United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO)
Office Action (Official Letter) About Applicant’s Trademark Application
U.S. Application Serial No. 88690509
Mark: SLAYER
|
|
Correspondence Address: FRANCESCO BRAGA; PERANI & PARTNERS S.P.A
|
|
Applicant: Seattle Espresso Machine Corporation
|
|
Reference/Docket No. T023960/pl
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 11, 2020
PARTIAL SECTION 2(d) REFUSAL – LIKELIHOOD OF CONFUSION
THIS PARTIAL REGUSAL APPLIES TO THE FOLLOWING GOODS IN CLASS 11 OF THE APPLICATION ONLY: Steam generators; Steam producing machines; Steam boilers for steam generating; Apparatus and installations for steam generating.
Standard of Analysis for Section 2(d) Refusal
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.
Facts
Applicant has applied to register the mark SLAYER (stylized) for use on the following goods that are the subject of this refusal: “Steam generators; Steam producing machines; Steam boilers for steam generating; Apparatus and installations for steam generating” in International Class 11.
U.S. Registration No. 5376700 for the mark SCENT SLAYER (standard characters) is used in connection with “Stand-alone machine with ozone generator, which removes odors from garments, fabrics, curtains and surrounding air” in International Class 11.
Similarity 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).
In this case, applicant's mark, SLAYER, is confusingly similar to registrant’s mark, SCENT SLAYER, because the marks are highly similar in sound, appearance, connotation, and commercial impression. Specifically, the marks share the wording SLAYER”, and this shared term creates strong similarities between the marks in sound, appearance, connotation, and overall commercial impression.
The stylization in applicant’s mark also does not distinguish the marks because registrant’s mark is in standard characters. A mark in typed or standard characters may be displayed in any lettering style; the rights reside in the wording or other literal element and not in any particular display or rendition. See In re Viterra Inc., 671 F.3d 1358, 1363, 101 USPQ2d 1905, 1909 (Fed. Cir. 2012); In re Mighty Leaf Tea, 601 F.3d 1342, 1348, 94 USPQ2d 1257, 1260 (Fed. Cir. 2010); 37 C.F.R. §2.52(a); TMEP §1207.01(c)(iii). Thus, a mark presented in stylized characters and/or with a design element generally will not avoid likelihood of confusion with a mark in typed or standard characters because the word portion could be presented in the same manner of display. See, e.g., In re Viterra Inc., 671 F.3d at 1363, 101 USPQ2d at 1909; Squirtco v. Tomy Corp., 697 F.2d 1038, 1041, 216 USPQ 937, 939 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (stating that “the argument concerning a difference in type style is not viable where one party asserts rights in no particular display”). Therefore, registrant’s mark could be displayed in the exact same stylization as that in applicant’s mark.
Further, even if potential purchasers realize the apparent differences between the marks, they could still reasonably assume, due to the overall similarities in sound, appearance, connotation, and commercial impression in the respective marks, that the goods sold under the “SCENT SLAYER” mark constitute a new or additional product line from the same source as the goods sold under the “SLAYER” mark, and that registrant’s and applicant’s marks are merely variations of one another. See, e.g., SMS, Inc. v. Byn-Mar Inc. 228 USPQ 219, 220 (TTAB 1985) (applicant’s marks ALSO ANDREA and ANDREA SPORT were “likely to evoke an association by consumers with opposer's preexisting mark [ANDREA SIMONE] for its established line of clothing.”).
Ultimately, applicant’s mark is likely to cause confusion with registrant’s mark because the similarities in sound, appearance, and connotation create the same overall commercial impression in the minds of consumers. Thus, the marks are confusingly similar.
Relatedness of Goods
The application identifies the following goods that are the subject of this refusal: “Steam generators; Steam producing machines; Steam boilers for steam generating; Apparatus and installations for steam generating” in International Class 11.
U.S. Registration No. 5376700 for the mark SCENT SLAYER (standard characters) is used in connection with “Stand-alone machine with ozone generator, which removes odors from garments, fabrics, curtains and surrounding air” in International Class 11.
In the present case, applicant’s goods are related to registrant’s goods because the same entities that provide steam generators also commonly provide ozone generatos, and these goods are all marketed together to consumers under a common mark. Moreover, these goods are sold through the same channels of trade and used by the same class of consumers in the same fields of use. 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 as those of both applicant and registrant in this case. This evidence shows that the goods listed therein, namely, steam generators and ozone generators, 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).
http://www.hunker.com/12450299/how-to-steam-clean-underarm-odor-from-fabric
http://dupray.com/collections/steam-cleaners/
Therefore, because the marks are confusingly similar and the goods are related, purchasers encountering these goods are likely to believe, mistakenly, that they emanate from a common source. Accordingly, there is a likelihood of confusion and registration is refused pursuant to Section 2(d) of the Trademark Act.
Response to Section 2(d) Likelihood of Confusion Refusal
Although applicant’s mark has been refused registration, applicant may respond to the refusal by submitting evidence and arguments in support of registration. However, if applicant responds to the refusal, applicant must also respond to the requirements set forth below.
IDENTIFICATION OF GOODS MUST BE CLARIFIED
Class 7
Additionally, the wording “multi-purpose apparatus, namely, food processors” in the identification of goods for International Class 7 must be clarified because it is too broad and could include goods in other international classes. See 37 C.F.R. §2.32(a)(6); TMEP §§1402.01, 1402.03. In particular, this wording could encompass “electric food processors” in Class 7, as well as “hand-operated food processors” in Class 8. Applicant may substitute the following wording, if accurate: “multi-purpose apparatus, namely, electric food processors”.
Class 11
Applicant may adopt the following full identification, if accurate (changes are shown in bold, deletions are indicated by strikethrough, and the trademark examining attorney’s comments are in brackets):
International Class 7: Electric coffee mills; electric coffee grinders; electric ice shaving machines; multi-purpose apparatus, namely, electric food processors; dishwashing machines; electric food mixers.
International Class 11: Electric apparatus for making coffee; Electric coffee machines; Electric coffee makers; Electric espresso machines; Steam generators; Steam
producing machines in the nature of steam generators; Steam boilers for steam generating in the nature of steam radiators for heating buildings; Apparatus and installations for steam generating.
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.
MULTIPLE CLASS APPLICATION REQUIREMENTS
(1) List the goods and services by their international class number in consecutive numerical order, starting with the lowest numbered class.
(2) Submit a filing fee for each international class not covered by the fee already paid (view the USPTO’s current fee schedule). The application identifies goods and services that are classified in at least THREE classes; however, applicant submitted a fee sufficient for only TWO classes. Applicant must either submit the filing fees for the classes not covered by the submitted fees or restrict the application to the number of classes covered by the fees already paid.
See 15 U.S.C. §§1051(b), 1112, 1126(e); 37 C.F.R. §§2.32(a)(6)-(7), 2.34(a)(2)-(3), 2.86(a); TMEP §§1403.01, 1403.02(c).
See an overview of the requirements for a Section 1(b) multiple-class application and how to satisfy the requirements online using the Trademark Electronic Application System (TEAS) form.
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.
/Ankhi Lindemyer/
Ankhi Lindemyer
Trademark Examining Attorney
Law Office 123
(571) 270-0254
ankhi.lindemyer@uspto.gov
RESPONSE GUIDANCE