To: | Australian Gold LLC (cmeyer@uspatent.com) |
Subject: | U.S. Trademark Application Serial No. 88801318 - PINK CRUSH - 8183-1867 |
Sent: | April 01, 2020 09:00:42 AM |
Sent As: | ecom128@uspto.gov |
Attachments: | Attachment - 1 Attachment - 2 Attachment - 3 Attachment - 4 Attachment - 5 Attachment - 6 Attachment - 7 Attachment - 8 |
United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO)
Office Action (Official Letter) About Applicant’s Trademark Application
U.S. Application Serial No. 88801318
Mark: PINK CRUSH
|
|
Correspondence Address: WOODWARD, EMHARDT, MORIARTY, MCNETT AND 111 MONUMENT CIRCLE SUITE 3700
|
|
Applicant: Australian Gold LLC
|
|
Reference/Docket No. 8183-1867
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: April 01, 2020
The referenced application has been reviewed by the assigned trademark examining attorney. Applicant must respond timely and completely to the issue below. 15 U.S.C. §1062(b); 37 C.F.R. §§2.62(a), 2.65(a); TMEP §§711, 718.03.
REFUSAL - SECTION 2(d): LIKELIHOOD OF CONFUSION
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. 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 Marks
Applicant has applied to register the mark PINK CRUSH in standard characters.
Registrant has registered the mark PINK CRUSH in standard characters.
In the present case, applicant’s mark is “PINK CRUSH” and registrant’s mark is “PINK CRUSH.” These marks are identical in appearance, sound, and meaning, “and have the potential to be used . . . in exactly the same manner.” In re i.am.symbolic, llc, 116 USPQ2d 1406, 1411 (TTAB 2015), aff’d, 866 F.3d 1315, 123 USPQ2d 1744 (Fed. Cir. 2017). Additionally, because they are identical, these marks are likely to engender the same connotation and overall commercial impression when considered in connection with applicant’s and registrant’s respective goods. Id.
Therefore, the marks are confusingly similar.
Comparison of Goods
Applicant has applied for the mark PINK CRUSH for use in connection with the following:
Class 003: Indoor and Outdoor non-medicated skin tanning preparations
Registrant has registered the mark PINK CRUSH for use in connection with the following, in relevant part:
Class 025: Women's and girls' clothing, namely, . . . dresses
Accordingly, Applicant’s and Registrant’s goods are closely related such that they would be likely to give rise to the mistaken belief that the goods emanate from the same source.
Conclusion
Based on the foregoing, the parties possess highly similar marks in connection with closely related goods. Therefore, registration of the applied-for mark is refused pursuant to Section 2(d) of the Trademark Act because of a likelihood of confusion with the mark in U.S. Registration No. 4847883.
RESPONSE GUIDELINES
For this application to proceed, applicant must explicitly address each refusal in this Office action. For a refusal, applicant may provide written arguments and evidence against the refusal, and may have other response options if specified above. Please see “Responding to Office Actions” and the informational video “Response to Office Action” for more information and tips on responding.
ASSISTANCE
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.
Hansrajh, Keton
/Keton Hansrajh/
Trademark Examining Attorney
Law Office 128
(571) 272-3396
keton.hansrajh@uspto.gov
RESPONSE GUIDANCE