United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO)
Office Action (Official Letter) About Applicant’s Trademark Application
|
U.S. Application Serial No. 88788370
Mark: LEGIT
|
|
|
Correspondence Address: 520 S.W. YAMHILL ST., SUITE 300
|
|
|
Applicant: Sneaker Con Digital Inc.
|
|
|
Reference/Docket No. SCD407
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: May 05, 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.
· Section 2(d) refusal – likelihood of confusion
· Section 2(e)(1) – merely descriptive
Please see below for details.
SECTION 2(d) REFUSAL – LIKELIHOOD OF CONFUSION
Registration of the applied-for mark is refused because of a likelihood of confusion with the mark in U.S. Registration No. 5992541. Trademark Act Section 2(d), 15 U.S.C. §1052(d); see TMEP §§1207.01 et seq. Please see the attached registration.
The applicant has applied to register LEGIT in standard character format for “retail item authentication tag, namely, authentication tag for sneakers; retail item authentication services; and other related goods and services.” The cited registration is for LEGIT CHECK in standard character format for “Authentication in the field of brand name fashion accessories; authentication in the field of purses, wallets, clutches, and handbags; authentication in the field of watches; authentication in the field of jewelry.”
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.
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)), aff’d per curiam, 777 F. App’x 516, 2019 BL 343921 (Fed. Cir. 2019); TMEP §1207.01(b).
Applicant’s mark is the same as the first and dominant word in the cited mark. The fact that the cited mark includes the additional word CHECK does not obviate the likelihood of confusion. The cited registrant disclaimed exclusive rights to CHECK apart from the mark as shown. Although marks are compared in their entireties, one feature of a mark may be more significant or dominant in creating a commercial impression. See In re Viterra Inc., 671 F.3d 1358, 1362, 101 USPQ2d 1905, 1908 (Fed. Cir. 2012); In re Nat’l Data Corp., 753 F.2d 1056, 1058, 224 USPQ 749, 751 (Fed. Cir. 1985); TMEP §1207.01(b)(viii), (c)(ii). 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). Thus, LEGIT would be more significant or dominant than CHECK when comparing the cited registrant’s mark with the applicant’s mark, thereby increasing the likelihood of confusion between the marks.
Comparison of the Goods/Services
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).
Determining likelihood of confusion is based on the description of the goods and/or services stated in the application and registration at issue, not on extrinsic evidence of actual use. See In re Detroit Athletic Co., 903 F.3d 1297, 1307, 128 USPQ2d 1047, 1052 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (citing In re i.am.symbolic, llc, 866 F.3d 1315, 1325, 123 USPQ2d 1744, 1749 (Fed. Cir. 2017)).
In this case, the application uses broad wording to describe “retail item authentication services; and other related…services”, which presumably encompasses all services of the type described, including registrant’s more narrow “Authentication in the field of brand name fashion accessories; authentication in the field of purses, wallets, clutches, and handbags; authentication in the field of watches; authentication in the field of jewelry.” 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 services 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)).
The attached Internet evidence establishes that the same entity provides the relevant services under the same mark. Thus, applicant’s and registrant’s goods and/or services 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).
Since the marks are similar and the goods/services are related, there is a likelihood of confusion as to the source of applicant’s goods/services. Therefore, applicant’s mark is not entitled to registration.
Applicant’s Response Options
Applicant should note the following additional ground for refusal.
SECTION 2(e)(1) – MERELY DESCRIPTIVE
The applicant has applied to register LEGIT in standard character format for “retail item authentication tag, namely, authentication tag for sneakers; retail item authentication services; and other related goods and services.”
The word “legit” is defined as “legitimate”, and “legitimate” is defined as “being exactly as intended or presented: neither spurious nor false, and “conforming to recognized principles or accepted rules and standards.” Please see the attached definitions, downloaded on 5/4/20 from Merriam-Webster’s Online Dictionary (11th Ed.). As the attached internet evidence, downloaded from applicant’s website on 4/24/20 and 5/4/20, shows, the applicant offers retail item authentication services for, at a minimum, the sneakers sold on its website or sold and/or traded at its conventions: the applicant reviews purchases and/or items traded to ensure that the pertinent goods are legitimate or legit. In other words, the applicant strives to ensure the authenticity of the goods being purchased and uses authentication tags to designate authentic or legit goods.
In view of the foregoing, the mark is merely descriptive as applied to the goods/services, and registration on the Principal Register must be refused.
Applicant’s Response Options
The applied-for mark has been refused registration on the Principal Register. Applicant may respond to the refusal by submitting evidence and arguments in support of registration and/or by amending the application to seek registration on the Supplemental Register. See 15 U.S.C. §1091; 37 C.F.R. §§2.47, 2.75(a); TMEP §§801.02(b), 816. Amending to the Supplemental Register does not preclude applicant from submitting evidence and arguments against the refusal(s). TMEP §816.04.
Applicant should note the following additional ground for refusal.
REFUSAL TO REGISTER BECAUSE THE SPECIMEN DOES NOT SHOW A DIRECT ASSOCIATION BETWEEN THE MARK AND THE SERVICES AND FAILS TO SHOW THE APPLIED-FOR MARK AS ACTUALLY USED IN COMMERCE WITH THE IDENTIFIED SERVICES IN INTERNATIONAL CLASS 35
Specimen does not show direct association between mark and services. Registration is refused because the specimen does not show a direct association between the mark and the services and fails to show the applied-for mark as actually used in commerce with the identified services in International Class 35. Trademark Act Sections 1 and 45, 15 U.S.C. §§1051, 1127; 37 C.F.R. §§2.34(a)(1)(iv), 2.56(a), (b)(2); TMEP §§904, 904.07(a), 1301.04(f)(ii), (g)(i). An application based on Trademark Act Section 1(a) must include a specimen showing the applied-for mark as actually used in commerce for each international class of services identified in the application or amendment to allege use. 15 U.S.C. §1051(a)(1); 37 C.F.R. §§2.34(a)(1)(iv), 2.56(a); TMEP §§904, 904.07(a).
When determining whether a mark is used in connection with the services in the application, a key consideration is the perception of the user. In re JobDiva, Inc., 843 F.3d 936, 942, 121 USPQ2d 1122, 1126 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (citing Lens.com, Inc. v. 1-800 Contacts, Inc., 686 F.3d 1376, 1381-82, 103 USPQ2d 1672, 1676 (Fed Cir. 2012)). A specimen must show the mark used in a way that would create in the minds of potential consumers a sufficient nexus or direct association between the mark and the services being offered. See 37 C.F.R. §2.56(b)(2); In re Universal Oil Prods. Co., 476 F.2d 653, 655, 177 USPQ2d 456, 457 (C.C.P.A. 1973); TMEP §1301.04(f)(ii).
To show a direct association, specimens consisting of advertising or promotional materials must (1) explicitly reference the services and (2) show the mark used to identify the services and their source. In re The Cardio Grp., LLC, 2019 USPQ2d 227232, at *2 (TTAB 2019) (quoting In re WAY Media, LLC, 118 USPQ2d 1697, 1698 (TTAB 2016)); TMEP §1301.04(f)(ii). Although the exact nature of the services does not need to be specified in the specimen, there must be something which creates in the mind of the purchaser an association between the mark and the services. In re Adair, 45 USPQ2d 1211, 1215 (TTAB 1997) (quoting In re Johnson Controls Inc., 33 USPQ2d 1318, 1320 (TTAB 1994)).
In the present case, the specimen does not show a direct association between the mark and services. The services are retail item authentication services, and other related services. The specimen consists of a photograph of a sneaker with a tag on it reading “LEGIT” and a banner behind this, also bearing the wording “LEGIT” with a design. However, there is no indication in the specimen concerning the relationship between the proposed mark and the authentication services. Therefore, the specimen is unacceptable.
Examples of specimens. Specimens for services must show a direct association between the mark and the services and include: (1) copies of advertising and marketing material, (2) a photograph of business signage or billboards, or (3) materials showing the mark in the sale, rendering, or advertising of the services. See 37 C.F.R. §2.56(b)(2), (c); TMEP §1301.04(a), (h)(iv)(C). Any webpage printout or screenshot submitted as a specimen must include the webpage’s URL and the date it was accessed or printed. 37 C.F.R. §2.56(c).
Response options. Applicant may respond to this refusal by satisfying one of the following for each applicable international class:
(1) Submit a different specimen (a verified “substitute” specimen) that (a) was in actual use in commerce at least as early as the filing date of the application or prior to the filing of an amendment to allege use and (b) shows the mark in actual use in commerce for the services identified in the application or amendment to allege use. A “verified substitute specimen” is a specimen that is accompanied by the following statement made in a signed affidavit or supported by a declaration under 37 C.F.R. §2.20: “The substitute (or new, or originally submitted, if appropriate) specimen(s) was/were in use in commerce at least as early as the filing date of the application or prior to the filing of the amendment to allege use.” The substitute specimen cannot be accepted without this statement.
(2) Amend the filing basis to intent to use under Section 1(b) (which includes withdrawing an amendment to allege use, if one was filed), as no specimen is required before publication. This option will later necessitate additional fee(s) and filing requirements, including a specimen.
For an overview of the response options referenced above and instructions on how to satisfy these options using the online Trademark Electronic Application System (TEAS) form, see the Specimen webpage.
If applicant chooses to respond to the above refusals, applicant must also address the following requirements:
REQUIREMENTS
REQUIREMENT THAT APPLICANT AMEND THE IDENTIFICATION OF SERVICES
“The purpose of the identification of goods [and/or services] is to provide the general population, including consumers and members of the relevant industry, with an understandable description of the goods and services, which is done by using the common commercial name for the goods [and/or services].” In re Gulf Coast Nutritionals, Inc., 106 USPQ2d 1243, 1247 (TTAB 2013) (citing In re Sones, 590 F.3d 1282, 1289, 93 USPQ2d 1118, 1124 (Fed. Cir. 2009)). If there is no common, ordinary name for the goods and/or services, applicant should describe the goods and/or services using wording that would be generally understood by the average person. See Schenley Indus., Inc. v. Battistoni, 112 USPQ 485, 486 (Comm’r Pats. 1957); Cal. Spray-Chem. Corp. v. Osmose Wood Pres. Co. of Am., 102 USPQ 321, 322 (Comm’r Pats. 1954); TMEP §1402.01.
An in depth knowledge of the relevant field should not be necessary for understanding a description of the goods and/or services. TMEP §1402.01. “[T]echnical, high-sounding verbiage” should be avoided. Cal. Spray-Chem. Corp. v. Osmose Wood Pres. Co. of Am., 102 USPQ at 322.
Applicant’s goods and/or services may be clarified or limited, but may not be expanded beyond those originally itemized in the application or as acceptably amended. See 37 C.F.R. §2.71(a); TMEP §1402.06. Applicant may clarify or limit the identification by inserting qualifying language or deleting items to result in a more specific identification; however, applicant may not substitute different goods and/or services or add goods and/or services not found or encompassed by those in the original application or as acceptably amended. See TMEP §1402.06(a)-(b). The scope of the goods and/or services sets the outer limit for any changes to the identification and is generally determined by the ordinary meaning of the wording in the identification. TMEP §§1402.06(b), 1402.07(a)-(b). Any acceptable changes to the goods and/or services will further limit scope, and once goods and/or services are deleted, they are not permitted to be reinserted. TMEP §1402.07(e).
The applicant has applied to register the mark for:
IC 35: retail item authentication tag, namely, authentication tag for sneakers; retail item authentication services; and other related goods and services
Portions of the identification of goods/services are indefinite and must be clarified as indicated below. See 37 C.F.R. §2.32(a)(6); TMEP §1402.01. As to the goods, applicant must amend the identification to specify the common commercial or generic name of the goods. See TMEP §1402.01. If the goods have no common commercial or generic name, applicant must describe the product, its main purpose, and its intended uses. See id. As to the services, applicant must amend this wording to specify the common commercial or generic name of the services. See TMEP §1402.01. If the services have no common commercial or generic name, applicant must describe or explain the nature of the services using clear and succinct language. See id.
In addition, the wording “and other related goods and services” in the identification for International Class 35 must be clarified because it is too broad and could include goods and services in other international classes. See 37 C.F.R. §2.32(a)(6); TMEP §§1402.01, 1402.03. In particular, this wording could encompass metal tags for attachment to sneakers deemed to be authentic (International Class 6), non-metal tags for attachment to sneakers deemed to be authentic (International Class 20), authentication services in the field of sneakers (International Class 42), etc.
Applicant may adopt the following wording, if accurate:
IC 6: Metal tags for attachment to sneakers deemed to be authentic
IC 20: Non-metal tags for attachment to sneakers deemed to be authentic
IC 42: Authentication in the field of sneakers and related services, namely, issuance of tags to be attached to sneakers deemed to be authentic
For assistance with identifying and classifying goods and services in trademark applications, please see the USPTO’s online searchable U.S. Acceptable Identification of Goods and Services Manual. See TMEP §1402.04.
REQUIREMENT THAT APPLICANT COMPLY WITH ALL MULTI-CLASS APPLICATION REQUIREMENTS
The application references goods and/or services based on use in commerce in more than one international class; therefore, applicant must satisfy all the requirements below for each international class:
(1) List the goods and/or services by their international class number in consecutive numerical order, starting with the lowest numbered class (for example, International Class 3: perfume; International Class 18: cosmetic bags sold empty).
(2) Submit a filing fee for each international class not covered by the fee(s) already paid (view the USPTO’s current fee schedule). Specifically, the application identifies goods and/or services based on use in commerce that are classified in at least 3 classes; however, applicant submitted a fee(s) sufficient for only 1 class(es). Applicant must either (a) submit the filing fees for the classes not covered by the submitted fees or (b) restrict the application to the number of classes covered by the fees already paid.
(3) Submit verified dates of first use of the mark anywhere and in commerce for each international class. See more information about verified dates of use.
(4) Submit a specimen for each international class. The current specimen is not acceptable for any international class. See more information about specimens.
Examples of specimens. Specimens for goods include a photograph of (1) the actual goods bearing the mark; (2) an actual container, packaging, tag or label for the goods bearing the mark; or (3) a point-of-sale display showing the mark directly associated with the goods. See 37 C.F.R. §2.56(b)(1), (c); TMEP §904.03(a)-(m). A webpage specimen submitted as a display associated with the goods must show the mark in association with a picture or textual description of the goods and include information necessary for ordering the goods. TMEP §904.03(i); see 37 C.F.R. §2.56(b)(1), (c).
Specimens for services must show a direct association between the mark and the services and include: (1) copies of advertising and marketing material, (2) a photograph of business signage or billboards, or (3) materials showing the mark in the sale, rendering, or advertising of the services. See 37 C.F.R. §2.56(b)(2), (c); TMEP §1301.04(a), (h)(iv)(C).
Any webpage printout or screenshot submitted as a specimen, whether for goods or services, must include the webpage’s URL and the date it was accessed or printed. 37 C.F.R. §2.56(c).
(5) Submit a verified statement that “The specimen was in use in commerce on or in connection with the goods and/or services listed in the application at least as early as the filing date of the application.” See more information about verification.
See 37 C.F.R. §2.86(a); TMEP §§1403.01, 1403.02(c).
For an overview of the requirements for a Section 1(a) multiple-class application and how to satisfy the requirements online using the Trademark Electronic Application System (TEAS) form, see the Multiple-class Application webpage.
SECTION 2(d) ADVISORY
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 marks in the referenced applications. 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.
How to respond. Click to file a response to this nonfinal Office action.
/Nancy L. Clarke/
Examining Attorney
Law Office 102
Tel. (571) 272-9253
E-mail: nancy.clarke@uspto.gov
ADDITIONAL RESPONSE GUIDANCE
