United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO)
Office Action (Official Letter) About Applicant’s Trademark Application
|
U.S. Application Serial No. 88628504
Mark: UNRIVALED
|
|
|
Correspondence Address:
|
|
|
Applicant: Unrivaled
|
|
|
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 28, 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:
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 mark consists of the stylized word “UNRIVALED” in white. Above this is a stylized geometric abstract-like red colored bull’s head.
The applied-for goods are “Crop tops; Hoodies; Leggings; Shirts; Shirts and short-sleeved shirts; Shirts for men, women and babies; Shorts; Sports bras; Tank-tops; Tank tops; T-shirts for men, women and babies; Woven shirts; Gym pants; Gym shorts; Gym suits; T-shirts”.
The cited mark is:
UNRIVALED for “Clothing, namely, t-shirts and headwear” and other services. (Reg. No. 4708398).
Applicant’s and registrant’s marks are highly similar. Both feature the identical literal element UNRIVALED.
When evaluating a composite mark consisting of words and a design, the word portion is normally accorded greater weight because it is likely to make a greater impression upon purchasers, be remembered by them, and be used by them to refer to or request the goods and/or services. In re Aquitaine Wine USA, LLC, 126 USPQ2d 1181, 1184 (TTAB 2018) (citing In re Viterra Inc., 671 F.3d 1358, 1362, 101 USPQ2d 1905, 1908 (Fed. Cir. 2012)); TMEP §1207.01(c)(ii). Thus, although marks must be compared in their entireties, the word portion is often considered the dominant feature and is accorded greater weight in determining whether marks are confusingly similar, even where the word portion has been disclaimed. In re Viterra Inc., 671 F.3d at 1366-67, 101 USPQ2d at 1911 (citing Giant Food, Inc. v. Nation’s Foodservice, Inc., 710 F.2d 1565, 1570-71, 218 USPQ2d 390, 395 (Fed. Cir. 1983)). As such, the presence of the bull’s head design in applicant’s mark does not diminish the overall similarities of the marks at issue. Here, the dominant portions of the marks at issue are highly similar, that being the word UNRIVALED.
The goods of the respective parties are closely related. In fact, both parties IDs includes “t-shirts”.
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.
COMPLETE MARK DESCRIPTION REQUIRED:
The following description is suggested, if accurate:
The mark consists of the stylized word “UNRIVALED” in white. Above this is a stylized geometric abstract-like red colored bull’s head. The black background is not part of the mark.
The color(s) red and white is/are claimed as a feature of the mark.
DIFFERENT COLORS IN DRAWING & SPECIMENS:
Registration is refused because the specimen does not show the mark in the drawing in use in commerce in International Class 25, which is required in the application or amendment to allege use. Trademark Act Sections 1 and 45, 15 U.S.C. §§1051, 1127; 37 C.F.R. §§2.34(a)(1)(iv), 2.56(a); TMEP §§904, 904.07(a), 1301.04(g)(i). The mark appearing on the specimen and in the drawing must match; that is, the mark in the drawing “must be a substantially exact representation of the mark” on the specimen. See 37 C.F.R. §2.51(a)-(b); TMEP §807.12(a).
In this case, the specimen on pages 2 and 4 displays the mark as featuring the word UNRIVALED in the color black. However, the drawing displays the mark as featuring the word UNRIVALED in the color white. The mark on the specimen on pages 2 and 4 do not match the mark in the drawing because the colors are different. Applicant has thus failed to provide the required evidence of use of the mark in commerce. See TMEP §807.12(a). Applicant may not rely on the page 1 and 3 specimen because the mark in the specimen omits the bull’s head design.
Applicant may respond to this refusal by satisfying one of the following:
(1) Submit a new color drawing of the mark that shows the mark on the specimen and an amendment of the description and color claim that agrees with the new drawing. See 37 C.F.R. §2.72(b). Applicant may amend the mark in the drawing to match the mark on the specimen but may not make any other changes or amendments that would materially alter the drawing of the mark. See 37 C.F.R. §2.72(a)-(b); TMEP §807.14. The following color claim and description are suggested, if accurate:
Color claim: “The colors red and black are claimed as a feature of the mark.”
Description: The mark consists of the stylized word “UNRIVALED” in black. Above this is a stylized geometric abstract-like red colored bull’s head.
IF APPLICANT ELECTS THIS OPTION, THEN THE DRAWING MUST BE SUBMITTED ON A WHITE BACKGROUND.
(2) Submit a new black-and-white drawing of the mark and an amendment deleting any color claim and modifying the description to delete any references to color. The following description is suggested, if accurate: “The mark consists of the stylized word “UNRIVALED”. Above this is a stylized geometric abstract-like bull’s head.” Applicant may amend the mark in the drawing to delete color but may not make any other changes or amendments that would materially alter the mark on the drawing. See 37 C.F.R. §2.72(a)-(b); TMEP §807.14.
(3) Submit a different specimen (a verified “substitute” specimen) for each applicable international class that (a) shows the mark in the drawing in actual use in commerce in the colors depicted on the drawing and for the goods and/or services in the application or amendment to allege use, and (b) in actual use in commerce at least as early as the filing date of the application or prior to the filing of an amendment to allege use.
Examples of specimens for goods include tags, labels, instruction manuals, containers, photographs that show the mark on the actual goods or packaging, and displays associated with the actual goods at their point of sale. See TMEP §§904.03 et seq. Webpages may also be specimens for goods when they include a picture or textual description of the goods associated with the mark and the means to order the goods. TMEP §904.03(i).
For more information about drawings and instructions on how to satisfy these response options online using the Trademark Electronic Application System (TEAS) form, see the Drawing webpage.
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
