Offc Action Outgoing

United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO)

Office Action (Official Letter) About Applicant’s Trademark Application

 

 

 

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:  January 08, 2020

 

 

 

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.  

 

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.

Likelihood of Confusion

 

Registration of the applied-for mark is refused because of a likelihood of confusion with the mark in U.S. Registration No. 1389178.  Trademark Act Section 2(d), 15 U.S.C. §1052(d); see TMEP §§1207.01 et seq.  See the attached registration.

 

Marks are compared in their entireties for similarities in appearance, sound, connotation, and commercial impression.  Stone Lion Capital Partners, LP v. Lion Capital LLP, 746 F.3d 1317, 1321, 110 USPQ2d 1157, 1160 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (quoting Palm Bay Imps., Inc. v. Veuve Clicquot Ponsardin Maison Fondee En 1772, 396 F.3d 1369, 1371, 73 USPQ2d 1689, 1691 (Fed. Cir. 2005)); TMEP §1207.01(b)-(b)(v).  “Similarity in any one of these elements may be sufficient to find the marks confusingly similar.”  In re Inn at St. John’s, LLC, 126 USPQ2d 1742, 1746 (TTAB 2018) (citing In re Davia, 110 USPQ2d 1810, 1812 (TTAB 2014)); TMEP §1207.01(b).

 

Applicant seeks to register the mark ENIGMA stylized and design for use with “Clothing for athletic use, namely, padded shirts; Clothing, namely, crops; Clothing, namely, thobes; Dresses; Hats; Lab coats; Pants; Scrub tops and pants not for surgical purposes; Shoes; Skirt suits; Skirts; Skirts and dresses; Socks; Uniforms; Warm-up suits; Warm up outfits; Warm up suits; Athletic apparel, namely, shirts, pants, jackets, footwear, hats and caps, athletic uniforms; Body suits for babies, adults, children, women, men; Bottoms as clothing; Coats for babies, adults, children, women, men; Combinations; Gloves as clothing; Head wraps; Hooded sweatshirts for babies, adults, children, women, men; Hoodies; Jackets; Jackets for babies, adults, children, women, men; Non-disposable cloth training pants; Pajamas for babies, adults, children, women, men; Pants for babies, adults, children, women, men; Shifts as clothing; Shoes for babies, adults, children, women, men; Short sets; Shorts for babies, adults, children, women, men; Shoulder wraps for clothing; Sports over uniforms; Sweaters for babies, adults, children, women, men; T-shirts for babies, adults, children, women, men; Ties as clothing; Tops as clothing; Trousers for babies, adults, children, women, men; Trunks being clothing; Women's clothing, namely, shirts, dresses, skirts, blouses; Woven shirts for babies, adults, children, women, men”.

 

The Registrant owns the mark ENIGMA for “shoes.”

 

In the first step of the analysis, the examining attorney finds that the term ENIGMA in the applicant’s mark is identical to the registrant’s mark ENIGMA.

 

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)).

 

Consumers will call for the applicant’s goods by the literal term ENIGMA not by the design.  Because consumers will call for the applicant’s goods and the registrant’s goods by the same name, ENIGMA, the examining attorney finds that the marks are overall confusingly similar and impart a similar commercial impression.

 

In the second step of the analysis, the examining attorney finds that the applicant’s goods and the registrant’s goods are the same.  Both the applicant and the registrant provide shoes.  Where the goods and/or services of an applicant and registrant are identical or virtually identical, the degree of similarity between the marks required to support a finding that confusion is likely declines.  See Cai v. Diamond Hong, Inc., __ F.3d __, 127 USPQ2d 1797, 1801 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (quoting In re Viterra Inc., 671 F.3d 1358, 1363, 101 USPQ2d 1905, 1908 (Fed. Cir. 2012)); TMEP §1207.01(b).

 

Because consumers will call for the applicant’s goods and the registrant’s goods by the same name and the goods are the same, the examining attorney refuses registration of the mark under Section 2(d) of the Trademark Act. Trademark Act Section 2(d), 15 U.S.C. §1052(d); see TMEP §§1207.01 et seq. 

 

Applicant May Respond

 

Although the examining attorney has refused registration, the applicant may respond to the refusal to register by submitting evidence and arguments in support of registration.

 

If the applicant chooses to respond to the refusal to register, the applicant must also respond to the following informalities.

 

Goods

 

The identification of goods is must be clarified to include “and” before the last group of individuals for whom the goods are listed.  See 37 C.F.R. §2.32(a)(6); TMEP §1402.01. 

 

Applicant’s goods and/or services may be clarified or limited, but may not be expanded beyond those originally itemized in the application or as acceptably amended.  See 37 C.F.R. §2.71(a); TMEP §1402.06.  Applicant may clarify or limit the identification by inserting qualifying language or deleting items to result in a more specific identification; however, applicant may not substitute different goods and/or services or add goods and/or services not found or encompassed by those in the original application or as acceptably amended.  See TMEP §1402.06(a)-(b).  The scope of the goods and/or services sets the outer limit for any changes to the identification and is generally determined by the ordinary meaning of the wording in the identification.  TMEP §§1402.06(b), 1402.07(a)-(b).  Any acceptable changes to the goods and/or services will further limit scope, and once goods and/or services are deleted, they are not permitted to be reinserted.  TMEP §1402.07(e).

 

Applicant may adopt the following identification, if accurate: 

 

Clothing for athletic use, namely, padded shirts; Clothing, namely, crops; Clothing, namely, thobes; Dresses; Hats; Lab coats; Pants; Scrub tops and pants not for surgical purposes; Shoes; Skirt suits; Skirts; Skirts and dresses; Socks; Uniforms; Warm-up suits; Warm up outfits; Warm up suits; Athletic apparel, namely, shirts, pants, jackets, footwear, hats and caps, athletic uniforms; Body suits for babies, adults, children, women and men; Bottoms as clothing; Coats for babies, adults, children, women and men; Combinations; Gloves as clothing; Head wraps; Hooded sweatshirts for babies, adults, children, women and men; Hoodies; Jackets; Jackets for babies, adults, children, women and men; Non-disposable cloth training pants; Pajamas for babies, adults, children, women and men; Pants for babies, adults, children, women and men; Shifts as clothing; Shoes for babies, adults, children, women and men; Short sets; Shorts for babies, adults, children, women and men; Shoulder wraps for clothing; Sports over uniforms; Sweaters for babies, adults, children, women and men; T-shirts for babies, adults, children, women and men; Ties as clothing; Tops as clothing; Trousers for babies, adults, children, women and men; Trunks being clothing; Women's clothing, namely, shirts, dresses, skirts, blouses; Woven shirts for babies, adults, children, women and men.  International Class 25.

 

Color Claim and Description

 

Although applicant submitted a color drawing with a description referencing colors in the mark, applicant did not provide a list of all the colors claimed as a feature of the mark, known as  a color claim.  Therefore, applicant must provide this required color claim.  37 C.F.R. §2.52(b)(1); see TMEP §§807.07(a) et seq. 

 

The following color claim is suggested, if accurate:  “The colors red and white are claimed as a feature of the mark.”  TMEP §807.07(a)(i).

 

Although applicant submitted a drawing showing the mark in color with a color claim, applicant did not provide the required description that specifies where each color appears in the literal and design elements in the mark.  See 37 C.F.R. §§2.37, 2.52(b)(1); TMEP §807.07(a)-(a)(ii).  Therefore, applicant must provide this description.  See TMEP §807.07(a)(ii). 

 

Generic color names must be used to describe the colors in the mark, e.g., red, yellow, blue.  TMEP §807.07(a)(i)-(ii).  If black, white, and/or gray represent background, outlining, shading, and/or transparent areas and are not part of the mark, applicant must so specify in the description.  See TMEP §807.07(d).

 

The following description is suggested, if accurate:  “The mark consists of the stylized red wording ENIGMA below a design of a white circle outlined in red featuring a white cross outlined in red layered on the circle with a red heart centered on the cross.”

 

Mark Does not Reproduce Satisfactorily

 

The drawing is not acceptable because it will not create a high quality image when reproduced.  See TMEP §807.04(a).  Specifically, the drawing is blurry.  A clear drawing of the mark is an application requirement.  37 C.F.R. §2.52. 

 

Therefore, applicant must submit a new drawing showing a clear depiction of the mark.  All lines must be clean, sharp and solid, and not fine or crowded.  37 C.F.R. §§2.53(c), 2.54(e); TMEP §§807.05(c), 807.06(a).  Additionally, the USPTO will not accept a new drawing in which there are amendments or changes that would materially alter the applied-for mark.  37 C.F.R. §2.72; see TMEP §§807.13 et seq., 807.14 et seq.

 

For more information about drawings and instructions on how to submit a drawing, see the Drawing webpage.

 

 

If the applicant has any questions or needs assistance in responding to this Office action, please call or e-mail the assigned examining attorney.

 

How to respond.  Click to file a response to this nonfinal Office action.    

 

 

/D. Beryl Gardner/

Trademark Examining Attorney

Law Office 117

571-272-9162 (O)

571-273-9162 (F)

beryl.gardner@uspto.gov

 

 

RESPONSE GUIDANCE

• Missing the response deadline to this letter will cause the application to abandon.  A response or notice of appeal must be received by the USPTO before midnight Eastern Time of the last day of the response period.  TEAS and ESTTA maintenance or unforeseen circumstances could affect an applicant’s ability to timely respond.  

 

• Responses signed by an unauthorized party are not accepted and can cause the application to abandon.  If applicant does not have an attorney, the response must be signed by the individual applicant, all joint applicants, or someone with legal authority to bind a juristic applicant.  If applicant has an attorney, the response must be signed by the attorney.

 

• If needed, find contact information for the supervisor of the office or unit listed in the signature block.

 

United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO)

 

USPTO OFFICIAL NOTICE

 

Office Action (Official Letter) has issued

on January 08, 2020 for

U.S. Trademark Application Serial No. 88630732

 

Your trademark application has been reviewed by a trademark examining attorney.  As part of that review, the assigned attorney has issued an official letter that you must respond to by the specified deadline or your application will be abandoned.  Please follow the steps below.

 

(1)  Read the official letter.

 

(2)  Direct questions about the contents of the Office action to the assigned attorney below. 

 

 

/D. Beryl Gardner/

Trademark Examining Attorney

Law Office 117

571-272-9162 (O)

571-273-9162 (F)

beryl.gardner@uspto.gov

 

Direct questions about navigating USPTO electronic forms, the USPTO website, the application process, the status of your application, and/or whether there are outstanding deadlines or documents related to your file to the Trademark Assistance Center (TAC).

 

(3)  Respond within 6 months (or earlier, if required in the Office action) from January 08, 2020, using the Trademark Electronic Application System (TEAS).  The response must be received by the USPTO before midnight Eastern Time of the last day of the response period.  See the Office action for more information about how to respond

 

 

 

GENERAL GUIDANCE

·       Check the status of your application periodically in the Trademark Status & Document Retrieval (TSDR) database to avoid missing critical deadlines.

 

·       Update your correspondence email address, if needed, to ensure you receive important USPTO notices about your application.

 

·       Beware of misleading notices sent by private companies about your application.  Private companies not associated with the USPTO use public information available in trademark registrations to mail and email trademark-related offers and notices – most of which require fees.  All official USPTO correspondence will only be emailed from the domain “@uspto.gov.”