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:  April 17, 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:

 

• Prior Pending Application – Potential Section 2(d) Likelihood of Confusion Refusal
• Section 2(d) Likelihood of Confusion Refusal

Prior Pending Application

 

The filing date of pending U.S. Application Serial No. 88576802 precedes applicant’s filing date.  See attached referenced application.  If the mark in the referenced application registers, applicant’s mark may be refused registration under Trademark Act Section 2(d) because of a likelihood of confusion between the two marks.  See 15 U.S.C. §1052(d); 37 C.F.R. §2.83; TMEP §§1208 et seq.  Therefore, upon receipt of applicant’s response to this Office action, action on this application may be suspended pending final disposition of the earlier-filed referenced application.

 

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 mark in the referenced application.  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.

 

*Please note that the potential Section 2(d) refusal for Serial No. 88576802 is limited to applicant’s “air mattresses, not for medical purposes”.

 

 

Likelihood of Confusion – Section 2(d) Refusal

 

Registration of the applied-for mark is refused because of a likelihood of confusion with the marks in U.S. Registration Nos. 4998603, 5421182, 5501824 and 5690782.  Trademark Act Section 2(d), 15 U.S.C. §1052(d); see TMEP §§1207.01 et seq.  See the attached registrations.

 

 

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).  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 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. 

 

 

Similarity 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)), aff’d per curiam, 777 F. App’x 516, 2019 BL 343921 (Fed. Cir. 2019); TMEP §1207.01(b).

 

 

 

Applicant’s mark is “HORIZON” in standard characters. 

 

 

 

Registrants’ marks are as follows:

 

• “HORIZON” in standard characters for Registration No. 4998603;
• “HOR I ZON” with stylization for Registration No. 5421182;
• “HORIZON COORDINATE” with a design element for Registration No. 5501824; and
• “HORIZON HOUND” in standard characters for Registration No. 5690782.

 

 

Applicant’s mark is (1) identical to the mark in Registration No. 4998603, (2) phonetically equivalent to the mark in Registration No. 5421182 and also visually similar thereto because the only difference is the existence of spaces between the “R” and “I” and the “I” and “Z” in registrant’s mark and (2) highly similar to the marks in Registration Nos. 5501824 and 5690782 because they all begin with, or in the case of applicant’s mark, are entirely comprised of the term “HORIZON”. 

 

 

Please note that marks may be confusingly similar in appearance where similar terms or phrases or similar parts of terms or phrases, such as “HORIZON”, appear in the compared marks and create a similar overall commercial impression.  See Crocker Nat’l Bank v. Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce, 228 USPQ 689, 690-91 (TTAB 1986), aff’d sub nom. Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce v. Wells Fargo Bank, Nat’l Ass’n, 811 F.2d 1490, 1495, 1 USPQ2d 1813, 1817 (Fed. Cir. 1987) (finding COMMCASH and COMMUNICASH confusingly similar); In re Corning Glass Works, 229 USPQ 65, 66 (TTAB 1985) (finding CONFIRM and CONFIRMCELLS confusingly similar); In re Pellerin Milnor Corp., 221 USPQ 558, 560 (TTAB 1983) (finding MILTRON and MILLTRONICS confusingly similar); TMEP §1207.01(b)(ii)-(iii).

 

 

 

Furthermore, please note that merely omitting some of the wording from a registered mark, such as “COORDINATE” in Registration No. 5501824 and “HOUND” in Registration No. 5690782, may not overcome a likelihood of confusion.  See In re Mighty Leaf Tea, 601 F.3d 1342, 94 USPQ2d 1257; In re Optica Int’l, 196 USPQ 775, 778 (TTAB 1977); TMEP §1207.01(b)(ii)-(iii).  In this case, applicant’s mark does not create a distinct commercial impression from those registered marks because it contains some of the wording in the registered mark and does not add any wording that would distinguish it from that mark.

 

 

 

Additionally, please note that a mark in typed or standard characters, such as applicant’s, 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, such as the marks in Registration Nos. 5421182 and 5501824, 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”).

 

 

Accordingly, the relevant marks are sufficiently similar to support a finding of likelihood of confusion.

 

 

Similarity of Goods

 

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).

 

 

Registration No. 4998603 (HORIZON)

 

Applicant’s goods are as follows:

 

“Metal tent pegs and poles;” “Non-metal tent poles; air mattresses, not for medical purposes; portable chairs;” “Camping tents; vehicle camping tents; rain flies for tents; sleeves for tent straps made of textile or synthetic material to prevent damage to vehicle paint; screened tent entrance foyers made of textile or synthetic material; awnings for vehicles made of textile or synthetic material; awnings for vehicle camping tents made of textile or synthetic material.”

 

 

Registrant’s goods are

 

“Portable shelters, namely, portable shelters having metal framework.” 

 

 

These goods are related in that they are all goods for use in connection with camping and, as such, are likely to emanate from the same source and/or be provided, marketed and/or used in connection with one another.    See, e.g., attached webpages from www.target.com, www.coleman.com, www.amazon.com and www.rei.com evidencing that (1) portable shelters and (2)  tent poles, air mattresses, portable chairs, tents, rain flies and/or awnings do, in fact, emanate from the same sources and/or are provided, marketed and/or used together.

 

           

 

Registration No. 5421182 (HOR I ZON)

 

Applicant’s goods, to which this refusal applies are

 

air mattresses, not for medical purposes; portable chairs

 

 

Registrant’s most relevant goods, for purposes of this refusal are

 

            Furniture; inflatable furniture

 

 

As such, applicant’s goods are encompassed by and/or overlap with registrant’s goods.

 

 

Registration No. 5501824 (HORIZON COORDINATE)

 

Applicant’s goods, to which this refusal applies are

 

air mattresses, not for medical purposes; portable chairs

 

 

Registrant’s most relevant goods, for purposes of this refusal are

 

Furniture; beds; mattresses.

 

 

As such, applicant’s goods are encompassed by and/or overlap with registrant’s goods.

 

 

Registration No. 5690782 (HORIZON HOUND)

 

Applicant’s goods are as follows:

 

“Metal tent pegs and poles;” “Non-metal tent poles; air mattresses, not for medical purposes; portable chairs;” “Camping tents; vehicle camping tents; rain flies for tents; sleeves for tent straps made of textile or synthetic material to prevent damage to vehicle paint; screened tent entrance foyers made of textile or synthetic material; awnings for vehicles made of textile or synthetic material; awnings for vehicle camping tents made of textile or synthetic material.”

 

 

Registrant’s most relevant goods are

 

“sleeping bags for camping.”

 

 

 

These goods are related in that they are all goods for use in connection with camping and, as such, are likely to emanate from the same source and/or be provided, marketed and/or used in connection with one another.    See, e.g., attached webpages from www.target.com, www.coleman.com, www.amazon.com and www.rei.com evidencing that (1) sleeping bags and (2)  tent poles, air mattresses, portable chairs, tents, rain flies and/or awnings do, in fact, emanate from the same sources and/or are provided, marketed and/or used together.

 

Accordingly, based on the similarity of the marks and the relatedness of the goods, registration of the applicant’s mark is refused under Section 2(d) of the Trademark Act.

 

Although the examining attorney has refused registration, the applicant has the option to respond to the refusal to register by submitting evidence and legal arguments in support of registration.

 

Responding to this Office Action

 

 

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

 

 

For this application to proceed toward registration, applicant must explicitly address each refusal and/or requirement raised in this Office action.  If the action includes a refusal, applicant may provide arguments and/or evidence as to why the refusal should be withdrawn and the mark should register.  Applicant may also have other options for responding to a refusal and should consider such options carefully.  To respond to requirements and certain refusal response options, applicant should set forth in writing the required changes or statements. 

 

 

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, the trademark will fail to register, and the application fee will not be refunded.  See 15 U.S.C. §1062(b); 37 C.F.R. §§2.65(a), 2.68(a), 2.209(a); TMEP §§405.04, 718.01, 718.02.  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).

 

 

Telephone/Email Suggested for Questions

 

Please call or email the assigned trademark examining attorney with questions about this Office action.  Although an examining attorney cannot provide legal advice, the examining attorney can provide additional explanation about the refusal(s) and/or requirement(s) in this Office action.  See TMEP §§705.02, 709.06. 

 

The USPTO does not accept emails as responses to Office actions; however, emails can be used for informal communications and are included in the application record.  See 37 C.F.R. §§2.62(c), 2.191; TMEP §§304.01-.02, 709.04-.05. 

 

 

/Meghan Reinhart/

Meghan M. Reinhart

Trademark Examining Attorney

Law Office 108

(571) 272-2943

meghan.reinhart@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 April 17, 2020 for

U.S. Trademark Application Serial No. 88768978

 

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. 

 

 

/Meghan Reinhart/

Meghan M. Reinhart

Trademark Examining Attorney

Law Office 108

(571) 272-2943

meghan.reinhart@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 April 17, 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.”