection with applicant’s and registrant’s respective goods and services. Id.
Based on the foregoing, applicant’s applied-for and registrant’s marks convey similar commercial impressions and are sufficiently similar to find a likelihood of confusion.
RELATEDNESS OF THE GOODS & SERVICES
In regards to applicant’s and registrant’s Class 9 and Class 42 goods and services, the registrations use the broad wording “downloadable software to enable uploading, creating, posting, editing, showing, displaying, blogging, sharing and transmitting of electronic media, videos, or information over the Internet and other communications networks” and “Providing temporary use of online non-downloadable software to enable uploading, creating, posting, editing, showing, displaying, blogging, sharing and transmitting of electronic media, videos, or information” to describe the software goods and services, which presumably encompasses all goods and services of the type described, including applicant’s more narrowly identified software goods and services, namely, “Downloadable computer software for creating, displaying, and sharing multimedia presentations that include text, photographs, video recordings, and audio recordings pertaining to personal life” and “Providing temporary use of non-downloadable cloud-based software for hosting, creating, displaying, sharing, printing, and storing multimedia presentations that include text, photographs, video recordings, and audio recordings pertaining to personal life histories”. See, e.g., In re Solid State Design Inc., 125 USPQ2d 1409, 1412-15 (TTAB 2018); Sw. Mgmt., Inc. v. Ocinomled, Ltd., 115 USPQ2d 1007, 1025 (TTAB 2015). Thus, applicant’s and registrant’s Class 9 and Class 42 goods and services are legally identical. See, e.g., In re i.am.symbolic, llc, 127 USPQ2d 1627, 1629 (TTAB 2018) (citing Tuxedo Monopoly, Inc. v.Gen. Mills Fun Grp., Inc., 648 F.2d 1335, 1336, 209 USPQ 986, 988 (C.C.P.A. 1981); Inter IKEA Sys. B.V. v. Akea, LLC, 110 USPQ2d 1734, 1745 (TTAB 2014); Baseball Am. Inc. v. Powerplay Sports Ltd., 71 USPQ2d 1844, 1847 n.9 (TTAB 2004)).
Additionally, the goods and services of the parties have no restrictions as to nature, type, channels of trade, or classes of purchasers and are “presumed to travel in the same channels of trade to the same class of purchasers.” In re Viterra Inc., 671 F.3d 1358, 1362, 101 USPQ2d 1905, 1908 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (quoting Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Packard Press, Inc., 281 F.3d 1261, 1268, 62 USPQ2d 1001, 1005 (Fed. Cir. 2002)). Thus, applicant’s and registrant’s goods and services are related.
Based on the analysis above, applicant’s and registrant’s goods and services are related.
Because applicant’s and registrant’s marks are similar and the goods and services are related, there is a likelihood of confusion and applicant’s applied-for mark must be refused under Section 2(d) of the Lanham Act.
PARTIAL REFUSAL RESPONSE OPTIONS
(1) Deleting the classes to which the refusal pertains;
(2) Filing a request to divide out the goods and services that have not been refused registration, so that the mark may proceed toward publication for opposition in the class to which the refusal does not pertain. See 37 C.F.R. §2.87. See generally TMEP §§1110 et seq. (regarding the requirements for filing a request to divide). If applicant files a request to divide, then to avoid abandonment, applicant must also file a timely response to all outstanding issues in this Office action, including the refusal. 37 C.F.R. §2.87(e).; or
(3) Amending the basis for such classes, if appropriate. TMEP §806.03(h). (The basis cannot be changed for applications filed under Trademark Act Section 66(a). TMEP §1904.01(a).)
ASSISTANCE
How to respond. Click to file a response to this nonfinal Office action.
/John S. Miranda/
Trademark Examining Attorney, Law Office 120
United States Patent & Trademark Office
571-272-4553
John.Miranda@USPTO.GOV
RESPONSE GUIDANCE
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.