United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO)
Office Action (Official Letter) About Applicant’s Trademark Application
|
U.S. Application Serial No. 88651415
Mark: SUNLITE
|
|
|
Correspondence Address:
|
|
|
Applicant: GKB Rx Lens Pvt. Ltd.
|
|
|
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 16, 2020
The trademark examining attorney has searched the Office’s database of registered and pending marks. 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.
Summary of the Issues
1. Registration Refused – Likelihood of Confusion;
2. Identification of the Goods.
Registration Refused – 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. 1109928. Trademark Act Section 2(d), 15 U.S.C. §1052(d); see TMEP §§1207.01 et seq. See the attached registration.
Trademark Act Section 2(d) bars registration of an applied-for mark that so resembles a registered mark that it is likely a potential consumer would be confused, mistaken, or deceived as to the source of the goods and/or services of the applicant and registrant. See 15 U.S.C. §1052(d). A determination of likelihood of confusion under Section 2(d) is made on a case-by-case basis and 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) aid in this determination. Citigroup Inc. v. Capital City Bank Grp., Inc., 637 F.3d 1344, 1349, 98 USPQ2d 1253, 1256 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (citing On-Line Careline, Inc. v. Am. Online, Inc., 229 F.3d 1080, 1085, 56 USPQ2d 1471, 1474 (Fed. Cir. 2000)). Not all the du Pont factors, however, are necessarily relevant or of equal weight, and any one of the factors may control in a given case, depending upon the evidence of record. Citigroup Inc. v. Capital City Bank Grp., Inc., 637 F.3d at 1355, 98 USPQ2d at 1260; In re Majestic Distilling Co., 315 F.3d 1311, 1315, 65 USPQ2d 1201, 1204 (Fed. Cir. 2003); see In re E. I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., 476 F.2d at 1361-62, 177 USPQ at 567.
In this case, the following factors are the most relevant: similarity of the marks, similarity and nature of the goods and/or services, and similarity of the trade channels of the goods and/or services. See In re Viterra Inc., 671 F.3d 1358, 1361-62, 101 USPQ2d 1905, 1908 (Fed. Cir. 2012); In re Dakin’s Miniatures Inc., 59 USPQ2d 1593, 1595-96 (TTAB 1999); TMEP §§1207.01 et seq.
The applicant has applied for the mark SUNLITE for “Lenses of all kinds, ophthalmic lenses, spectacle glasses, contact lenses, optical accessories, spectacles, spectacle cases, frame, sunglass, safety glasses and swimming goggles.”
The mark of the registrant is SUN-LITE for “ophthalmic lenses.”
Comparison of the 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 Davia, 110 USPQ2d 1810, 1812 (TTAB 2014) (citing In re 1st USA Realty Prof’ls, Inc., 84 USPQ2d 1581, 1586 (TTAB 2007)); In re White Swan Ltd., 8 USPQ2d 1534, 1535 (TTAB 1988)); TMEP §1207.01(b).
In a likelihood of confusion determination, the marks in their entireties are compared for similarities in appearance, sound, connotation, and commercial impression. In re i.am.symbolic, llc, 866 F.3d 1315, 1323, 123 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2017); 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)); In re E. I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., 476 F.2d 1357, 1361, 177 USPQ 563, 567 (C.C.P.A. 1973); TMEP §1207.01(b)-(b)(v).
In this case, the marks of the parties are virtually identical. The only difference between the marks is the dash between the word SUN and LITE in the mark of the registrant. However, the marks are pronounced the same, and these marks are likely to engender the same connotation and overall commercial impression when considered in connection with applicant’s and registrant’s respective goods.
For the above stated reasons, the marks are found to create the same commercial impression, thereby satisfying the first prong of the likelihood of confusion test.
Comparison of the Goods
The goods and/or services of the parties need not be identical or even competitive to find a likelihood of confusion. See On-line Careline Inc. v. Am. Online Inc., 229 F.3d 1080, 1086, 56 USPQ2d 1471, 1475 (Fed. Cir. 2000); Recot, Inc. v. Becton, 214 F.3d 1322, 1329, 54 USPQ2d 1894, 1898 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (“[E]ven if the goods in question are different from, and thus not related to, one another in kind, the same goods can be related in the mind of the consuming public as to the origin of the goods.”); TMEP §1207.01(a)(i).
The respective goods and/or services need only be “related in some manner and/or if the circumstances surrounding their marketing are such that they could give rise to the mistaken belief that [the goods and/or services] emanate from the same source.” Coach Servs., Inc. v. Triumph Learning LLC, 668 F.3d 1356, 1369, 101 USPQ2d 1713, 1722 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (quoting 7-Eleven Inc. v. Wechsler, 83 USPQ2d 1715, 1724 (TTAB 2007)); TMEP §1207.01(a)(i).
The applicant has applied for the mark SUNLITE for “Lenses of all kinds, ophthalmic lenses, spectacle glasses, contact lenses, optical accessories, spectacles, spectacle cases, frame, sunglass, safety glasses and swimming goggles.”
The mark of the registrant is SUN-LITE for “ophthalmic lenses.”
Both parties provide the identical goods of ophthalmic lenses. Additionally, the remaining goods are highly related.
Additionally, the goods of the parties travel in the same commercial channels. For example, the following entities all provide the goods of the applicant and registrant.
http://www.eyemartexpress.com/lenses
http://www.replacementlensexpress.com/
http://www.lenslabexpress-queens.com/
http://www.lenslabexpress-bronx.com/
As the evidence clearly indicates, the goods of the parties are found to be related and the circumstances surrounding their marketing are such that they could give rise to the mistaken belief that the goods emanate from the same source. As such, the second prong of the likelihood of confusion test has been satisfied.
For the above stated reasons, the application is refused registration based upon a likelihood of confusion with the cited registration.
Identification of the Goods
The applicant has applied for the mark SUNLITE for “Lenses of all kinds, ophthalmic lenses, spectacle glasses, contact lenses, optical accessories, spectacles, spectacle cases, frame, sunglass, safety glasses and swimming goggles” in International Class 9.
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. TMEP §1402.03(a); see 37 C.F.R. §2.32(a)(6). If applicant uses indefinite words such as “apparatus,” “components,” “devices,” “materials,” or “parts,” such wording must be followed by “namely,” and a list of each specific product identified by its common commercial or generic name. See TMEP §§1401.05(d), 1402.03(a).
Applicant may substitute the following wording, if accurate:
Lenses of all kinds, namely, ophthalmic lenses, spectacle lenses, contact lenses, optical accessories, namely, optical readers, optical lenses; spectacles, spectacle cases, spectacle frames, sunglasses, safety glasses, namely, protective glasses and swimming goggles” in International Class 9.
The identification of goods or services should be clear, accurate and as concise as possible. See Procter & Gamble Co. v. Economics Laboratory, Inc., 175 USPQ 505 (TTAB 1972); In re Cardinal Laboratories, Inc., 149 USPQ 709 (TTAB 1966); California Spray-Chemical Corp. v. Osmose Wood Preserving Co. of America, Inc., 102 USPQ 321 (Comm'r Pats. 1954); Ex parte A.C. Gilbert Co., 99 USPQ 344 (Comm'r Pats. 1953). Furthermore, the identification of goods and services must be specific and definite. In re Societe Generale des Eaux Minerales de Vittel S.A., 1 USPQ2d 1296 (TTAB 1986), rev'd on other grounds, 824 F.2d 957, 3 USPQ2d 1450 (Fed. Cir. 1987).
The examining attorney may make any requirements necessary to ensure that the identification is clear and accurate and conforms to the requirements of the statute and rules. When an applicant has submitted an indefinite identification of goods or services, it is Office practice to suggest an acceptable identification. However, it is the applicant's duty and prerogative to identify the goods and services. TMEP Section 1402.01(d).
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.
How to respond. Click to file a response to this nonfinal Office action.
If the applicant has any questions, please contact the undersigned.
/Ty Murray/
Ty Murray
Attorney Advisor
United States Patent and Trademark Office
Law Office 113
(571) 272-9438
ty.murray@uspto.gov
RESPONSE GUIDANCE
