Offc Action Outgoing

United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO)

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

 

 

 

FINAL 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) and/or Electronic System for Trademark Trials and Appeals (ESTTA).  A link to the appropriate TEAS response form and/or to ESTTA for an appeal appears at the end of this Office action. 

 

 

Issue date:  November 05, 2020

 

 INTRODUCTION

 

This Office action is in response to applicant’s communication filed on October 22, 2020.

 

In a previous Office action dated May 11, 2020, the trademark examining attorney refused registration of the applied-for mark based on Trademark Act Section 2(d) for a likelihood of confusion with the registered mark in U.S. Reg. No. 5677001.  In addition, applicant was required to provide a definite identification and classification of goods and to comply with the multiple class application requirements.

 

Based on applicant’s response, the requirement to provide a definite identification and classification of goods, and the multiple class application requirements, have been satisfied.  See TMEP §§713.02, 714.04. 

 

The trademark examining attorney maintains and now makes FINAL the Section 2(d) refusal for a likelihood of confusion with the registered mark in U.S. Reg. No. 5677001.  See 37 C.F.R. §2.63(b); TMEP §714.04.

 

SECTION 2(d) REFUSAL – LIKELIHOOD OF CONFUSION

 

The refusal to register the applied-for mark because of a likelihood of confusion with the mark in U.S. Reg. No. 5677001 is now made final.  Trademark Act Section 2(d), 15 U.S.C. §1052(d); see TMEP §§1207.01 et seq.  A copy of the cited registration was attached to the previous Office action and is incorporated herein by reference.

 

a.       Claim of Ownership Unverified

 

In response to the refusal, applicant claimed ownership of the cited mark.  The statement of ownership was not verified with an affidavit or signed declaration under 37 C.F.R. §2.20.  Accordingly, the statement cannot be accepted, and the refusal is therefore maintained and made final.  TMEP §812.01.

 

If applicant submits a verified statement claiming ownership, or otherwise provides evidence of ownership of the mark as set forth in the previous Office action, the refusal will be reconsidered.

 

b.      Legal standards for Trademark Act Section 2(d)

 

Trademark Act Section 2(d) bars registration of an applied-for mark that so resembles a registered mark that it is likely a potential consumer would be confused, mistaken, or deceived as to the source of the goods and/or services of the applicant and registrant.  See 15 U.S.C. §1052(d).  A determination of likelihood of confusion under Section 2(d) is made on a case-by case basis and the factors set forth in In re E. I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., 476 F.2d 1357, 177 USPQ 563 (C.C.P.A. 1973) aid in this determination.  Citigroup Inc. v. Capital City Bank Grp., Inc., 637 F.3d 1344, 1349, 98 USPQ2d 1253, 1256 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (citing On-Line Careline, Inc. v. Am. Online, Inc., 229 F.3d 1080, 1085, 56 USPQ2d 1471, 1474 (Fed. Cir. 2000)).  Not all the du Pont factors, however, are necessarily relevant or of equal weight, and any one of the factors may control in a given case, depending upon the evidence of record.  Citigroup Inc. v. Capital City Bank Grp., Inc., 637 F.3d at 1355, 98 USPQ2d at 1260; In re Majestic Distilling Co., 315 F.3d 1311, 1315, 65 USPQ2d 1201, 1204 (Fed. Cir. 2003); see In re E. I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., 476 F.2d at 1361-62, 177 USPQ at 567.

 

In any likelihood of confusion analysis, two key considerations are: (1) the similarities between the marks, and (2) the similarities between the goods and/or services. In re Aquamar, Inc., 115 USPQ2d 1122, 1126 (TTAB 2015) (citing Federated Foods, Inc. v. Fort Howard Paper Co., 544 F.2d 1098, 1103, 192 USPQ 24, 29 (C.C.P.A. 1976)); In re Iolo Techs., LLC, 95 USPQ2d 1498, 1499 (TTAB 2010); see TMEP §1207.01.  That is, the marks are compared in their entireties for similarities in appearance, sound, connotation, and commercial impression.  In re Viterra Inc., 671 F.3d 1358, 1362, 101 USPQ2d 1905, 1908 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (quoting In re E. I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., 476 F.2d 1357, 1361, 177 USPQ 563, 567 (C.C.P.A. 1973)); TMEP §1207.01(b)-(b)(v).  Additionally, the goods and/or services are compared to determine whether they are similar or commercially related or travel in the same trade channels.  See Coach Servs., Inc. v. Triumph Learning LLC, 668 F.3d 1356, 1369-71, 101 USPQ2d 1713, 1722-23 (Fed. Cir. 2012); Herbko Int’l, Inc. v. Kappa Books, Inc., 308 F.3d 1156, 1165, 64 USPQ2d 1375, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2002); TMEP §1207.01, (a)(vi).

 

Applicant has applied to register, as amended:

 

• SHOPBEDDING (design plus words) for "Bedding, namely, sheets, pillow cases, pillow coverings, comforters, duvet covers quilts, blankets, throws, bed skirts, pillow shams, mattress covers, mattress pads; towels; Fabric window coverings and treatments, namely, curtains, door curtain panels, sheers, swags, and valances; home goods, namely, kitchen and bath linens." 

 

The registered mark is:

 

• SHOPBEDDING (design plus words) for online retail store services featuring a variety of bedding and home décor items including pillows, curtains, towels, sheers, swags, valances, and household linen.

 

c.       The significant similarities between the marks combined with the relatedness of the goods and services makes source confusion highly likely

 

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 applied for wording in the mark is SHOPBEDDING, and the wording in the registered mark is SHOPBEDDING.  The terms are identical in sound.  While the terms have a very slightly different commercial impression when used in conjunction with goods as opposed to services, when used in conjunction with highly related home goods and bedding goods and services, both “have the potential to be used . . . in exactly the same manner.”  In re i.am.symbolic, llc, 116 USPQ2d 1406, 1411 (TTAB 2015).

 

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).

 

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); TMEP §1207.01(a)(ii).

 

The applied-for goods are bedding and home goods, and the registered services are online retail store services which feature these same types of products.  As shown by applicant’s specimen and the previously attached evidence from applicant’s website, applicant provides its goods under the applied-for mark, as well as also providing services identical to those in the registration under the same mark.  Accordingly, the goods and online retail store services featuring those goods are highly related.

 

d.      Conclusion

 

In this case, the wording in applicant's and registrant’s marks are virtually identical in overall sound, appearance, and commercial impression. The use of confusingly similar marks in conjunction with highly related goods and services featuring those goods creates a substantial likelihood that the relevant consumers will be confused as to the source of the goods and services.  The overriding concern is not only to prevent buyer confusion as to the source of the goods, 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. In re Power Distrib., Inc., ___ USPQ2d ___, Ser. No. 77825939, 2012 TTAB LEXIS 402, at *12 (Sept. 29, 2012); TMEP §1207.01(d)(i); see In re Hyper Shoppes (Ohio), Inc., 837 F.2d 463, 464-65, 6 USPQ2d 1025, 1025 (Fed. Cir. 1988).  

 

Applicant’s unverified ownership statement has failed to obviate the refusal, and there exists no other basis upon which the refusal may be withdrawn.  Accordingly, the refusal is now made final.

 

RESPONSE GUIDELINES FOR FINAL OFFICE ACTIONS

 

How to respond.  Click to file a request for reconsideration of this final Office action that fully resolves all outstanding requirements and refusals and/or click to file a timely appeal to the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB) with the required filing fee(s).

 

 

/Christina M. Riepel/

Trademark Examining Attorney

Law Office 124

(571) 272-6358

christina.riepel@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 November 05, 2020 for

U.S. Trademark Application Serial No. 88805066

 

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. 

 

 

/Christina M. Riepel/

Trademark Examining Attorney

Law Office 124

(571) 272-6358

christina.riepel@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 November 05, 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.”