To: | CLIX GAMING LLC (rick@rctrademark.com) |
Subject: | U.S. Trademark Application Serial No. 88620649 - CLIX - Clix-1 |
Sent: | December 26, 2019 03:37:42 PM |
Sent As: | ecom106@uspto.gov |
Attachments: | Attachment - 1 Attachment - 2 Attachment - 3 Attachment - 4 Attachment - 5 Attachment - 6 |
United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO)
Office Action (Official Letter) About Applicant’s Trademark Application
U.S. Application Serial No. 88620649
Mark: CLIX
|
|
Correspondence Address:
|
|
Applicant: CLIX GAMING LLC
|
|
Reference/Docket No. Clix-1
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 26, 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.
SUMMARY OF ISSUES:
SECTION 2(D) REFUSAL – LIKELIHOOD OF CONFUSION
Applicant has applied to register the mark “CLIX” for “Entertainment services, namely, live performances by a professional e- sports athlete featuring computer and video game playing with player commentary, player coaching, and narration; Entertainment services, namely, personal coaching of players of on-line computer and video games and providing commentary on on-line computer and video games; Entertainment services, namely, a continuing reality television, computer and video game show broadcast over the Internet; Entertainment, namely, continuing online shows featuring computer and video game play, computer and video game coaching, competition, and related content hosted by a professional e-sports athlete and broadcast over the Internet; Production of videos related to computer and video games for the Internet; Entertainment services, namely, the provision of continuing segments featuring computer and video game play, computer and video game coaching, competition, and related content delivered via the Internet; Entertainment services, namely, organizing and conducting video games, video game tournaments, video gaming exhibitions, video game competitions, and video gaming events rendered live and recorded for the purpose of distribution through the Internet” in International Class 41.
The cited registrations are:
Registration No. 5710205 “CLIX” for, among other things, “Providing a web site featuring non-downloadable photographs in the field of entertainment; providing a web site featuring non-downloadable videos in the field of entertainment; providing a web site featuring non-downloadable audio recordings in the field of entertainment; and providing non-downloadable film clips in the field of entertainment” in International Class 41; and
Registration No. 5710215 “CLIX” with design for “Providing a web site featuring non-downloadable photographs in the field of entertainment; providing a web site featuring non-downloadable videos in the field of entertainment; providing a web site featuring non-downloadable audio recordings in the field of entertainment; and providing non-downloadable film clips in the field of entertainment” in International Class 41.
Registered marks are owned by the same registrant.
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 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.
Comparison of Marks
In the present case, applicant’s mark is “CLIX” and registrant’s mark in Reg. No. 5710205 is “CLIX”. 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 services. Id.
In addition, applicant’s mark is identical to the word portion of registrant’s mark in Reg. No. 5710215. The addition of a design element, in registrant’s mark, does not obviate the similarity of the marks in this case because the word portions of the marks are nearly identical in appearance, sound, connotation, and commercial impression. See In re Shell Oil Co., 992 F.2d 1204, 1206, 26 USPQ2d 1687, 1688 (Fed. Cir. 1993); TMEP §1207.01(c)(ii).
Ultimately, when consumers encounter services of applicant and registrant using identical and identical in part marks, they are likely to believe that the marks identify a single source of services. Thus, the marks are confusingly similar.
Comparison of Services
In this case, the registrations use broad wording to describe “providing a web site featuring non-downloadable videos in the field of entertainment; providing a web site featuring non-downloadable audio recordings in the field of entertainment; and providing non-downloadable film clips in the field of entertainment”, which presumably encompasses all services of the type described, including applicant’s narrower list of services, “entertainment services, namely, a continuing reality television, computer and video game show broadcast over the internet; entertainment, namely, continuing online shows featuring computer and video game play, computer and video game coaching, competition, and related content hosted by a professional e-sports athlete and broadcast over the internet; production of videos related to computer and video games for the internet; entertainment services, namely, the provision of continuing segments featuring computer and video game play, computer and video game coaching, competition, and related content delivered via the internet”. 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 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 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 services are related.
Therefore, since the marks are identical and identical in part and the services are legally identical, there is a likelihood of confusion and registration must be refused.
Although applicant’s mark has been refused registration, applicant may respond to the refusal by submitting evidence and arguments in support of registration. However, if applicant responds to the refusal, applicant must also respond to the requirement set forth below.
DOMICILE REQUIREMENT
Applicant must provide applicant’s domicile address. All applications must include the applicant’s domicile address, and domicile dictates whether an applicant is required to have an attorney who is an active member in good standing of the bar of the highest court of a U.S. state or territory represent the applicant at the USPTO. See 37 C.F.R. §§2.2(o)-(p), 2.11(a), 2.189; Requirement of U.S.-Licensed Attorney for Foreign-Domiciled Trademark Applicants & Registrants, Examination Guide 4-19, at I.A. (Rev. Sept. 2019).
An individual applicant’s domicile is the place a person resides and intends to be the person’s principal home. 37 C.F.R. §2.2(o); Examination Guide 4-19, at I.A. A juristic entity’s domicile is the principal place of business, i.e. headquarters, where a juristic entity applicant’s senior executives or officers ordinarily direct and control the entity’s activities. 37 C.F.R. §2.2(o); Examination Guide 4-19, at I.A. An applicant whose domicile is located outside of the United States or its territories is foreign-domiciled and must be represented at the USPTO by a U.S.-licensed attorney qualified to practice before the USPTO under 37 C.F.R. §11.14. 37 C.F.R. §2.11(a).
The application record lists applicant as a juristic entity and specifies applicant’s domicile as a post office box instead of a street address. In most cases, a post office box is not acceptable as a domicile address because it does not identify the location of applicant’s headquarters where the entity’s senior executives or officers ordinarily direct and control the entity’s activities. See37 C.F.R. §§2.2(o)-(p), 2.189; Examination Guide 4-19, at I.A.3. Thus, applicant must provide its domicile street address. See 37 C.F.R. §2.189. Alternatively, an applicant may demonstrate that the listed address is, in fact, the applicant’s domicile. Examination Guide 4-19, at I.A.3.
To provide applicant’s domicile address. After opening the correct TEAS response form and entering the serial number, answer “yes” to wizard question #5, and provide applicant’s street address on the “Owner Information” page.
If applicant amends the application to list a domicile street address located outside of the United States or its territories, applicant is foreign-domiciled and must appoint a U.S. licensed attorney qualified to practice before the USPTO under 37 C.F.R. §11.14 as its representative before the application may proceed to registration. See Hiring a U.S.-licensed trademark attorney for more information. If applicant’s domicile street address is located within the United States or its territories, applicant is not required to appoint a U.S.-licensed attorney.
For this application to proceed, applicant must explicitly address each refusal and/or requirement in this Office action. For a refusal, applicant may provide written arguments and evidence against the refusal, and may have other response options if specified above. For a requirement, applicant should set forth the changes or statements. Please see “Responding to Office Actions” and the informational video “Response to Office Action” for more information and tips on responding.
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.
/Marcya N. Betts/
Marcya N. Betts
Examining Attorney
Law Office 106
(571) 272-4913
Marcya.Betts@uspto.gov
RESPONSE GUIDANCE