To: | Phenom Fashion and Apparel Co., LLC (hantoine@stubbsalderton.com) |
Subject: | U.S. Trademark Application Serial No. 88778157 - PHENOM - N/A |
Sent: | December 12, 2021 09:33:44 PM |
Sent As: | ecom113@uspto.gov |
Attachments: | Attachment - 1 Attachment - 2 Attachment - 3 Attachment - 4 |
United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO)
Office Action (Official Letter) About Applicant’s Trademark Application
U.S. Application Serial No. 88778157
Mark: PHENOM
|
|
Correspondence Address: STUBBS ALDERTON & MARKILES, LLP 15260 VENTURA BLVD. 20TH FLOOR
|
|
Applicant: Phenom Fashion and Apparel Co., LLC
|
|
Reference/Docket No. N/A
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 12, 2021
On April 24, 2021, action on this application was suspended pending the disposition of U.S. Application Serial Nos. 79274641 and 88766054. The following prior-pending application has abandoned and is no longer a potential bar to the registration of applicant’s mark: Application Serial No. 88766054. However, the following prior-pending application has since registered: Application Serial Nos. 79274641. Therefore, registration is refused as follows.
SECTION 2(d) REFUSAL – LIKELIHOOD OF CONFUSION
In this case, applicant seeks to register PHENOM for “Cardigans; Coats; Jackets; Jeans; Jogging pants; Pants; Shirts; Sweatpants; Sweatshirts; T-shirts” in International Class 25. The registered mark is PHENOM BOXING and design for, in relevant part, “Boxing shoes; boxing shorts; sports clothing, namely, boxing robes, skirts and bottoms, hoodies and sweatshirts, sauna suits, boxing t-shirts, tanks, tops, bras and vests, boxing caps in the nature of headwear and hats; gloves; headgear, namely, headwear; rash guards; gym boots; gym shorts; gym suits; shorts; padded shorts for athletic use; sweat shorts; spats; pants; jogging pants; moisture-wicking sports pants; padded pants for athletic use; sports pants; yoga pants; anti-perspirant socks; sports socks; sweat-absorbent socks; sport shirts; sport shoes; sport stockings; boots for sports; sports bras; sports caps; sports hats; sports footwear; sports jackets; sports jerseys; sports jerseys and breeches for sports; sports over uniforms; sports shirts; sports shirts with short sleeves; sports shoes; sports vests” in International Class 25.
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 the Marks
Here, applicant’s mark is PHENOM (in standard characters). The registered mark is P PHENOM BOXING and design.
Applicant’s mark creates a similar commercial impression to the registrant’s mark because both marks contain the word “PHENOM.” Marks may be confusingly similar in appearance where similar terms or phrases or similar parts of terms or phrases 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).
Neither the additional wording nor the design element in the registrant’s mark is sufficient to obviate the confusing similarity between the marks. First, the additional word in the registrant’s mark, “BOXING,” is highly descriptive (if not generic) of a feature of applicant’s goods and has therefore been disclaimed. Disclaimed matter that is descriptive of or generic for a party’s goods and/or services is typically less significant or less dominant when comparing marks. In re Detroit Athletic Co., 903 F.3d 1297, 1305, 128 USPQ2d 1047, 1050 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (citing In re Dixie Rests., Inc., 105 F.3d 1405, 1407, 41 USPQ2d 1531, 1533-34 (Fed. Cir. 1997)); TMEP §1207.01(b)(viii), (c)(ii).
Second, 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)). Here, the design element forms a stylized letter “P”, the first letter in “PHENOM.” As such, the letter “P” merely highlights the word “PHENOM” as the dominant element in the registrant’s mark.
Thus, applicant’s mark PHENOM is identical in sound, meaning and commercial impression to the dominant element in the registrant’s mark, “PHENOM.” 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).
Finally, applicant should note that where the goods and/or services of an applicant and registrant are “similar in kind and/or closely related,” as is the case here, the degree of similarity between the marks required to support a finding of likelihood of confusion is not as great as in the case of diverse goods and/or services. In re J.M. Originals Inc., 6 USPQ2d 1393, 1394 (TTAB 1987); see Shen Mfg. Co. v. Ritz Hotel Ltd., 393 F.3d 1238, 1242, 73 USPQ2d 1350, 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2004); TMEP §1207.01(b).
For all of the foregoing reasons, applicant’s mark creates a similar overall commercial impression to the registrant’s mark, and confusion is likely.
Comparison of the Goods
Moreover, relatedness does not have to be established for each and every good listed in applicant’s identification. It is sufficient for a finding of likelihood of confusion if relatedness is established for any or some item(s) encompassed by the identification within a particular class in an application. Tuxedo Monopoly, Inc. v. General Mills Fun Group, 648 F.2d 1335, 209 USPQ 986, 988 (CCPA 1981).
In this case, the goods in the application and registration are identical inasmuch as they both identify pants and jogging pants. Therefore, it is presumed that the channels of trade and class(es) of purchasers are the same for these goods. See Cai v. Diamond Hong, Inc., 901 F.3d 1367, 1372, 127 USPQ2d 1797, 1801 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (quoting In re Viterra Inc., 671 F.3d 1358, 1362, 101 USPQ2d 1905, 1908 (Fed. Cir. 2012)). Thus, applicant’s and registrant’s goods are related.
In addition, the application uses broad wording to describe jackets, pants, shirts and t-shirts, which presumably encompasses all goods of the type described, including registrant’s more narrow boxing t-shirts, jogging pants, moisture-wicking pants, padded pants for athletic use, sports pants, yoga pants, sport shirts, sports jackets, sports shirts, and sports shirts with short sleeves. See, e.g., In re Solid State Design Inc., 125 USPQ2d 1409, 1412-15 (TTAB 2018); Sw. Mgmt., Inc. v. Ocinomled, Ltd., 115 USPQ2d 1007, 1025 (TTAB 2015). Thus, applicant’s and registrant’s goods are legally identical. See, e.g., In re i.am.symbolic, llc, 127 USPQ2d 1627, 1629 (TTAB 2018) (citing Tuxedo Monopoly, Inc. v. Gen. Mills Fun Grp., Inc., 648 F.2d 1335, 1336, 209 USPQ 986, 988 (C.C.P.A. 1981); Inter IKEA Sys. B.V. v. Akea, LLC, 110 USPQ2d 1734, 1745 (TTAB 2014); Baseball Am. Inc. v. Powerplay Sports Ltd., 71 USPQ2d 1844, 1847 n.9 (TTAB 2004)).
Additionally, the goods of the parties have no restrictions as to nature, type, channels of trade, or classes of purchasers and are “presumed to travel in the same channels of trade to the same class of purchasers.” In re Viterra Inc., 671 F.3d 1358, 1362, 101 USPQ2d 1905, 1908 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (quoting Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Packard Press, Inc., 281 F.3d 1261, 1268, 62 USPQ2d 1001, 1005 (Fed. Cir. 2002)). Thus, applicant’s and registrant’s goods are related.
Since the marks are similar and the goods are identical and substantially related, there is a likelihood of confusion as to the source of applicant’s goods. Accordingly, applicant’s mark is refused registration under Trademark Act Section 2(d), 15 U.S.C. §1052(d); TMEP §1207.01 et seq. because applicant’s mark so resembles the mark in U.S. Registration No. 6285268 as to be likely to cause confusion when used on or in connection with the goods identified in the application.
RESPONSE GUIDELINES
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.
How to respond. Click to file a response to this nonfinal Office action.
/Amy Kertgate/
Examining Attorney
Law Office 113
Tel: (571) 272-1943
Email: amy.kertgate@uspto.gov
RESPONSE GUIDANCE