Offc Action Outgoing

United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO)

Office Action (Official Letter) About Applicant’s Trademark Application

 

 

 

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:  March 04, 2020

 

INTRODUCTION

 

The referenced application has been reviewed by the assigned trademark examining attorney.  Applicant must respond timely and completely to the issue below.  15 U.S.C. §1062(b); 37 C.F.R. §§2.62(a), 2.65(a); TMEP §§711, 718.03.

 

REFUSAL – SECTION 2(d) – LIKELIHOOD OF CONFUSION

 

Registration of the applied-for mark is refused because of a likelihood of confusion with the marks in U.S. Registration Nos. 2915944; 2931064; 5049954; 5181806; 3946047; and 5283997.  Trademark Act Section 2(d), 15 U.S.C. §1052(d); see TMEP §§1207.01 et seq.  See the attached registrations.

 

The applied-for mark is:

• U.S. Application Serial No. 88711190 – “XO” in standard characters for:
• • Class 009: Cell phone auxiliary cables; Cell phone battery chargers; Chargers for batteries; Headphones; Mobile telephone accessories, namely, belt clips; Power supply connectors and adaptors for use with portable electronic devices; USB cables; USB cables for cellphones; Audio speakers; Bass speakers; Batteries and battery chargers; Beekeeping suits for protection against accident or injury; Cell phone battery chargers for use in vehicles; Desk or car mounted units incorporating a loudspeaker to allow a telephone handset to be used hands-free; Earpads for headphones; Earphones and headphones; Loud speakers; Micro USB cables; Mobile phone cases featuring rechargeable batteries; Noise cancelling headphones; Portable vibration speakers; Wireless chargers; Wireless speakers

 

Owner “XO Communications, LLC” owns the following registered marks:

·         U.S. Registration No. 2915944 – “XO” in standard characters for goods including:

o   Class 009: Computer hardware and telecommunications software for internet access, web hosting, networking, secured communications

·         U.S. Registration No. 2931064 – “XO” in standard characters for:

o   Class 009: Computer software and telecommunications hardware for Internet access, web hosting, networking, secured communications

·         U.S. Registration No. 5049954 – “XO” in stylized design for:

o   Class 009:  Computer hardware

·         U.S. Registration No. 5181806 – “XO” in stylized design for goods including:

o   Class 009:  Computer hardware

·         ***computer hardware for internet access

 

Owner “OLPC, INC.” owns the following registered mark:

·         U.S Registration No. 3946047 – “XO” in stylized design for goods including:

o   Class 009: computer hardware; computer peripherals

 

Owner “SHANGHAI XYLINK LIMITED CORPORATION” owns the following registered mark:

·         U.S Registration No. 5283997 – “XO” in stylized design for goods including:

o   Class 009: Computers

 

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 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).  Any evidence of record related to those factors need be considered; however, “not all of the DuPont factors are relevant or of similar weight in every case.”  In re Guild Mortg. Co., 912 F.3d 1376, 1379, 129 USPQ2d 1160, 1162 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (quoting In re Dixie Rests., Inc., 105 F.3d 1405, 1406, 41 USPQ2d 1531, 1533 (Fed. Cir. 1997)).

 

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.  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. 

 

Similarity of the Marks

 

The applied-for mark is:

• U.S. Application Serial No. 88711190 – “XO” in standard characters

 

Owner “XO Communications, LLC” owns the following registered marks:

·         U.S. Registration No. 2915944 – “XO” in standard characters

·         U.S. Registration No. 2931064 – “XO” in standard characters

·         U.S. Registration No. 5049954 – “XO” in stylized design

·         U.S. Registration No. 5181806 – “XO” in stylized design

 

Owner “OLPC, INC.” owns the following registered mark:

·         U.S Registration No. 3946047 – “XO” in stylized design

 

Owner “SHANGHAI XYLINK LIMITED CORPORATION” owns the following registered mark:

·         U.S Registration No. 5283997 – “XO” in stylized design

 

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)), aff’d per curiam, 777 F. App’x 516, 2019 BL 343921 (Fed. Cir. 2019); 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). 

 

With respect to all marks, the literal word elements of each mark is the letters, “XO.”  The literal word elements in these marks are identical in appearance, sound, and meaning, “and have the potential to be used . . . in exactly the same manner.”  In re i.am.symbolic, llc, 116 USPQ2d 1406, 1411 (TTAB 2015), aff’d, 866 F.3d 1315, 123 USPQ2d 1744 (Fed. Cir. 2017).  Additionally, because they are identical, these marks are likely to engender the same connotation and overall commercial impression when considered in connection with applicant’s and registrants’ respective goods.  Id.

 

For the “XO” marks that are in stylized design, it is the literal word elements of those marks that make a significant similar commercial impression with the applied-for mark.  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.  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)).

 

Likewise, the applied-for mark “XO” is in standard characters, which may be displayed in any style of lettering, including the lettering styles of the marks that have stylized designs.  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”).

 

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 applicant's goods sold under the “XO” mark may constitute a new or additional product line from the same source as the goods and services sold under the “XO” marks with which they are acquainted or familiar, and that applicant’s mark is merely a variation of the registrant’s mark.  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.”).

 

Therefore, the marks are confusingly similar. 

 

Similarity of the Goods

 

The applied-for mark is:

• U.S. Application Serial No. 88711190 – “XO” for:
• • Class 009: Cell phone auxiliary cables; Cell phone battery chargers; Chargers for batteries; Headphones; Mobile telephone accessories, namely, belt clips; Power supply connectors and adaptors for use with portable electronic devices; USB cables; USB cables for cellphones; Audio speakers; Bass speakers; Batteries and battery chargers; Beekeeping suits for protection against accident or injury; Cell phone battery chargers for use in vehicles; Desk or car mounted units incorporating a loudspeaker to allow a telephone handset to be used hands-free; Earpads for headphones; Earphones and headphones; Loud speakers; Micro USB cables; Mobile phone cases featuring rechargeable batteries; Noise cancelling headphones; Portable vibration speakers; Wireless chargers; Wireless speakers

 

Owner “XO Communications, LLC” owns the following registered marks:

·         U.S. Registration No. 2915944 – “XO” for goods including:

o   Class 009: Computer hardware and telecommunications software for internet access, web hosting, networking, secured communications

·         U.S. Registration No. 2931064 – “XO” for:

o   Class 009: Computer software and telecommunications hardware for Internet access, web hosting, networking, secured communications

·         U.S. Registration No. 5049954 – “XO” for:

o   Class 009:  Computer hardware

·         U.S. Registration No. 5181806 – “XO for goods including:

o   Class 009:  Computer hardware

·         ***computer hardware for internet access

 

Owner “OLPC, INC.” owns the following registered mark:

·         U.S Registration No. 3946047 – “XO” for goods including:

o   Class 009: computer hardware; computer peripherals

 

Owner “SHANGHAI XYLINK LIMITED CORPORATION” owns the following registered mark:

·         U.S Registration No. 5283997 – “XO” for goods including:

o   Class 009: Computers

 

The goods are compared to determine whether they are similar, commercially related, or travel in the same trade channels.  See Coach Servs., Inc. v. Triumph Learning LLC, 668 F.3d 1356, 1369-71, 101 USPQ2d 1713, 1722-23 (Fed. Cir. 2012); Herbko Int’l, Inc. v. Kappa Books, Inc., 308 F.3d 1156, 1165, 64 USPQ2d 1375, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2002); TMEP §§1207.01, 1207.01(a)(vi).

 

The compared goods 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).

 

The attached evidence to this Office action shows entities that provide both the applicant’s goods and registrants’ goods but all under the same mark.  This shows that it is common in the applicant’s industry for entities to provide all of the compared goods from a single source:

1)      Apple:  1) Cell phone auxiliary cables, 2) Headphones, 3) Speakers, and 4) Computers

2)      Asus:  1) Audio earphones, 2) Power supply connectors and adaptors for use with portable electronic devices, 3) USB cable, 4) Computer hardware for Internet access, and 5) Computers

3)      Belkin:  1) Wireless charger, 2) Belkin battery charger, 3) Belkin bass speakers, and 4) Computer hardware for Internet access,

See the attached evidence.

 

This evidence establishes that the same entity commonly manufactures, produces, and provides the relevant goods, markets the goods under the same mark, sells and provides the relevant goods through the same trade channels, and caters to the same classes of consumers.  Thus, applicant’s and registrant’s goods are considered related for likelihood of confusion purposes.  See, e.g., In re Davey Prods. Pty Ltd., 92 USPQ2d 1198, 1202-04 (TTAB 2009); In re Toshiba Med. Sys. Corp., 91 USPQ2d 1266, 1268-69, 1271-72 (TTAB 2009).

 

As such, the compared marks have related goods.

 

Conclusion

 

In conclusion, the applied-for mark “XO” and the registered marks “XO” share identical wording with respect to the literal word elements of the marks and the applied-for mark is in standard characters, which may be displayed in any type of lettering style, including styles similar to the registered marks.  Furthermore, the marks share related goods in Class 009.  Therefore, registration for the applied-for mark “XO” is refused registration under Trademark Act Section 2(d).

 

Although applicant’s mark has been refused registration, applicant may respond to the refusal by submitting evidence and arguments in support of registration.

 

RESPONSE GUIDELINES

 

Because of the legal technicalities and strict deadlines of the trademark application process, applicant is encouraged to hire a private attorney who specializes in trademark matters to assist in this process.  The assigned trademark examining attorney can provide only limited assistance explaining the content of an Office action and the application process.  USPTO staff cannot provide legal advice or statements about an applicant’s legal rights.  TMEP §§705.02, 709.06.  See Hiring a U.S.-licensed trademark attorney for more information. 

 

For attorney referral information, applicant may consult the American Bar Association’s Consumers’ Guide to Legal Help; an online directory of legal professionals, such as FindLaw®; or a local telephone directory.  The USPTO, however, may not assist an applicant in the selection of a private attorney.  37 C.F.R. §2.11.

 

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.

 

If applicant does not respond to this Office action within six months of the issue/mailing date, or responds by expressly abandoning the application, the application process will end and the trademark will fail to register.  See 15 U.S.C. §1062(b); 37 C.F.R. §§2.65(a), 2.68(a); TMEP §§718.01, 718.02.  Additionally, the USTPO will not refund the application filing fee, which is a required processing fee.  See 37 C.F.R. §§2.6(a)(1)(i)-(iv), 2.209(a); TMEP §405.04.

 

Where the application has been abandoned for failure to respond to an Office action, applicant’s only option would be to file a timely petition to revive the application, which, if granted, would allow the application to return to active status.  See 37 C.F.R. §2.66; TMEP §1714.  There is a $100 fee for such petitions.  See 37 C.F.R. §§2.6, 2.66(b)(1).

 

If applicant has questions regarding this Office action, please telephone or e-mail the assigned trademark examining attorney.  All relevant e-mail communications will be placed in the official application record; however, an e-mail communication will not be accepted as a response to this Office action and will not extend the deadline for filing a proper response.  See 37 C.F.R. §§2.62(c), 2.191; TMEP §§304.01-.02, 709.04-.05.  Further, although the trademark examining attorney may provide additional explanation pertaining to the refusal(s) and/or requirement(s) in this Office action, the trademark examining attorney may not provide legal advice or statements about applicant’s rights.  See TMEP §§705.02, 709.06.

 

How to respond.  Click to file a response to this nonfinal Office action.    

 

 

Jalandoni, Chad

/Chad C. Jalandoni, Esq./

Trademark Examining Attorney

USPTO, Law Office 128

(571) 272-3329

chad.jalandoni@uspto.gov

 

 

RESPONSE GUIDANCE

• Missing the response deadline to this letter will cause the application to abandon.  A response or notice of appeal must be received by the USPTO before midnight Eastern Time of the last day of the response period.  TEAS and ESTTA maintenance or unforeseen circumstances could affect an applicant’s ability to timely respond.  

 

• Responses signed by an unauthorized party are not accepted and can cause the application to abandon.  If applicant does not have an attorney, the response must be signed by the individual applicant, all joint applicants, or someone with legal authority to bind a juristic applicant.  If applicant has an attorney, the response must be signed by the attorney.

 

• If needed, find contact information for the supervisor of the office or unit listed in the signature block.

 

United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO)

 

USPTO OFFICIAL NOTICE

 

Office Action (Official Letter) has issued

on March 04, 2020 for

U.S. Trademark Application Serial No. 88711190

 

Your trademark application has been reviewed by a trademark examining attorney.  As part of that review, the assigned attorney has issued an official letter that you must respond to by the specified deadline or your application will be abandoned.  Please follow the steps below.

 

(1)  Read the official letter.

 

(2)  Direct questions about the contents of the Office action to the assigned attorney below. 

 

 

Jalandoni, Chad

/Chad C. Jalandoni, Esq./

Trademark Examining Attorney

USPTO, Law Office 128

(571) 272-3329

chad.jalandoni@uspto.gov

 

Direct questions about navigating USPTO electronic forms, the USPTO website, the application process, the status of your application, and/or whether there are outstanding deadlines or documents related to your file to the Trademark Assistance Center (TAC).

 

(3)  Respond within 6 months (or earlier, if required in the Office action) from March 04, 2020, using the Trademark Electronic Application System (TEAS).  The response must be received by the USPTO before midnight Eastern Time of the last day of the response period.  See the Office action for more information about how to respond

 

 

 

GENERAL GUIDANCE

·         Check the status of your application periodically in the Trademark Status & Document Retrieval (TSDR) database to avoid missing critical deadlines.

 

·         Update your correspondence email address, if needed, to ensure you receive important USPTO notices about your application.

 

·         Beware of misleading notices sent by private companies about your application.  Private companies not associated with the USPTO use public information available in trademark registrations to mail and email trademark-related offers and notices – most of which require fees.  All official USPTO correspondence will only be emailed from the domain “@uspto.gov.”