Offc Action Outgoing

CERTIFIED LOVER BOY

Common Sense Counsel

U.S. Trademark Application Serial No. 88800272 - CERTIFIED LOVER BOY - N/A


United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO)

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

 

U.S. Application Serial No. 88800272

 

Mark:  CERTIFIED LOVER BOY

 

 

 

 

Correspondence Address: 

ROBERT KLEINMAN

COMMON SENSE COUNSEL

404 WEST 7TH ST.

AUSTIN, TX 78701

 

 

 

Applicant:  Common Sense Counsel

 

 

 

Reference/Docket No. N/A

 

Correspondence Email Address: 

 robert@commonsensecounsel.com

 

 

 

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 22, 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:

  • 2(d) Likelihood of Confusion Refusals based on US Reg. Nos. 3516118, 2893663, 2657480 and 1305371 

 

SECTION 2(d) REFUSAL – 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. 3516118, 2893663, 2657480 and 1305371.  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. 

 

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).

 

In this case, the applicant’s mark isCERTIFIED LOVER BOY” for:

 

“Audio and video recordings featuring music and artistic performances; Digital media streaming devices; Digital media hubs; Digital media receivers; Downloadable computer software for manipulating digital audio information for use in audio media applications; Downloadable musical sound recordings; Media players; Digital media servers; Digital music downloadable from the Internet” in Class 009

 

“Belts; Boots; Coats; Dress shirts; Dresses; Hats; Jackets; Jerseys; Leggings; Pants; Parkas; Polo shirts; Shirts; Shoes; Shorts; Skirts; Sneakers; Socks; Suits; Sweat pants; Sweat shirts; Tee shirts; Ties as clothing; Track suits; Undergarments; Yoga pants; Athletic shirts; Bathrobes; Blouses; Hooded sweat shirts” in Class 025

 

“Entertainment information services, namely, providing information and news releases about a musical artist; Entertainment services in the nature of recording, production and post-production services in the field of music; Entertainment services, namely, televised appearances by a professional entertainer; Entertainment, namely, live music concerts; Entertainment, namely, production of television shows; Entertainment, namely, production of movies; Entertainment, namely, production of music; Film and video film production; Film studios; Production of music; Television, video and movie filming services; Arranging and conducting nightclub entertainment events; Arranging and conducting nightclub parties; Entertainment services in the nature of an ongoing reality based television program; Entertainment services in the nature of organizing social entertainment events; Production of films; Providing a website featuring information in the field of music and entertainment” on Class 041

 

The registrants’ marks are:

 

Registrant #1

 

US Reg. No. 3516118 “LOVERBOY” for “Clothing, namely, underwear, thongs, [ bath robes, T-shirts, ] sleepwear, shorts [ and adult theme costumes ].”

 

US Reg. No. 2893663 “LOVERBOY” for “Mail order catalog services featuring intimate apparel for men, active wear for men, day wear apparel for men, swim wear, leather wear [, wardrobe accessories such as shoes, belts, hats and jewelry ].”

 

US Reg. No. 2657480 “LOVERBOY” for “Clothing, namely, baseball caps, nightshirts, lingerie, T-shirts, sweatshirts, shorts, coats and jackets”

 

Registrant #2

 

US Reg. No. 1305371 “LOVERBOY” for “Entertainment Services-Namely, a Vocal and/or Instrumental Group”

 

Incorporating the entirety of one mark within another does not obviate the similarity between the compared marks, as in the present case, nor does it overcome a likelihood of confusion under Section 2(d).  See Wella Corp. v. Cal. Concept Corp., 558 F.2d 1019, 1022, 194 USPQ 419, 422 (C.C.P.A. 1977) (finding CALIFORNIA CONCEPT and surfer design and CONCEPT confusingly similar); Coca-Cola Bottling Co. v. Jos. E. Seagram & Sons, Inc., 526 F.2d 556, 557, 188 USPQ 105, 106 (C.C.P.A. 1975) (finding BENGAL LANCER and design and BENGAL confusingly similar); In re Integrated Embedded, 120 USPQ2d 1504, 1513 (TTAB 2016) (finding BARR GROUP and BARR confusingly similar); In re Mr. Recipe, LLC, 118 USPQ2d 1084, 1090 (TTAB 2016) (finding JAWS DEVOUR YOUR HUNGER and JAWS confusingly similar); TMEP §1207.01(b)(iii).  In the present case, the marks are identical in part.  The applicant’s mark presents a commercial impression similar to that of the registrants’ marks.  Indeed it is likely that consumers will perceive the applicant’s mark as an extension of the registrants’ brand.

 

Thus, the marks are so similar in their appearance, sound, connotation and commercial impression, that there is a likelihood of confusion.  Therefore, the similarity prong of the test to determine likelihood of confusion is satisfied.

 

Comparison of the Goods and 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).

 

Based on the aforementioned standard, the applicant’s goods and services are closely related to the registrants’ goods and services because they could be marketed and sold together and/or in the same channels of trade. 

 

Specifically, with regard to ‘118 and ‘480, both parties provide various clothing identical in part and otherwise closely related.  With regard to ‘663, the use of similar marks on or in connection with both products and retail-store services has been held likely to cause confusion where the evidence showed that the retail-store services featured the same type of products.  See In re Detroit Athletic Co., 903 F.3d 1297, 1307, 128 USPQ2d 1047, 1051 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (holding the use of similar marks for various clothing items, including athletic uniforms, and for retail shops featuring sports team related clothing and apparel likely to cause confusion); In re House Beer, LLC, 114 USPQ2d 1073, 1078 (TTAB 2015) (holding the use of identical marks for beer and for retail store services featuring beer likely to cause confusion); In re Thomas, 79 USPQ2d 1021, 1023 (TTAB 2006) (holding the use of similar marks for jewelry and for retail-jewelry and mineral-store services likely to cause confusion); TMEP §1207.01(a)(ii).  Therefore, the applicant’s clothing is related to the registrant’s mail order catalog services featuring similar clothing.  Please see websites from Ralph Lauren, Tommy Hilfiger and Ann Taylor – which all provide both clothing as well as retail store services featuring clothing, that include email/catalog subscription options.

 

With regard to ‘371, its “Entertainment Services-Namely, a Vocal and/or Instrumental Group” could include applicant’s “Entertainment services, namely, televised appearances by a professional entertainer; Entertainment, namely, live music concerts.”  Additionally, it is common for entertainment groups and companies to also provide music production services, entertainment information, news releases, etc.

 

The trademark examining attorney has attached evidence from the USPTO’s X-Search database consisting of a number of third-party marks registered for use in connection with the same or similar goods and/or services as those of both applicant and registrant in this case.  This evidence shows that the goods and/or services listed therein, namely Vocal and/or Instrumental Group and  providing information and news releases about a musical artist; Entertainment services in the nature of recording, production and post-production services in the field of music; Entertainment services, namely, televised appearances by a professional entertainer; Entertainment, namely, live music concerts; Entertainment, namely, production of television shows; Entertainment, namely, production of music … Providing a website featuring information in the field of music and entertainment, etc., are of a kind that may emanate from a single source under a single mark.  See In re I-Coat Co., 126 USPQ2d 1730, 1737 (TTAB 2018) (citing In re Infinity Broad. Corp., 60 USPQ2d 1214, 1217-18 (TTAB 2001); In re Albert Trostel & Sons Co.,29 USPQ2d 1783, 1785-86 (TTAB 1993); In re Mucky Duck Mustard Co., 6 USPQ2d 1467, 1470 n.6 (TTAB 1988)); TMEP §1207.01(d)(iii).

 

Accordingly, because confusion as to source is likely, registration is refused under Trademark Act Section 2(d) based on a likelihood of confusion.

 

The overriding concern is not only to prevent buyer confusion as to the source of the goods and/or services, but to protect the registrant from adverse commercial impact due to use of a similar mark by a newcomer.  See In re Shell Oil Co., 992 F.2d 1204, 1208, 26 USPQ2d 1687, 1690 (Fed. Cir. 1993).  Therefore, any doubt regarding a likelihood of confusion determination is resolved in favor of the registrant.  TMEP §1207.01(d)(i); see Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Packard Press, Inc., 281 F.3d 1261, 1265, 62 USPQ2d 1001, 1003 (Fed. Cir. 2002); In re Hyper Shoppes (Ohio), Inc., 837 F.2d 463, 464-65, 6 USPQ2d 1025, 1026 (Fed. Cir. 1988).

 

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

 

Conclusion

 

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. 

 

 

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

 

 

/tfrazier/

Tamara Frazier

Trademark Attorney

Law Office 116

(571) 272-8256

tamara.frazier@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.  

 

 

 

Offc Action Outgoing [image/jpeg]

Offc Action Outgoing [image/jpeg]

Offc Action Outgoing [image/jpeg]

Offc Action Outgoing [image/jpeg]

Offc Action Outgoing [image/jpeg]

Offc Action Outgoing [image/jpeg]

Offc Action Outgoing [image/jpeg]

Offc Action Outgoing [image/jpeg]

Offc Action Outgoing [image/jpeg]

Offc Action Outgoing [image/jpeg]

Offc Action Outgoing [image/jpeg]

Offc Action Outgoing [image/jpeg]

Offc Action Outgoing [image/jpeg]

Offc Action Outgoing [image/jpeg]

Offc Action Outgoing [image/jpeg]

Offc Action Outgoing [image/jpeg]

Offc Action Outgoing [image/jpeg]

Offc Action Outgoing [image/jpeg]

Offc Action Outgoing [image/jpeg]

Offc Action Outgoing [image/jpeg]

Offc Action Outgoing [image/jpeg]

Offc Action Outgoing [image/jpeg]

Offc Action Outgoing [image/jpeg]

Offc Action Outgoing [image/jpeg]

Offc Action Outgoing [image/jpeg]

Offc Action Outgoing [image/jpeg]

Offc Action Outgoing [image/jpeg]

Offc Action Outgoing [image/jpeg]

Offc Action Outgoing [image/jpeg]

Offc Action Outgoing [image/jpeg]

Offc Action Outgoing [image/jpeg]

Offc Action Outgoing [image/jpeg]

Offc Action Outgoing [image/jpeg]

Offc Action Outgoing [image/jpeg]

Offc Action Outgoing [image/jpeg]

Offc Action Outgoing [image/jpeg]

Offc Action Outgoing [image/jpeg]

Offc Action Outgoing [image/jpeg]

Offc Action Outgoing [image/jpeg]

Offc Action Outgoing [image/jpeg]

Offc Action Outgoing [image/jpeg]

Offc Action Outgoing [image/jpeg]

Offc Action Outgoing [image/jpeg]

Offc Action Outgoing [image/jpeg]

Offc Action Outgoing [image/jpeg]

Offc Action Outgoing [image/jpeg]

Offc Action Outgoing [image/jpeg]

Offc Action Outgoing [image/jpeg]

Offc Action Outgoing [image/jpeg]

Offc Action Outgoing [image/jpeg]

Offc Action Outgoing [image/jpeg]

Offc Action Outgoing [image/jpeg]

Offc Action Outgoing [image/jpeg]

Offc Action Outgoing [image/jpeg]

Offc Action Outgoing [image/jpeg]

Offc Action Outgoing [image/jpeg]

Offc Action Outgoing [image/jpeg]

Offc Action Outgoing [image/jpeg]

Offc Action Outgoing [image/jpeg]

Offc Action Outgoing [image/jpeg]

Offc Action Outgoing [image/jpeg]

Offc Action Outgoing [image/jpeg]

Offc Action Outgoing [image/jpeg]

Offc Action Outgoing [image/jpeg]

Offc Action Outgoing [image/jpeg]

Offc Action Outgoing [image/jpeg]

Offc Action Outgoing [image/jpeg]

Offc Action Outgoing [image/jpeg]

Offc Action Outgoing [image/jpeg]

U.S. Trademark Application Serial No. 88800272 - CERTIFIED LOVER BOY - N/A

To: Common Sense Counsel (robert@commonsensecounsel.com)
Subject: U.S. Trademark Application Serial No. 88800272 - CERTIFIED LOVER BOY - N/A
Sent: April 22, 2020 06:32:53 AM
Sent As: ecom116@uspto.gov
Attachments:

United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO)

 

USPTO OFFICIAL NOTICE

 

Office Action (Official Letter) has issued

on April 22, 2020 for

U.S. Trademark Application Serial No. 88800272

 

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. 

 

 

/tfrazier/

Tamara Frazier

Trademark Attorney

Law Office 116

(571) 272-8256

tamara.frazier@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 22, 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.”

 

 

 


© 2020 USPTO.report | Privacy Policy | Resources | RSS Feed of Trademarks | Trademark Filings Twitter Feed