To: | Scott Evans (glatham@iplawconsulting.com) |
Subject: | U.S. Trademark Application Serial No. 88646069 - MILLSTREAM - 00169 |
Sent: | January 14, 2020 02:32:01 PM |
Sent As: | ecom126@uspto.gov |
Attachments: | Attachment - 1 Attachment - 2 Attachment - 3 Attachment - 4 Attachment - 5 Attachment - 6 Attachment - 7 Attachment - 8 Attachment - 9 Attachment - 10 Attachment - 11 Attachment - 12 Attachment - 13 Attachment - 14 Attachment - 15 Attachment - 16 Attachment - 17 Attachment - 18 Attachment - 19 Attachment - 20 Attachment - 21 Attachment - 22 Attachment - 23 Attachment - 24 Attachment - 25 Attachment - 26 Attachment - 27 Attachment - 28 Attachment - 29 Attachment - 30 Attachment - 31 Attachment - 32 Attachment - 33 Attachment - 34 Attachment - 35 Attachment - 36 Attachment - 37 |
United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO)
Office Action (Official Letter) About Applicant’s Trademark Application
U.S. Application Serial No. 88646069
Mark: MILLSTREAM
|
|
Correspondence Address: |
|
Applicant: Scott Evans
|
|
Reference/Docket No. 00169
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 14, 2020
SECTION 2(d) REFUSAL – LIKELIHOOD OF CONFUSION
Here, the applicant’s mark is MILLSTREAM (in standard characters) for “clothing and apparel” in International Class 25.
Registrant’s mark is MILL STREAM (in standard characters) for “fishing related equipment and supplies, namely, fly storage boxes; fly storage and organizer containers; fly storage foam; fly storage holding pads; fishing line fish strike indicators; fly holder wallets and fly holder wallet inserts; fly line stripping baskets; and fly fishing hooks” in International Class 28.
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.
Similarity of the Marks
The respective marks, MILLSTREAM and MILL STREAM, are nearly identical in appearance, sound and meaning. The only differences are applicant’s mark is in standard characters, and the applicant deletes the registrant’s space between the words “MILL” and “STREAM”.
In this case, MILLSTREAM and MILL STREAM create the same overall commercial impression. While applicant’s mark is in standard characters, its rights include the mark presented in any stylized manner, including the identical font type and size as the registrant’s MILL STREAM mark.
Thus, the applicant’s deletion of a space and applying for a standard character mark does not obviate the similarity between the marks.
Similarity of the Goods
The applicant’s “clothing and apparel” is closely related to the registrant’s fishing equipment and supplies because both are the types of goods offered by the same entities under the same marks.
Thus, upon encountering MILLSTREAM used on clothing and apparel, and MILL STREAM used on fishing equipment and supplies, consumers are likely to be confused and mistakenly believe that the applicant’s goods emanate from the same source as the registrant’s goods.
IDENTIFICATION OF GOODS – REQUIRED
If applicant’s “clothing and apparel” is in International Class 25, applicant may amend the identification to insert the word “namely,” after “clothing and apparel”, and then list the specific types of clothing items in that class (e.g., shirts, pants, coats, dresses).
Applicant may adopt the following identification in International Class 25, if accurate (additions appear in bold underline font):
CLASS 25 – Clothing and apparel, namely, {specify type(s) of clothing, e.g., shirts, pants, coats, dresses}
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.
Response guidelines. For this application to proceed, applicant must explicitly address each refusal and/or requirement in this Office action. For a refusal, applicant may provide written arguments and evidence against the refusal, and may have other response options if specified above. For a requirement, applicant should set forth the changes or statements. Please see “Responding to Office Actions” and the informational video “Response to Office Action” for more information and tips on responding.
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.
/Kyle Aurand/
Kyle Aurand
Trademark Examining Attorney
Law Office 126
(571) 270-3039
kyle.aurand@uspto.gov
RESPONSE GUIDANCE