To: | Willcot, Jhared K. (willcot_jhared@yahoo.com) |
Subject: | U.S. Trademark Application Serial No. 88636927 - HUMBLE BEGINNINGS - N/A |
Sent: | January 03, 2020 11:00:39 AM |
Sent As: | ecom106@uspto.gov |
Attachments: | Attachment - 1 Attachment - 2 |
United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO)
Office Action (Official Letter) About Applicant’s Trademark Application
U.S. Application Serial No. 88636927
Mark: HUMBLE BEGINNINGS
|
|
Correspondence Address:
|
|
Applicant: Willcot, Jhared K.
|
|
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: January 03, 2020
SECTION 2(d) REFUSAL – 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. 4251216. Trademark Act Section 2(d), 15 U.S.C. §1052(d); see TMEP §§1207.01 et seq. See the attached registration.
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.
COMPARING MARKS
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).
In this case, the marks are identical. If the marks of the respective parties are identical, the relationship between the goods or services of the respective parties need not be as close to support a finding of likelihood of confusion as might apply where differences exist between the marks. Amcor, Inc. v. Amcor Industries, Inc., 210 USPQ 70 (TTAB 1981). TMEP §1207.01(a).
COMPARING GOODS
In this case, the goods, all clothing, are identical. They would be found in the same trade channels, used for the same purposes and desired under similar circumstances by the same consumer. All of these factors would lead the average consumer, upon encountering both marks, to mistakenly believe that the clothing emanated from a single source.
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 informality.
IDENTIFICATION OF GOODS
“Crop tops; Jackets and socks; Jackets for Humble Beginnings; Pants; Shirts for infants, babies, toddlers and children; Shorts; Socks; Socks and stockings; Sweat
pants; Sweatbands; Tank-tops; Tank tops; Visors being headwear; Ankle socks; Anklets; Athletic jackets; Athletic pants; Athletic shirts; Athletic shorts; Athletic apparel, namely, shirts, pants,
jackets, footwear, hats and caps, athletic uniforms; Baseball caps and hats; Bermuda shorts; Body shirts; Boxing shorts; Business wear, namely, suits, jackets, trousers, blazers, blouses, shirts,
skirts, dresses and footwear; Button down shirts; Cap visors; Caps with visors; Clothing for athletic use, namely, padded shirts; Clothing shields, namely, pads applied to the underarms of shirts,
blouses and sweaters; Collared shirts; Crop pants; Cycling shorts; Dance pants; Denim jackets; Denim pants; Denim shorts; Denims; Embroidered clothing, namely, (list items, such as embroidered
jackets) Humble Beginnings; Fleece jackets; Fleece shorts; Graphic T-shirts; Gym pants; Gym shorts; Head sweatbands; Hiking jackets; Hooded sweat shirts; Jogging pants; Knit shirts;
Light-reflecting jackets; Long-sleeved shirts; Lounge pants; Men's socks; Men's dress socks; Non-slip socks; Polo shirts; Rain jackets; Rainproof jackets; Reversible jackets; Short-sleeve shirts;
Short-sleeved shirts; Sleep pants; Sliding shorts; Slipper socks; Snowboard jackets; Sport shirts; Sports jackets; Sports pants; Sports shirts; Stretch pants; Sun visors being headwear; Sweat
jackets; Sweat shirts; Sweat shorts; T-shirts; Tee shirts; Tee-shirts; Thermal socks; Toe socks; Track pants; Travel clothing contained in a package comprising reversible jackets, pants, skirts, tops
and a belt or scarf; Trouser socks; Turtle neck shirts; Walking shorts; Water socks; Wearable blankets in the nature of blankets with sleeves; Wearable garments and clothing, namely, shirts; Wind
resistant jackets; Wind-jackets; Woollen socks; Yoga pants; Yoga socks” in International Class 25
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.
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.
/Linda Mickleburgh/
Linda Mickleburgh
Examining Attorney Law Office 106
571-272-9198
linda.mickleburgh@uspto.gov
RESPONSE GUIDANCE