United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO)
Office Action (Official Letter) About Applicant’s Trademark Application
U.S. Application Serial No. 88667370
Mark: VELO WEALTH
|
|
Correspondence Address:
|
|
Applicant: East West Bank
|
|
Reference/Docket No. 2269-1189
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: February 04, 2020
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 Issues:
1. Refusal – Section 2(d) Refusal to Register – 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.
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 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).
The applicant’s mark is VELO WEALTH. The registrant’s mark is VELOTRADE. The applicant’s mark is confusingly similar to the registrant’s mark because they both include the identical wording VELO.
Additionally, the term VELO in each mark is the dominant term in each mark as it is the first term in each mark. Consumers are generally more inclined to focus on the first word, prefix, or syllable in any trademark or service mark. See Palm Bay Imps., Inc. v. Veuve Clicquot Ponsardin Maison Fondee En 1772, 396 F.3d 1369, 1372, 73 USPQ2d 1689, 1692 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (finding similarity between VEUVE ROYALE and two VEUVE CLICQUOT marks in part because “VEUVE . . . remains a ‘prominent feature’ as the first word in the mark and the first word to appear on the label”); Century 21 Real Estate Corp. v. Century Life of Am., 970 F.2d 874, 876, 23 USPQ2d 1698, 1700 (Fed Cir. 1992) (finding similarity between CENTURY 21 and CENTURY LIFE OF AMERICA in part because “consumers must first notice th[e] identical lead word”); see also In re Detroit Athletic Co., 903 F.3d 1297, 1303, 128 USPQ2d 1047, 1049 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (finding “the identity of the marks’ two initial words is particularly significant because consumers typically notice those words first”).
Further, both “WEALTH” and “TRADE” are merely descriptive of or generic for the services offered by their respective owners. Thus, this wording is less significant in terms of affecting the mark’s commercial impression, and renders the wording “VELO” the more dominant element of the mark.
Accordingly, because the marks both include the identical wording VELO, the marks are confusingly similar.
Comparison of the Services:
The applicant’s services are, “Stock brokerage services; brokerage of shares or stocks and other securities; financial and investment services, namely, management and brokerage in the fields of stocks, bonds, options, commodities, futures and other securities, and the investment of funds of others; electronic financial trading services; on-line trading of financial instruments, shares, options and other derivative products; financial services, namely, wealth management services”.
The registrant’s services include, “Banking; brokerage, namely, commodity brokerage; capital investment; charitable fund raising; financial clearing houses; debt collection agency services; electronic funds transfer; factoring agencies; financial evaluation for insurance purposes; financial management; financial analysis; financial consultancy; financial information; financial sponsorship of charitable activities, the formation of investment funds, the formation of private investment funds and private investment accounts, finance and wealth management events and financial conferences and seminars; providing financial information via a web site; financial management of reimbursement payments for others; financing services; insurance consultancy; investment of funds; lending against security; loans, namely, home equity loans and revolving loans; mutual funds, namely, mutual fund brokerage; online banking; provident fund services, namely, investment of funds; savings bank services; securities brokerage; stock exchange quotations; stock brokerage services; stocks and bonds brokerage; issuance of tokens of value; trusteeship representatives; fiduciary representatives; surety services”.
The applicant’s services are related to the registrant’s services because these types of services are offered by banks. Accordingly, these types of services travel through the same channels of trade to the same classes of purchasers. The trademark examining attorney has attached evidence from the USPTO’s X-Search database consisting of a number of third-party marks registered for use in connection with the same or similar goods and/or services as those of both applicant and registrant in this case. This evidence shows that the goods and/or services listed therein, namely, brokerage of shares of stock and other securities, banking, financial analysis, electronic funds transfer, financial information, financial management, financial consultancy, wealth management services, investment of funds, capital investment services, surety services, factoring agencies and stock brokerage are of a kind that may emanate from a single source under a single mark. See In re I-Coat Co., 126 USPQ2d 1730, 1737 (TTAB 2018) (citing In re Infinity Broad. Corp., 60 USPQ2d 1214, 1217-18 (TTAB 2001); In re Albert Trostel & Sons Co.,29 USPQ2d 1783, 1785-86 (TTAB 1993); In re Mucky Duck Mustard Co., 6 USPQ2d 1467, 1470 n.6 (TTAB 1988)); TMEP §1207.01(d)(iii).
Further, the application and registration include the following identical services: stock brokerage services.
Accordingly, because the marks are confusingly similar and the goods are overlapping and closely related, confusion as to source is likely and registration is refused under Section 2(d) of the Trademark Act.
2. Potential Refusal – Potential Section 2(d) Refusal to Register:
In response to this Office action, applicant may present arguments in support of registration by addressing the issue of the potential conflict between applicant’s mark and the marks in the referenced applications. Applicant’s election not to submit arguments at this time in no way limits applicant’s right to address this issue later if a refusal under Section 2(d) issues.
Applicant must respond to the requirement(s) set forth below.
3. Requirement – Disclaimer:
In this case, applicant must disclaim the wording “WEALTH” because it is not inherently distinctive. These unregistrable term(s) at best are merely descriptive of an ingredient, quality, characteristic, function, feature, purpose, or use of applicant’s goods and/or services. See 15 U.S.C. §1052(e)(1); DuoProSS Meditech Corp. v. Inviro Med. Devices, Ltd., 695 F.3d 1247, 1251, 103 USPQ2d 1753, 1755 (Fed. Cir. 2012); TMEP §§1213, 1213.03(a).
The attached evidence from the dictionary shows this wording means, “An abundance of valuable material possessions or resources; riches: gave his wealth away to charity”. Thus, the wording merely describes applicant’s services, specifically, the applicant offers wealth management services.
Applicant may respond to this issue by submitting a disclaimer in the following format:
No claim is made to the exclusive right to use “WEALTH” apart from the mark as shown.
For an overview of disclaimers and instructions on how to satisfy this issue using the Trademark Electronic Application System (TEAS), see the Disclaimer webpage.
4. Advisory – TEAS RF Applicants:
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.
5. Advisory – Assistance:
PLEASE NOTE: If applicant requires assistance navigating the online response form, applicant should contact the Trademark Assistance Center at 571-272-9250.
How to respond. Click to file a response to this nonfinal Office action.
/Colleen Dombrow/
Trademark Attorney
Law Office 101
571-272-8262
colleen.dombrow@uspto.gov
RESPONSE GUIDANCE