United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO)
Office Action (Official Letter) About Applicant’s Trademark Application
U.S. Application Serial No. 88623467
Mark: BNB
|
|
Correspondence Address:
|
|
Applicant: Pitts, Nicole B
|
|
Reference/Docket No. N/A
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 19, 2019
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.
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.
Applicant’s mark consists of the stylized letters “BNB”. The second letter “B” is backwards. The letter “N” is smaller and is colored white on a red background. Above and below the letter “N” is a small rectangular-like shape outlined in red and colored white. The first and second letter “B” are colored black featuring multiple outlines. From the innermost outline to the outermost outline, the colors are red, white, red, black, and red. The two holes in each of the letter Bs are colored white.
The applied-for goods are “athletic apparel, namely, shirts, pants, jackets, footwear, hats and caps, athletic uniforms”.
The cited mark is:
BNB NATURAL CAMO for “Backpacks, book bags, sports bags, bum bags, wallets and handbags; Evening handbags; Fashion handbags; Fitted protective covers for handbags, briefcases, valises, suitcases, and briefcase-like portfolios; Gentlemen's handbags; Handbag frames; Handbags; Handbags for ladies; Handbags for men; Handbags, purses and wallets; Interchangeable decorative covers for accessorization purposes that are specially adapted to handbags; Leather handbags; Straps for handbags”. (Reg. No. 4231323).
Applicant’s and registrant’s marks are highly similar. Both feature the literal element BNB.
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). Registrant has disclaimed NATURAL CAMO. As such, the dominant portions of the respective marks are highly similar, that being the literal elements BNB.
The overriding concern is not only to prevent buyer confusion as to the source of the goods and/or services, but to protect the registrant from adverse commercial impact due to use of a similar mark by a newcomer. See In re Shell Oil Co., 992 F.2d 1204, 1208, 26 USPQ2d 1687, 1690 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Therefore, any doubt regarding a likelihood of confusion determination is resolved in favor of the registrant. TMEP §1207.01(d)(i); see Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Packard Press, Inc., 281 F.3d 1261, 1265, 62 USPQ2d 1001, 1003 (Fed. Cir. 2002); In re Hyper Shoppes (Ohio), Inc., 837 F.2d 463, 464-65, 6 USPQ2d 1025, 1026 (Fed. Cir. 1988).
For the reasons stated above, registration is refused pursuant to Section 2(d) of the Trademark Act.
RESPONSE:
Although applicant’s mark has been refused registration, applicant may respond to the refusal(s) by submitting evidence and arguments in support of registration.
ENTITY INDEFINITE – NAME OF INDIVIDUAL APPLICANT BUT LEGAL ENTITY IS LLC:
If applicant is an individual, applicant should simply request that the legal entity be amended to “individual” and must indicate his/her country of citizenship for the record. TMEP §803.03(a). Alternatively, if applicant is a limited liability company, applicant must provide the correct name of the limited liability company and the U.S. state or foreign country of incorporation or organization. TMEP §803.03(h).
If, in response to the above request, applicant provides information indicating that it is not the owner of the mark, registration may be refused because the application was void as filed. See 37 C.F.R. §2.71(d); TMEP §§803.06, 1201.02(b). An application must be filed by the party who owns or is entitled to use the mark as of the application filing date. See 37 C.F.R. §2.71(d); TMEP §1201.02(b).
COMPLETE MARK DESCRIPTION REQUIRED:
The following description is suggested, if accurate:
The mark consists of the stylized letters “BNB”. The second letter “B” is backwards. The letter “N” is smaller and is colored white on a red background. Above and below the letter “N” is a small rectangular-like shape outlined in red and colored white. The first and second letter “B” are colored black featuring multiple outlines. From the innermost outline to the outermost outline, the colors are red, white, red, black, and red. The two holes in each of the letter Bs are colored white.
The color(s) red, black, and white is/are claimed as a feature of the mark.
If applicant has questions about its application or needs assistance in responding to this Office action, please telephone the assigned trademark examining attorney directly at the number below.
How to respond. Click to file a response to this nonfinal Office action.
/Simon Teng/
Simon Teng
Trademark Examining Attorney
Law Office 105
(571) 272-4930
simon.teng@uspto.gov
RESPONSE GUIDANCE