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

This Office action is supplemental to and supersedes the previous Office action issued on December 16, 2019 in connection with this application.  The assigned trademark examining attorney inadvertently omitted information regarding amending the services relevant to the mark in the subject application.  See TMEP §§706, 711.02.  Specifically, the scope advisory and link to the identification manual online were omitted from the previous Office action.

 

The trademark examining attorney apologizes for any inconvenience caused by the delay in providing this information. 

 

Applicant must address all issue(s) raised in this Office action, in addition to the issues raised in the Office action dated December 16, 2019.  The issue(s) raised in the previous December 16, 2019 Office action are as follow and is/are maintained:  Section 2(d) Refusal for likelihood of confusion with registered marks; amendment to identification of services; mark description and color claim amendment.

 

The following is a SUMMARY OF ISSUES that applicant must address:

 

• Section 2(d) Refusal—Likelihood of Confusion
• Identification of Services
• Mark Description and Color Claim

Applicant must respond to all issues raised in this Office action and the previous December 16, 2019 Office action, within six (6) months of the date of issuance of this Office action.  37 C.F.R. §2.62(a); see TMEP §711.02.  If applicant does not respond within this time limit, the application will be abandoned.  37 C.F.R. §2.65(a).

 

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. 4543884 and 5104919.  Trademark Act Section 2(d), 15 U.S.C. §1052(d); see TMEP §§1207.01 et seq.  See the previously attached registrations.

 

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 and/or services 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 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.

 

Applicant’s applied-for mark is WORLD PIECE for “retail services; retail services, namely, retail stores selling general merchandise and tobacco products and accessories”.

 

Registrant’s marks are:

 

U.S. Registration No. 4543884 is WORLD PIECE CLOTHING COMPANY for “Hats; Pants; Sweat shirts; T-shirts.”

 

U.S. Registration No. 5104919 is WORLD PIECE for “Cartomizers, namely, combination electronic cigarette refill cartridges sold empty and atomizers, sold as a component of electronic cigarettes; Cartridges sold filled with chemical flavorings in liquid form for electronic cigarettes; Cartridges sold filled with propylene glycol for electronic cigarettes; Cartridges sold filled with vegetable glycerin for electronic cigarettes; Electric cigarettes; Electronic cigarettes; Cartomizers, namely, combination electronic cigarette refill cartridges sold empty and atomizers, sold as a component of electronic cigarettes; Cartomizers, namely, combination electronic cigarette refill cartridges sold empty and atomizers, sold as a component of electronic cigarettes; Cartridges sold filled with chemical flavorings in liquid form for electronic cigarettes; Cartridges sold filled with propylene glycol for electronic cigarettes; Cartridges sold filled with vegetable glycerin for electronic cigarettes; Chemical flavorings in liquid form used to refill electronic cigarette cartridges; Electronic cigarette liquid (e-liquid) comprised of flavorings in liquid form, other than essential oils, used to refill electronic cigarette cartridges; Electronic cigarette refill cartridges sold empty; Electronic cigarette liquid (e-liquid) comprised of flavorings in liquid form, other than essential oils, used to refill electronic cigarette cartridges; Electronic cigarette liquid (e-liquid) comprised of propylene glycol; Electronic cigarette liquid (e-liquid) comprised of vegetable glycerin; Smokeless cigarette vaporizer pipe.”

 

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).

 

With respect to U.S. Registration No. 4543884, applicant’s mark is identical to the dominant portion of registrant’s mark. 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). Disclaimed matter that is descriptive of or generic for a party’s goods and/or services 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). Because the descriptive wording CLOTHING COMPANY in U.S. Registration No. 4543884 is disclaimed, the dominant element of registrant’s mark is WORLD PIECE. Therefore, the marks are confusingly similar.

 

With respect to U.S. Registration No. 5104919, the literal element of applicant’s mark is identical to registrant’s mark, making the marks confusingly similar. Although applicant’s mark also contains a design element, this does not obviate the confusing similarity between either of registrants’ marks. The word portions of the marks are nearly 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).

 

Based on the foregoing, applicant’s applied-for mark and registrants’ mark are sufficiently similar to find a likelihood of confusion.

 

Comparison of the Goods and Services

 

The compared goods and services 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 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).

 

Here, the attached Internet evidence from jcrew.com, pacsun.com, express.com, jcrew.com, bonobos.com, blue.com, migvapor.com, and juul.com establishes that the same entity commonly provides the relevant clothing or e-cigarette goods and retail services and markets the goods and services under the same mark. Thus, applicant’s and registrants’ goods and services 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).

 

The use of similar marks on or in connection with both products and retail-store services has been held likely to cause confusion where the evidence showed that the retail-store services featured the same type of products. See In re Detroit Athletic Co. , 903 F.3d 1297, 1307, 128 USPQ2d 1047, 1051 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (holding the use of similar marks for various clothing items, including athletic uniforms, and for retail shops featuring sports team related clothing and apparel likely to cause confusion); In re House Beer, LLC , 114 USPQ2d 1073, 1078 (TTAB 2015) (holding the use of identical marks for beer and for retail store services featuring beer likely to cause confusion); In re Thomas , 79 USPQ2d 1021, 1023 (TTAB 2006) (holding the use of similar marks for jewelry and for retail-jewelry and mineral-store services likely to cause confusion); TMEP §1207.01(a)(ii).

 

Based on the analysis above, applicant’s and registrants’ goods and services are related.

 

Because applicant’s and registrants’ 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.

 

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

 

Identification of Services

 

The identification of services is indefinite and must be clarified because it does not specify the field or type of the goods sold. See 37 C.F.R. §2.32(a)(6); TMEP §1402.01.

 

Applicant may adopt the following identification, if accurate:

 

Class 35: Retail store services featuring {indicate field or type of goods/services} ; Retail services, namely, retail stores featuring general consumer merchandise and tobacco products and accessories

 

Applicant may amend the identification to clarify or limit the services, but not to broaden or expand the services beyond those in the original application or as acceptably amended.  See 37 C.F.R. §2.71(a); TMEP §1402.06.  Generally, any deleted goods and/or services may not later be reinserted.  See TMEP §1402.07(e).

 

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

 

Mark Description and Color Claim

 

Although applicant submitted a drawing showing the mark in color with a color claim, applicant did not provide the required description that specifies where each color appears in the literal and design elements in the mark. See 37 C.F.R. §§2.37, 2.52(b)(1); TMEP §807.07(a) -(a)(ii) . Therefore, applicant must provide this description. See TMEP §807.07(a)(ii).

 

Generic color names must be used to describe the colors in the mark, e.g., red, yellow, blue. TMEP §807.07(a)(i)-(ii). If black, white, and/or gray represent background, outlining, shading, and/or transparent areas and are not part of the mark, applicant must so specify in the description. See TMEP §807.07(d).

 

Additionally, the drawing shows the applied-for mark in various colors, including black, white and/or gray; however, the color claim and description of the mark do not reference the colors black, white and/or gray. The color claim and description must be complete and reference all the colors in the mark. See 37 C.F.R. §§2.37, 2.52(b)(1); TMEP §§807.07(a) et seq. Therefore, applicant must clarify whether black, white and/or gray are used as colors in the mark or to indicate background, outlining, shading, and/or transparent areas. TMEP §807.07(d); see 37 C.F.R. §2.61(b).

 

To clarify how color, including black, white and/or gray are being used in the mark, applicant may satisfy one of the following:

 

(1)   If black, white and/or gray are a feature of the mark, applicant must amend the color claim to include them and amend the description to identify where black, white and/or gray appear in the literal and/or design elements of the mark. The following color claim and description are suggested, if accurate:

 

Color claim: “The colors red, orange, yellow, green, blue, indigo, violet, white, gray, and black are claimed as a feature of the mark. ”

 

Description: “ The mark consists of the literal element "WORLD PIECE" in green letters outlined in black and white over a blue globe design in the shape of a peace sign with gray continents and white cut outs with blue and white polka dotted cloud elements on either side of the globe design and a rainbow design element with red, orange, yellow, green, blue, indigo, violet stripes over the globe design and literal element. ”

 

(2)   If black, white and/or gray are not a feature of the mark , applicant must amend the description to state that black, white, and/or gray represent background, outlining, shading and/or transparent areas and are not part of the mark. The following description is suggested, if accurate:

“The mark consists of the literal element "WORLD PIECE" in green letters over a blue globe design in the shape of a peace sign with blue polka dotted cloud elements on either side of the globe design and a rainbow design element with red, orange, yellow, green, blue, indigo, violet stripes over the globe design and literal element. The colors specify colors black, white, and gray represent background, outlining, shading, and/or transparent area and are not part of the mark.”

 

TMEP §807.07(d).

 

Assistance

 

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 refusal(s) and/or requirement(s) 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 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.    

 

 

/Catherine Caycedo/

Catherine Caycedo

Trademark Examining Attorney

Law Office 101

(571) 272-7066

Catherine.Caycedo@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. 88615879

 

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. 

 

 

/Catherine Caycedo/

Catherine Caycedo

Trademark Examining Attorney

Law Office 101

(571) 272-7066

Catherine.Caycedo@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.”