United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO)
Office Action (Official Letter) About Applicant’s Trademark Application
|
U.S. Application Serial No. 88625589
Mark: COAST
|
|
|
Correspondence Address: SCHWABE, WILLIAMSON & WYATT, P.C.
|
|
|
Applicant: Coast Cutlery Co.
|
|
|
Reference/Docket No. 122348176929
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: November 27, 2019
The referenced application has been reviewed by the assigned trademark examining attorney. Applicant must respond timely and completely to the issue(s) below. 15 U.S.C. §1062(b); 37 C.F.R. §§2.62(a), 2.65(a); TMEP §§711, 718.03.
Search of the Office Records
PARTIAL SECTION 2(d) REFUSAL – LIKELIHOOD OF CONFUSION
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.
Registered Marks are Foreign Equivalents to Applicant’s Mark
Applicant's mark is “COAST”. The registered marks are “COSTA”, U.S. Registration No. 3857379, and “COSTA”, U.S. Registration No. 5653368. COSTA translated to English as COAST. See the attached translation evidence.
The registrant’s mark is in Spanish, which is a common, modern language in the United States. See In re Aquamar, Inc., 115 USPQ2d 1122 (Spanish). The doctrine is applied when “the ordinary American purchaser” would “stop and translate” the foreign term into its English equivalent. Palm Bay, 396 F.3d at 1377, 73 USPQ2d at 1696 (quoting In re Pan Tex Hotel Corp., 190 USPQ 109, 110 (TTAB 1976)); TMEP §1207.01(b)(vi)(A). The ordinary American purchaser includes those proficient in the foreign language. In re Spirits Int’l, N.V., 563 F.3d 1347, 1352, 90 USPQ2d 1489, 1492 (Fed. Cir. 2009); see In re Thomas, 79 USPQ2d at 1024.
In this case, the ordinary American purchaser would likely stop and translate the mark because the Spanish language is a common, modern language spoken by an appreciable number of consumers in the United States.
Accordingly, the marks are confusingly similar.
The Goods Are Related
Applicant’s goods are identified as “Protective safety gloves; safety goggles; safety glasses; safety helmets; safety traffic cones; safety vests.”
The goods for Registration No. 3857379 are identified as “sunglasses and sunglass frames.”
The goods for Registration No. 5653368 are identified as “eyeglasses and related accessories, namely, eyeglass lenses, eyeglass cases.”
The applicant's "safety goggles; safety glasses" are closely related to the registrant's "eyeglasses; sunglasses" because all are goods that often are produced by the same manufacturer and marketed under the same trademark. See the attached sample third party registrations showing that these are sold under the same trademark.
Thus, upon encountering the COAST mark used on "safety goggles; safety glasses", and the COSTA marks used on sunglasses or eyeglasses, consumers are likely to be confused and mistakenly believe that the respective goods emanate from a common source.
Accordingly, registration is refused under Trademark Act Section 2 (d) based on a likelihood of confusion.
Prior Pending Application
The filing date of pending U.S. Application Serial No. 87290144 precedes applicant’s filing date. See attached referenced application. If the mark in the referenced application registers, applicant’s mark may be refused registration under Trademark Act Section 2(d) because of a likelihood of confusion between the two marks. See 15 U.S.C. §1052(d); 37 C.F.R. §2.83; TMEP §§1208 et seq. Therefore, upon receipt of applicant’s response to this Office action, action on this application may be suspended pending final disposition of the earlier-filed referenced application.
In response to this Office action, applicant may present arguments in support of registration by addressing the issue of the potential conflict between applicant’s mark and the mark in the referenced application. Applicant’s election not to submit arguments at this time in no way limits applicant’s right to address this issue later if a refusal under Section 2(d) issues.
Applicant must address the following requirements
Identification of Goods –Indefinite Wording
International Class 009: “Protective safety gloves; safety goggles; safety glasses; safety helmets; safety traffic cones; safety vests”
In the identification of goods, applicant must use the common commercial or generic names for the goods, be as complete and specific as possible, and avoid the use of indefinite words and phrases. If applicant uses indefinite words such as “accessories,” “components,” “devices,” “equipment,” “materials,” “parts,” “systems” or “products,” such words must be followed by “namely,” followed by a list of the specific goods identified by their common commercial or generic names. See TMEP §§1402.01, 1402.03(a).
Applicant may change this wording to following if accurate;
International Class 009: “Protective safety work gloves; safety goggles; safety protective glasses; safety helmets; safety traffic cones; reflective safety vests”
See TMEP §1402.01.
For assistance with identifying and classifying goods and services in trademark applications, please see the USPTO’s online searchable U.S. Acceptable Identification of Goods and Services Manual. See TMEP §1402.04.
Partial Abandonment and Applicant’s Response
For this application to proceed toward registration, applicant must explicitly address each refusal and/or requirement raised in this Office action. If the action includes a refusal, applicant may provide arguments and/or evidence as to why the refusal should be withdrawn and the mark should register. Applicant may also have other options for responding to a refusal and should consider such options carefully. To respond to requirements and certain refusal response options, applicant should set forth in writing the required changes or statements.
If applicant does not respond to this Office action within six months of the issue/mailing date, the following goods/services will be deleted from the application:
International Class 009: “Protective safety gloves; safety goggles; safety glasses; safety vests”
See 37 C.F.R. §2.65(a); TMEP §718.02(a).
The application will then proceed with the following goods/services only:
International Class 009: “safety helmets; safety traffic cones”
See TMEP §718.02(a).
In such case, applicant’s only option would be to file a timely petition to revive the abandoned goods/services, which, if granted, would allow for the reinsertion of these goods/services into the application. See 37 C.F.R. §2.66; TMEP §§718.02(a), 1714. There is a $100 fee for such petitions. See 37 C.F.R. §§2.6, 2.66(b)(1).
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.
Anthony Rinker
/Anthony Rinker/
Trademark Examining Attorney
Law Office 102
U.S. Trademark Office
Ph. 571-272-5491
anthony.rinker@uspt
RESPONSE GUIDANCE
