| Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 no persons are required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a valid OMB control number. PTO Form 1957 (Rev 10/2011) |
| OMB No. 0651-0050 (Exp 09/20/2020) |
| Input Field |
Entered |
|---|---|
| SERIAL NUMBER | 88616263 |
| LAW OFFICE ASSIGNED | LAW OFFICE 112 |
| MARK SECTION | |
| MARK | mark |
| LITERAL ELEMENT | AIRLITE |
| STANDARD CHARACTERS | YES |
| USPTO-GENERATED IMAGE | YES |
| MARK STATEMENT | The mark consists of standard characters, without claim to any particular font style, size or color. |
| OWNER SECTION (current) | |
| NAME | Lineweight LLC |
| MAILING ADDRESS | Brooklyn Navy Yrd 63 Flushing Ave, # 252 |
| CITY | Brooklyn |
| STATE | New York |
| ZIP/POSTAL CODE | 11205 |
| COUNTRY/REGION/JURISDICTION/U.S. TERRITORY | United States |
| OWNER SECTION (proposed) | |
| NAME | Lineweight LLC |
| MAILING ADDRESS | Brooklyn Navy Yrd 63 Flushing Ave, # 252 |
| CITY | Brooklyn |
| STATE | New York |
| ZIP/POSTAL CODE | 11205 |
| COUNTRY/REGION/JURISDICTION/U.S. TERRITORY | United States |
| XXXX | |
| ARGUMENT(S) | |
|
In the action, applicant was required to explain whether the goods are considered protective body armour goods and/or used in connection with these goods, and whether the goods are considered actual clothing. As indicated in the specimen, the goods are a low bulk vest-like carrier for the attachment thereto of body armor and other accessories, as well as a belt of similar construction and a flap which can be attached to the carrier, and a pouch which can be attached to the carrier or the belt. The goods do not include the armor itself but are configured to work with the armor and will be used by military and police personnel. The goods are not essentially inner or outerwear, but are intended to be worn over clothing. Applicant is changing the classification to Class 9, and changing the description of goods to: utility vests for holding tactical equipment and protective armor, and detachable belts, flaps, and pouches for use in military and police applications. Although the examining attorney indicates that no previously registered marks would bar registration of applicant’s mark, he has noted that two pending applications, if registered, may present a likelihood of confusion. App. No. 88,528,659 AIRLIGHT is in class 25 and is for short-sleeved and long-sleeved shirts. App. No. 88,608,312 AIR LITE is in class 20 for beds and bed elements, class 24 for bed linens and other bed elements, and in class 25 for loungewear, bras, sport shirts, and sleepwear. Applicant submits that there is no likelihood of confusion with the goods of applicant’s amended application. The Office determines likelihood of confusion by applying the relevant DuPont factors. For the present application, the key DuPont factor is the similarity of the goods. TMEP Sec. 1207.01(a)(i) notes that “if the goods or services in question are not related or marketed in such a way that they would be encountered by the same persons in situations that would create the incorrect assumption that they originate from the same source, then, even if the marks are identical, confusion is not likely.” Citing Coach Servs., Inc. v. Triumph Learning LLC, 668 F.3d 1356, 1371, 101 USPQ2d 1713, 1723 (Fed. Cir. 2012). Applicant’s goods are distinctly different from the goods of the cited applicants’ marks, as being utility vests, belts, and flaps and pouches for police and military use, which are quite different from bed and sleepwear products and sportshirts. Moreover, applicant’s goods are marketed to professional users, typically police officers and military personnel who are going into work situations involving hostile opponents who may attempt offensive use of firearms. It appears that the App. Nos. 88,528,659 and 88,608,312 goods are consumer items which are purchased by individuals for their everyday lives. Applicant submits that since applicant’s professional goods are unrelated to the cited goods, and since they are marketed in very different situations from those of the cited applications’ personal products, there is no likelihood of confusion and the cited applications should not present a bar to the registration of applicant’s mark. |
|
| GOODS AND/OR SERVICES SECTION (class deleted) | |
| GOODS AND/OR SERVICES SECTION (class added) Original Class (025) | |
| INTERNATIONAL CLASS | 009 |
| DESCRIPTION | |
| utility vests for holding tactical equipment and protective armor, and detachable belts, flaps, and pouches for use in military and police applications. | |
| FILING BASIS | Section 1(a) |
| FIRST USE ANYWHERE DATE | At least as early as 12/31/2012 |
| FIRST USE IN COMMERCE DATE | At least as early as 12/31/2012 |
| CORRESPONDENCE INFORMATION (current) | |
| NAME | DAVID R. J. STIENNON |
| PRIMARY EMAIL ADDRESS FOR CORRESPONDENCE | drjs@machinepatents.com |
| SECONDARY EMAIL ADDRESS(ES) (COURTESY COPIES) | bas@machinepatents.com |
| DOCKET/REFERENCE NUMBER | CRYECAL-97 |
| CORRESPONDENCE INFORMATION (proposed) | |
| NAME | David R. J. Stiennon |
| PRIMARY EMAIL ADDRESS FOR CORRESPONDENCE | drjs@machinepatents.com |
| SECONDARY EMAIL ADDRESS(ES) (COURTESY COPIES) | bas@machinepatents.com |
| DOCKET/REFERENCE NUMBER | CRYECAL-97 |
| SIGNATURE SECTION | |
| RESPONSE SIGNATURE | /David R. J. Stiennon/ |
| SIGNATORY'S NAME | David R. J. Stiennon |
| SIGNATORY'S POSITION | Attorney of record, Wisconsin Bar member |
| SIGNATORY'S PHONE NUMBER | (608) 250-4811 |
| DATE SIGNED | 06/18/2020 |
| AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY | YES |
| FILING INFORMATION SECTION | |
| SUBMIT DATE | Thu Jun 18 17:39:26 ET 2020 |
| TEAS STAMP | USPTO/ROA-XXX.XXX.X.XX-20 200618173926966849-886162 63-7107d95d0a2c05029c0546 b9465659f299d3b613fd0d9f7 36c5941a2e4b0bc164-N/A-N/ A-20200618171844256252 |
| Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 no persons are required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a valid OMB control number. PTO Form 1957 (Rev 10/2011) |
| OMB No. 0651-0050 (Exp 09/20/2020) |
In the action, applicant was required to explain whether the goods are considered protective body armour goods and/or used in connection with these goods, and whether the goods are considered actual clothing.
As indicated in the specimen, the goods are a low bulk vest-like carrier for the attachment thereto of body armor and other accessories, as well as a belt of similar construction and a flap which can be attached to the carrier, and a pouch which can be attached to the carrier or the belt. The goods do not include the armor itself but are configured to work with the armor and will be used by military and police personnel. The goods are not essentially inner or outerwear, but are intended to be worn over clothing.
Applicant is changing the classification to Class 9, and changing the description of goods to: utility vests for holding tactical equipment and protective armor, and detachable belts, flaps, and pouches for use in military and police applications.
Although the examining attorney indicates that no previously registered marks would bar registration of applicant’s mark, he has noted that two pending applications, if registered, may present a likelihood of confusion. App. No. 88,528,659 AIRLIGHT is in class 25 and is for short-sleeved and long-sleeved shirts. App. No. 88,608,312 AIR LITE is in class 20 for beds and bed elements, class 24 for bed linens and other bed elements, and in class 25 for loungewear, bras, sport shirts, and sleepwear. Applicant submits that there is no likelihood of confusion with the goods of applicant’s amended application.
The Office determines likelihood of confusion by applying the relevant DuPont factors. For the present application, the key DuPont factor is the similarity of the goods.
TMEP Sec. 1207.01(a)(i) notes that “if the goods or services in question are not related or marketed in such a way that they would be encountered by the same persons in situations that would create the incorrect assumption that they originate from the same source, then, even if the marks are identical, confusion is not likely.” Citing Coach Servs., Inc. v. Triumph Learning LLC, 668 F.3d 1356, 1371, 101 USPQ2d 1713, 1723 (Fed. Cir. 2012). Applicant’s goods are distinctly different from the goods of the cited applicants’ marks, as being utility vests, belts, and flaps and pouches for police and military use, which are quite different from bed and sleepwear products and sportshirts. Moreover, applicant’s goods are marketed to professional users, typically police officers and military personnel who are going into work situations involving hostile opponents who may attempt offensive use of firearms. It appears that the App. Nos. 88,528,659 and 88,608,312 goods are consumer items which are purchased by individuals for their everyday lives. Applicant submits that since applicant’s professional goods are unrelated to the cited goods, and since they are marketed in very different situations from those of the cited applications’ personal products, there is no likelihood of confusion and the cited applications should not present a bar to the registration of applicant’s mark.