To: | Cargurus, Inc. (trademarks@morganlewis.com) |
Subject: | U.S. Trademark Application Serial No. 88693284 - NAVIGATE - 107671-0003 |
Sent: | December 03, 2019 11:35:15 AM |
Sent As: | ecom119@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 |
United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO)
Office Action (Official Letter) About Applicant’s Trademark Application
U.S. Application Serial No. 88693284
Mark: NAVIGATE
|
|
Correspondence Address: |
|
Applicant: Cargurus, Inc.
|
|
Reference/Docket No. 107671-0003
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: December 03, 2019
SECTION 2(d) REFUSAL – 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 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 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.
In this case, applicant is seeking to register NAVIGATE in standard characters for “Organizing and conducting business conferences in the fields of marketing and sales strategies for automobile dealerships, growth and development of automobile dealerships, technology and other tools used to propel business generation and expansion, and buying, selling and servicing automobiles and automotive-related products and services; organizing and conducting business conferences that provide industry-focused networking opportunities; organizing and conducting business conferences in the field of automobiles” in International Class 041.
Registrant has registered NAVIGATES in standard characters for U.S. Registration No. 3887586, and in stylized fonts with designs for U.S. Registration Nos. 4493865 and 4825417, all in International Class 035 for, as relevant here, “Electronic catalog services featuring parts for automobiles.”
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).
Here, the marks are virtually identical. There only difference is that applicant has made registrant’s marks singular. This is insufficient to render the marks dissimilar. Moreover, the notion that applicant has added design elements to its marks for U.S. Registration Nos. 4493865 and 4825417 also do not overcome the otherwise existing similarities between the marks.
Based on these considerations, the marks are deemed similar for Section 2(d) purposes.
COMPARISON OF THE SERVICES
In this case, applicant’s services are conducting conferences designed to assist car dealerships in growing their business. Registrant’s relevant services are providing online catalogs of car parts. The Examining Attorney attaches evidence from Kerry Toyota and RBM Mercedes-Benz of Atlanta, showing that car dealerships in an effort to grow their business will have their own parts catalogs online to grow this portion of their business. See attached. It is therefore reasonable for consumers to expect both services to be provided under the same mark.
Moreover, to the extent there could be a perceived difference between the services, as noted above, the marks in this case are virtually identical. Where the marks of the respective parties are identical or virtually identical, as in this case, the degree of similarity or relatedness between the services needed to support a finding of likelihood of confusion declines. See In re i.am.symbolic, llc, 116 USPQ2d 1406, 1411 (TTAB 2015) (citing In re Shell Oil Co., 992 F.2d 1204, 1207, 26 USPQ2d 1687, 1689 (Fed. Cir. 1993)), aff’d, 866 F.3d 1315, 123 USPQ2d 1744 (Fed. Cir. 2017); TMEP §1207.01(a).
Based on these considerations, the services are considered related for Section 2(d) purposes.
CONCLUSION
Overall, because the marks are virtually identical and the services are related, a likelihood of confusion arises as to the underlying source of applicant’s services. Accordingly, registration is refused pursuant to Section 2(d) of the Trademark Act.
CLASSIFICATION OF SERVICES REQUIREMENT
Applicant may therefore adopt the following amended identification, if accurate, changes are shown in bold:
IC 035: Organizing and conducting business conferences in the fields of marketing and sales strategies for automobile dealerships, growth and development of automobile dealerships, technology and other tools used to propel business generation and expansion, and buying, selling and servicing automobiles and automotive-related products and services; organizing and conducting business conferences that provide industry-focused networking opportunities; organizing and conducting business conferences in the field of automobiles
For assistance with identifying and classifying services in trademark applications, please see the USPTO’s online searchable U.S. Acceptable Identification of Goods and Services Manual. See TMEP §1402.04.
ASSISTANCE
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.
/Jared M. Mason/
Trademark Examining Attorney
Law Office 119
(571) 272-4146
Jared.Mason@uspto.gov
RESPONSE GUIDANCE