eUnited States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO)
Office Action (Official Letter) About Applicant’s Trademark Application
|
U.S. Application Serial No. 88709525
Mark: EKEYS
|
|
|
Correspondence Address:
|
|
|
Applicant: Egift LTD
|
|
|
Reference/Docket No. EKE-602
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 20, 2019
The referenced application has been reviewed by the assigned trademark examining attorney. Applicant must respond timely and completely to the issues below. 15 U.S.C. §1062(b); 37 C.F.R. §§2.62(a), 2.65(a); TMEP §§711, 718.03.
The referenced application has been reviewed by the assigned trademark examining attorney. Applicant must respond timely and completely to the issues below. 15 U.S.C. §1062(b); 37 C.F.R. §§2.62(a), 2.65(a); TMEP §§711, 718.03.
Summary of Issues
· Section 2(d) refusal—likelihood of confusion with registered mark(s);
· Disclaimer requirement.
Section 2(d) Refusal – Likelihood of Confusion
The applicant seeks to register the mark EKEYS and a design for use with “Providing an interactive website featuring technology that enables users to purchase online gift cards, gift certificates, vouchers, and coupons for redemption with online retailers, digital audio and video content providers, software licensors, and providers of online video games.”
The registered mark is EKEY for “Computer hardware for storing, protecting, and accessing data and software for use in connection with gaming machines.”
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 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 instance, the mark shown in the application is EKEYS and a design. The mark shown in the registration is EKEY in typed format. The marks are confusingly similar because the literal element in the applied-for mark is simply the plural form of the registered mark. These terms are essentially identical in sound, meaning, and commercial impression, and thus the marks are confusingly similar. Swiss Grill Ltd., v. Wolf Steel Ltd., 115 USPQ2d 2001, 2011 n.17 (TTAB 2015) (holding “it is obvious that the virtually identical marks [the singular and plural of SWISS GRILL] are confusingly similar”); Weider Publ’ns, LLC v. D & D Beauty Care Co., 109 USPQ2d 1347, 1355 (TTAB 2014) (finding the singular and plural forms of SHAPE to be essentially the same mark) (citing Wilson v. Delaunay, 245 F.2d 877, 878, 114 USPQ 339, 341 (C.C.P.A. 1957) (finding no material difference between the singular and plural forms of ZOMBIE such that the marks were considered the same mark).
Although the applied-for mark includes a key design, this is not sufficient to obviate the similar commercial impression created by the marks. When evaluating a composite mark consisting of words and a design, the word portion is normally accorded greater weight because it is likely to make a greater impression upon purchasers, be remembered by them, and be used by them to refer to or request the goods and/or services. In re Aquitaine Wine USA, LLC, 126 USPQ2d 1181, 1184 (TTAB 2018) (citing In re Viterra Inc., 671 F.3d 1358, 1362, 101 USPQ2d 1905, 1908 (Fed. Cir. 2012)); TMEP §1207.01(c)(ii). Thus, although marks must be compared in their entireties, the word portion is often considered the dominant feature and is accorded greater weight in determining whether marks are confusingly similar, even where the word portion has been disclaimed. In re Viterra Inc., 671 F.3d at 1366-67, 101 USPQ2d at 1911 (citing Giant Food, Inc. v. Nation’s Foodservice, Inc., 710 F.2d 1565, 1570-71, 218 USPQ2d 390, 395 (Fed. Cir. 1983)).
Comparison of Goods and Services
In this case, the services listed in application are “Providing an interactive website featuring technology that enables users to purchase online gift cards, gift certificates, vouchers, and coupons for redemption with online retailers, digital audio and video content providers, software licensors, and providers of online video games.”
The goods in the registration are “Computer hardware for storing, protecting, and accessing data and software for use in connection with gaming machines.”
The registered mark is EKEY for “Computer hardware for storing, protecting, and accessing data and software for use in connection with gaming machines.”
The applicant’s services are closely related to the computer hardware for use with gaming machines listed in the registration because the applicant’s website provides gift cards, certificates, vouchers, and coupons that may be redeemed with video games played on the computer hardware listed in the registration. The compared goods and/or services 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); TMEP §1207.01(a)(i). They 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).
Conclusion
Because the compared marks are confusingly similar and the compared goods and services are related, it is likely that consumers would be confused as to the source of the goods and services should applicant’s mark be registered. Therefore, registration of the applied-for mark is refused under Section 2(d) of the Trademark Act.
Although applicant’s mark has been refused registration, applicant may respond to the refusal by submitting evidence and arguments in support of registration.
If applicant responds to this refusal, applicant must also respond to the issues set forth below.
Disclaimer Requirement
Applicant must provide a disclaimer of the unregistrable part(s) of the applied-for mark even though the mark as a whole appears to be registrable. See 15 U.S.C. §1056(a); TMEP §§1213, 1213.03(a). A disclaimer of an unregistrable part of a mark will not affect the mark’s appearance. See Schwarzkopf v. John H. Breck, Inc., 340 F.2d 978, 979-80, 144 USPQ 433, 433 (C.C.P.A. 1965).
In this case, applicant must disclaim the wording “EKEYS” 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 dictionary entry shows that the word “KEY” may be defined as “a means of gaining or preventing entrance, possession, or control.”
The attached evidence from the computer game field shows that a “game key” is defined as follows:
A game key is a serial number consisting of letters and numbers which can be used to activate a game. Activating a game key is possible on gaming platforms like Steam. A game key can only be exchanged for a game once, after which the game is assigned to your personal account. This ensures that you can download and play the game through your account even after you have deinstalled or deleted the game from your pc. Game keys are also known as game codes, activation codes or product codes.
http://www.dreamgame.com/game-key.
The applicant intends to provide a website where users can purchase vouchers, tokens and codes for accessing software programs and unlocking content within software programs, all of which are game keys. Thus, the wording “KEYS” merely describes the game key feature of applicant’s services.
In this case, the following evidence shows that the term “electronic” is commonly used to modify the word “key” in the context of computer games. Thus, the inclusion of the prefix “E” to the descriptive term “KEY” immediately conveys that the keys are electronic nature. See the following (emphasis added in all):
http://store.destructivecreations.pl/terms-and-conditions/ (“Please keep in mind that electronic game key transaction is not providing you a physical item such as box version of the game.”)
http://medium.com/@kericso/actually-the-computer-game-star-wars-has-come-up-with-a-way-to-provide-great-security-using-a-183ba66fdbd6 (“Also “World of Warcraft” has an electronic key.”);
http://www.mrllp.com/blog-Predetermined-Outcome-or-Not-a-Sweepstakes-or-Slot-Machine-is-Illegal-under-California-Law (“The Court held that regardless of the method of “revealing” the results, and irrespective of the “predetermined” result, such games were illegal under California law because they (1) constituted devices that reward purchasers of usable products (in this case, internet cafe time or phone cards) with sweepstakes or game points, and (2) allowed purchasers to redeem sweepstakes or game points by playing games that award cash or other prizes of value, where the device (3) standing alone or used with other electronic or mechanical components, (4) when operated by insertion of an electronic key, account number, magnetic card or by any other means, (5) awards cash or other valuable prices to users, and (6) does so by arranging or prearranging winning sweepstakes entries in a manner that is unpredictable — i.e., not known — to the customer or user.”)
Applicant may respond to this issue by submitting a disclaimer in the following format:
No claim is made to the exclusive right to use “EKEYS” 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.
Response Guidelines
For this application to proceed further, 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.
In addition, because applicant filed a TEAS RF application, applicant must respond online using the Trademark Electronic Application System (TEAS) to avoid incurring an additional fee. See 37 C.F.R. §2.23(b)(1), (c).
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.
/April A. Hesik/
Examining Attorney
Law Office 124
(571) 272-4735
april.hesik@uspto.gov
RESPONSE GUIDANCE
