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:  May 07, 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:

• Section 2(d) likelihood of confusion refusal; and
• Bar to registration due to prior pending applications.

 

Section 2(d) Likelihood of Confusion Refusal

 

Registration of the applied-for mark is refused because of a likelihood of confusion with the marks in U.S. Registration Nos. 3583059, 5542793, 5944579, and 5996292.  Trademark Act Section 2(d), 15 U.S.C. §1052(d); see TMEP §§1207.01 et seq.  See the attached registrations.

 

I.  2(d) Standard of Review

 

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. 

 

II.  Application of the 2(d) Standard of Review

 

The cited registrations are marks for the following goods:

• Registration No. 3583059, DD (stylized) for “Scented oils used to produce aromas when heated that are used with lamps, candles and diffusers; potpourri” and “Candles; liquid for wicks, namely, lamp oils and perfumed lamp oils, candle wicks”;
• Registration No. 5542793, DD and design for “Perfume, fragrances”;
• Registration No. 5944579, DD (stylized) for goods including “Cologne”; and
• Registration No. 5996292, DD (stylized) for “Fragrances”.

 

The applied-for mark is DD for:

• “Potpourri; Scented oils; Air fragrance reed diffusers; Fragrance sachets”;
• “Candles; Wax melts”; and
• “Electric warmers to melt scented wax tarts”.

 

A.  Comparison of Sound, Appearance and Meaning

 

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).

 

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).

 

Applicant’s mark DD is confusingly similar to the cited registered marks DD (stylized) and DD and design because the marks share the term(s) “DD”.

 

Applicant’s mark is in standard characters.

 

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”).

 

Consumers would be likely to confuse the source of related goods offered under applicant’s and registrants’ marks because the meaning and commercial impression of the mark wording in each of the marks is the same, and because applicant’s standard character mark could be presented in the same stylizations and/or with designs similar to those used by registrants.

 

B.  Comparison 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).

 

Consumers are likely to confuse the source of the goods for the applied for mark and cited registrations because the goods of the applied for mark and the cited registrations are at a minimum, related, and could be overlapping. 

 

Comparison of applicant’s goods and those of cited registration No. 3583059

 

Applicant’s goods “Potpourri; Scented oils” are identical to and/or encompass registrant’s goods “Scented oils used to produce aromas when heated that are used with lamps, candles and diffusers; potpourri”

 

Applicant’s goods “Air fragrance reed diffusers; Fragrance sachets” are related to registrant’s goods “Scented oils used to produce aromas when heated that are used with lamps, candles and diffusers; potpourri” because applicant’s air fragrance reed diffusers and fragrance sachets are similar goods to registrant’s as each of these goods is intended for use in scenting air, rooms, and furnishings.

 

Applicant’s goods “Candles” are identical to registrant’s goods “Candles”.

 

Applicant’s goods “Wax melts” and “Electric warmers to melt scented wax melts” are related to registrant’s goods “liquid for wicks, namely, lamp oils and perfumed lamp oils, candle wicks”, as all of these goods are used in scenting air and rooms through heated fragranced substrates.

 

Comparison of applicant’s goods and those of cited registration No. 5542793 and 5996292

 

Applicant’s goods “Potpourri; Scented oils; Air fragrance reed diffusers; Fragrance sachets” are related to registrant’s “Perfumes, fragrances”, because both registrant’s perfumes and applicant’s goods are scented goods; additionally, registrant’s “fragrances” are identified broadly enough to include applicant’s scented goods and may be used in conjunction with applicant’s scent dispersal goods (reed diffusers and sachets).

 

Comparison of applicant’s goods and those of cited registration No. 5944579

 

Applicant’s goods “Potpourri; Scented oils; Air fragrance reed diffusers; Fragrance sachets” are related to registrant’s “Cologne” because both registrant’s colognes and applicant’s goods are scented goods.

 

Furthermore, as the goods of the applied for mark and the cited registrations are related and possibly overlapping, they may travel within the same channels of trade; that is, retailers of fragrances, candles, potpourri, sachets, and reed diffusers for scented oils.

 

C.  Summary of 2(d) review

 

The applied for mark is confusingly similar to the cited registered marks because the wording of the marks is the same, and the commercial impression and meanings of the marks is the same.  Because the marks are confusingly similar and because the goods are related and/or travel within the same channels of trade, the applicant’s mark is refused on grounds of likelihood of confusion.

 

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

 

Applicant should note the following additional bar to registration.

 

Application not entitled to register due to prior pending applications

 

The effective filing dates of pending U.S. Application Serial Nos. 87464929 and 88252414 precede applicant’s filing date.  See attached referenced applications.  If one or more of the marks in the referenced applications register, applicant’s mark may be refused registration under Trademark Act Section 2(d) because of a likelihood of confusion with the registered mark(s).  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 applications.

 

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.    

 

 

/Kaelie E. Kung/

Examining Attorney

Law Office 103

571-272-8265

kaelie.kung@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 May 07, 2020 for

U.S. Trademark Application Serial No. 88792465

 

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. 

 

 

/Kaelie E. Kung/

Examining Attorney

Law Office 103

571-272-8265

kaelie.kung@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 May 07, 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.”