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 18, 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:

• Refusal to register – likelihood of confusion
• Prior-filed applications
• Amendment of identification of goods and services
• Multiple-class application requirements
• Disclaimer required

 

SECTION 2(d) REFUSAL – LIKELIHOOD OF CONFUSION

 

THIS PARTIAL REFUSAL APPLIES ONLY TO THE GOODS AND SERVICES SPECIFIED THEREIN

 

Registration of the applied-for mark is refused because of a likelihood of confusion with the marks in U.S. Registration Nos. 2182846, 3369139, 5399433 and 5399434.  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. 

 

Applicant has applied to register the mark THE HYPE HOUSE for use in connection with the following relevant goods and services:

 

Clothing and apparel, namely, shirts, blouses, T-shirts, pants, shorts, shortalls, creepers, sweatshirts, sweatpants, jogging suits, jackets, coats, skirts, dresses, jumpsuits, jumpers, tops, sweaters, vests, mittens, gloves, raincoats, underwear, night gowns, leg warmers, pajamas, robes, boxer shorts, undershirts, sports bras; lingerie, camisoles, neckties, swim wear, bathing suits, beach wear, beach cover ups; scarves, bandanas, headbands, hats, caps, suspenders, belts; tights, leotards, socks, leggings, booties and footwear; and

 

Live musical performances and events.

 

Registration No. 2182846 is for the mark HYPE (stylized) for use in connection with the following goods:

 

women's dress and casual and athletic shoes and boots and women's and children's slippers, men's, women's and children's  belts and sleepwear, namely, nightgowns, pajamas and bathrobes, foundation garmets, in the nature of panties, and slips

 

Registration No. 3369139 is for the mark HYPE for use in connection with the following goods:

 

Scarves, hats, jackets, coats; women's clothing, namely, shirts, blouses, sweaters, cardigans, dresses, skirts, pants; Sleepwear, namely, nightgowns, pajamas and bathrobes; foundation garments in the nature of panties and slips; children's slippers; women's dress, casual and athletic shoes, boots and slippers.

 

The ‘846 and ‘139 registrations are owned by the same registrant.

 

Registration No. 5399433 is for the mark HYPE HOUSE and Registration No. 5399434 is for the mark H HYPE HOUSE and design.  Both are registered for use in connection with, inter alia, “entertainment demonstrations and classes in the field of yoga, and music concerts and festivals.”  Both registrations are owned by the same registrant.

 

Similarity 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).

 

When comparing marks, “[t]he proper test is not a side-by-side comparison of the marks, but instead whether the marks are sufficiently similar in terms of their commercial impression such that [consumers] who encounter the marks would be likely to assume a connection between the parties.”  Cai v. Diamond Hong, Inc., 901 F.3d 1367, 1373, 127 USPQ2d 1797, 1801 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (quoting Coach Servs., Inc. v. Triumph Learning LLC, 668 F.3d 1356, 1368, 101 USPQ2d 1713, 1721 (Fed. Cir. 2012)); TMEP §1207.01(b).  The proper focus is on the recollection of the average purchaser, who retains a general rather than specific impression of trademarks.  In re Inn at St. John’s, LLC, 126 USPQ2d 1742, 1746 (TTAB 2018) (citing In re St. Helena Hosp., 774 F.3d 747, 750-51, 113 USPQ2d 1082, 1085 (Fed. Cir. 2014); Geigy Chem. Corp. v. Atlas Chem. Indus., Inc., 438 F.2d 1005, 1007, 169 USPQ 39, 40 (C.C.P.A. 1971)), aff’d per curiam, 777 F. App’x 516, 2019 BL 343921 (Fed. Cir. 2019); TMEP §1207.01(b).

 

With regard to the ‘433 and ‘434 registrations, applicant’s mark is THE HYPE HOUSE and registrant’s mark is HYPE HOUSE.  Aside from the addition of “THE”, the 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 and/or services.  Id.

 

With regard to the addition of “THE”, when comparing similar marks, the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board has found that inclusion of the term “the” at the beginning of one of the marks will generally not affect or otherwise diminish the overall similarity between the marks.  See In re Thor Tech Inc., 90 USPQ2d 1634, 1635 (TTAB 2009) (finding WAVE and THE WAVE “virtually identical” marks; “[t]he addition of the word ‘The’ at the beginning of the registered mark does not have any trademark significance.”); In re Narwood Prods. Inc., 223 USPQ 1034, 1034 (TTAB 1984) (finding THE MUSIC MAKERS and MUSIC-MAKERS “virtually identical” marks; the inclusion of the definite article “the” is “insignificant in determining likelihood of confusion”).

 

With regard to the ‘846 and ‘139 registrations, applicant’s mark is THE HYPE HOUSE and registrant’s mark is HYPE.  Applicant merely adds “HOUSE” to the registered mark.  Adding a term to a registered mark generally 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 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 and BENGAL LANCER and design confusingly similar); In re Toshiba Med. Sys. Corp., 91 USPQ2d 1266, 1269 (TTAB 2009) (finding TITAN and VANTAGE TITAN confusingly similar); In re El Torito Rests., Inc., 9 USPQ2d 2002, 2004 (TTAB 1988) (finding MACHO and MACHO COMBOS confusingly similar); TMEP §1207.01(b)(iii).  In the present case, the marks are identical in part.  Also, as stated supra, the inclusion of the term “the” at the beginning of the applied-for mark does not affect or otherwise diminish the overall similarity between the marks.

 

The marks in the ‘846 and ‘434 registrations are displayed in a stylized manner, while the applied-for mark appears 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”).

 

Based upon the foregoing, the marks of applicant and registrants are confusingly similar. 

 

Relatedness 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).

 

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)).  

 

With regard to the ‘433 and ‘434 registration, the application uses broad wording to describe “Live musical performances and events,” which presumably encompasses all services of the type described, including registrants’ more narrow “music concerts and festivals.”  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)).

 

Additionally, the services of the parties have no restrictions as to nature, type, channels of trade, or classes of purchasers and are “presumed to travel in the same channels of trade to the same class of purchasers.”  In re Viterra Inc., 671 F.3d 1358, 1362, 101 USPQ2d 1905, 1908 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (quoting Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Packard Press, Inc., 281 F.3d 1261, 1268, 62 USPQ2d 1001, 1005 (Fed. Cir. 2002)).  Thus, applicant’s and registrant’s services are related.

 

With regard to the ‘846 and ‘139 registrations, applicant’s listed clothing items encompass or are otherwise closely related to registrant’s listed women’s clothing items.  Thus, applicant’s and registrant’s services are legally identical.  Also, neither the application nor the registration(s) contains any limitations regarding trade channels for the goods and therefore it is assumed that registrant’s and applicant’s goods are sold everywhere that is normal for such items, i.e., clothing and department stores.  Thus, it can also be assumed that the same classes of purchasers shop for these items and that consumers are accustomed to seeing them sold under the same or similar marks.  See Kangol Ltd. v. KangaROOS U.S.A., Inc., 974 F.2d 161, 23 USPQ2d 1945 (Fed. Cir. 1992); In re Smith & Mehaffey, 31 USPQ2d 1531 (TTAB 1994); TMEP §1207.01(a)(iii).

 

Also, decisions regarding likelihood of confusion in the clothing field have found many different types of apparel to be related goods.  Cambridge Rubber Co. v. Cluett, Peabody & Co., 286 F.2d 623, 624, 128 USPQ 549, 550 (C.C.P.A. 1961) (women’s boots related to men’s and boys’ underwear); Jockey Int’l, Inc. v. Mallory & Church Corp., 25 USPQ2d 1233, 1236 (TTAB 1992) (underwear related to neckties); In re Melville Corp., 18 USPQ2d 1386, 1388 (TTAB 1991) (women’s pants, blouses, shorts and jackets related to women’s shoes); In re Pix of Am., Inc., 225 USPQ 691, 691-92 (TTAB 1985) (women’s shoes related to outer shirts); In re Mercedes Slacks, Ltd., 213 USPQ 397, 398-99 (TTAB 1982) (hosiery related to trousers); In re Cook United, Inc., 185 USPQ 444, 445 (TTAB 1975) (men’s suits, coats, and trousers related to ladies’ pantyhose and hosiery); Esquire Sportswear Mfg. Co. v. Genesco Inc., 141 USPQ 400, 404 (TTAB 1964) (brassieres and girdles related to slacks for men and young men).

 

Based upon the foregoing, the goods of applicant and those in the ‘846 and ‘139 registrations are closely related.

 

Because the marks of applicant and registrant are confusingly similar and the respective goods and services are closely related, a likelihood of confusion exists in the present case.  Registration therefore is refused under Section 2(d) of the Trademark Act.  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 refusal(s) by submitting evidence and arguments in support of registration.

 

PRIOR-FILED APPLICATIONS

 

The filing dates of pending U.S. Application Serial Nos. 88748806, 88751375, 88751379, 88755217 and 88772394 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.

 

If applicant responds to the refusal(s), applicant must also respond to the requirement(s) set forth below.

 

IDENTIFICATION OF GOODS AND SERVICES

 

Applicant must correct the punctuation in the identification to clarify the individual items in the list of goods and/or services.  See 37 C.F.R. §2.32(a)(6); TMEP §1402.01(a).  Proper punctuation in identifications is necessary to delineate explicitly each product or service within a list and to avoid ambiguity.  Commas, semicolons, and apostrophes are the only punctuation that should be used in an identification of goods and/or services.  TMEP §1402.01(a).  An applicant should not use colons, periods, exclamation points, and question marks in an identification.  Id.  In addition, applicants should not use symbols in the identification such as asterisks (*), at symbols (@), or carets.  Id.

 

In general, commas should be used in an identification (1) to separate a series of related items identified within a particular category of goods or services, (2) before and after “namely,” and (3) between each item in a list of goods or services following “namely” (e.g., personal care products, namely, body lotion, bar soap, shampoo).  Id.  Semicolons generally should be used to separate a series of distinct categories of goods or services within an international class (e.g., personal care products, namely, body lotion; deodorizers for pets; glass cleaners).  Id. 

 

The wording “liquid soap for hands, face, and body” in the identification of goods for International Class 3 must be clarified because it is too broad and could include goods in other international classes.  See 37 C.F.R. §2.32(a)(6); TMEP §§1402.01, 1402.03.  In particular, this wording could encompass non-medicated liquid soap for hands, face, and body in International Class 3 and medicated liquid soap for hands, face, and body in International Class 5.  Applicant must amend this wording to clarify the nature of the goods and reclassify them, if appropriate.  If applicant adds one or more international classes to the application it must comply with the multiple-class application requirements set forth below.

 

The identification for “computer game software, programs and discs” and “game software, video game software, programs, discs and cartridges; electronic game software and programs” in International Class 9 is indefinite and too broad and must be clarified to specify whether its format is downloadable, recorded, or online non-downloadable.  See 37 C.F.R. §2.32(a)(6); TMEP §§1402.03(d), 1402.11(a).  Downloadable and recorded goods are in International Class 9, whereas providing their temporary, online non-downloadable use is an entertainment service in International Class 41.  See TMEP §1402.03(d).   

 

The USPTO requires such specificity in order for a trademark examining attorney to examine the application properly and make appropriate decisions concerning possible conflicts between the applicant’s mark and other marks.  See In re N.A.D. Inc., 57 USPQ2d 1872, 1874 (TTAB 2000); TMEP §1402.03(d).

 

The identification for “Computer and wireless applications” in International Class 9 is indefinite and too broad and must be clarified to specify (1) the purpose or function of the software and its content or field of use, if content- or field- specific; and (2) whether its format is downloadable, recorded, or online non-downloadable.  See 37 C.F.R. §2.32(a)(6); TMEP §§1402.03(d), 1402.11(a).  Downloadable and recorded goods are in International Class 9, whereas providing their temporary, online non-downloadable use is a service in International Class 42.  See TMEP §1402.03(d).   

 

The USPTO requires such specificity in order for a trademark examining attorney to examine the application properly and make appropriate decisions concerning possible conflicts between the applicant’s mark and other marks.  See In re N.A.D. Inc., 57 USPQ2d 1872, 1874 (TTAB 2000); TMEP §1402.03(d).

 

The wording “a series of DVDs featuring motion pictures and television programs,” “optical discs featuring motion pictures and television programs” and “Downloadable motion pictures and a series of downloadable television programs” in the identification of goods for International Class 9 is indefinite and must be amended to indicate the subject matter of the motion pictures and television programs.

 

The wording “a series of books” in the identification of goods for International Class 16 is indefinite and must be amended to indicate the subject matter of the books.

 

The wording “carry cases” in the identification of goods for International Class 18 is indefinite and must be clarified.  See 37 C.F.R. §2.32(a)(6); TMEP §1402.01.  Applicant may substitute the following wording, if accurate:  “carrying cases.”

 

The wording “business card holder” in the identification of goods for International Class 18 must be clarified because it is too broad and could include goods in other international classes.  See 37 C.F.R. §2.32(a)(6); TMEP §§1402.01, 1402.03.  In particular, this wording could encompass Desktop business card holders in International Class 16 and business card holders in the nature of card cases in International Class 18.  Applicant must amend this wording to clarify the nature of the goods and reclassify them, if appropriate.

 

The wording “toys; games” in the identification of goods for International Class 28 is indefinite and must be clarified.  See 37 C.F.R. §2.32(a)(6); TMEP §1402.01.  Applicant must amend this wording to specify the common commercial name of the goods.

 

The wording “sporting goods” in the identification of goods for International Class 28 is indefinite and must be clarified.  See 37 C.F.R. §2.32(a)(6); TMEP §1402.01.  Applicant must amend this wording to specify the common commercial name of the goods.

 

The wording “A series of television programs, motion pictures and other entertainment programs” in the identification of services for International Class 41 is indefinite and overbroad and must be amended.  Motion picture films and downloadable television programs are classified in International Class 9.  Applicant must amend this wording to clarify the nature of the services and reclassify them, if appropriate. 

 

The wording “Entertainment services, namely, providing a series of radio programs in the fields of news, comedy, variety, drama, action/adventure, sports and musical on the radio or via a global computer network” is indefinite and requires clarification.  Applicant may amend this wording to “Entertainment services, namely, providing an ongoing series of radio programs in the fields of news, comedy, variety, drama, action/adventure, sports and musical on the radio or via a global computer network,” if accurate.

 

The wording “Production and distribution of motion pictures, television programs and other entertainment programs” is indefinite and requires clarification.  Applicant must amend this wording to clarify the nature of the “other entertainment programs,” e.g., multimedia entertainment content.

 

The wording “Live musical performances and events” is indefinite and requires clarification.  Applicant must amend this wording to clarify the nature of the services.  Suggested amended wording appears below.

 

The wording “Entertainment in the nature of an ongoing series of motion pictures” in the identification of services for International Class 41 must be clarified because it is too broad and could include 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 downloadable motion pictures and motion picture films in International Class 9.  Applicant must amend this wording to clarify the nature of the goods and reclassify them, if appropriate.  Suggested amended wording appears below.

 

Applicant may adopt the following identification, if accurate (suggested changes in bold):

 

International Class 3

 

Cosmetics, fragrances, makeup, hair shampoo; hair conditioner; hair mousse; hair cream rinse, skin cleansing cream; facial, hand, and body cream, hair lotion, body lotion, and skin lotion and skin moisturizer; scalp conditioner; bubble bath; bath oil; bath powder, nail polish; nail hardener; facial scrub; facial mask; talcum powder; perfume; cologne; aftershave lotion; shaving cream and shaving foam; deodorant soap and skin soap; non-medicated liquid soap for hands, face, and body; eye shadow, blush, facial concealer, foundation, rouge, face powder, mascara, lip liner, eyeliner; facial cosmetics, namely, cover sticks; make-up primer, eyebrow powder, eyebrow pencils, lip gloss, lip balm and lipstick

 

International Class 5

 

Medicated liquid soap for hands, face, and body

 

International Class 9

 

Eyeglasses; sunglasses; computer games, namely, recorded computer game cartridges, discs, tapes and programs; recorded computer game software, programs and discs; a series of DVDs featuring motion pictures and television programs about {indicate subject matter or field of pictures and programs}; optical discs featuring motion pictures and television programs about {indicate subject matter or field of pictures and programs}; {specify downloadable or recorded} game software; recorded video game software, programs, discs and cartridges; {specify downloadable or recorded} electronic game software and programs; Downloadable motion pictures and a series of downloadable television programs about {indicate subject matter or field of pictures and programs}; cell phone covers; {specify downloadable or recorded} computer and wireless applications for {indicate function of software, e.g., managing bank accounts, editing photos, making restaurant reservations, etc., and, if software is content- or field-specific, the content or field of use}; Ongoing series of motion picture films about {indicate subject matter}; Downloadable ongoing series of motion pictures about {indicate subject matter}

 

International Class 14

 

<no changes>

 

International Class 16

 

A series of books in the field of {indicate subject matter or field}; series of fiction books; Desktop business card holders

 

International Class 18

 

Purses, luggage, carrying cases, traveling bags, wallets, briefcases, valises, umbrellas, parasols, garment bags for traveling, trunks being luggage, gym bags, backpacks, tote bags; cosmetic or toiletry bags sold empty; document cases, duffel bags, handbags, luggage tags, clutches, reusable shopping bag, shoulder bags, business card holders in the nature of card cases; credit card holders

 

International Class 25

 

<no changes>

 

International Class 28

 

Toys, namely, {provide common commercial name of the goods, e.g., toy cars, water toys}; games, namely, {provide common commercial name of the goods, e.g., arcade racing game machines, checkers games}; dolls, plush toys, stuffed toys, and action figures and accessories therefor; games, namely, board games, arcade games and tabletop games; playthings, namely, beanbags in the form of playthings; video game consoles and machines; electronic games, namely, arcade-type electronic video games; sporting goods, namely, {provide common commercial name of the goods, e.g., tennis rackets, hockey sticks}; sports balls

 

International Class 41

 

Entertainment services, namely, the provision of continuing television programs and motion pictures featuring {indicate type e.g., news, comedy, commentary, etc.} delivered by {indicate form of broadcast medium, e.g., television, radio, satellite, the internet, etc.}; entertainment services, namely, providing an on-line board games and providing online non-downloadable game software; Entertainment in the nature of an ongoing series of television programs in the fields of news, comedy, variety, drama, action/adventure, sports and musical; Entertainment services, namely, providing an ongoing series of radio programs in the fields of news, comedy, variety, drama, action/adventure, sports and musical on the radio or via a global computer network; Entertainment media production services for a series of motion pictures, television programs and Internet programs; providing on-line computer games; Production and distribution of motion pictures, television programs and other entertainment programs in the nature of multimedia entertainment content; Entertainment services in the nature of presenting live musical performances; Entertainment events, namely, {specify nature of event, e.g., live music concerts}; Entertainment in the nature of provision of an ongoing series of motion pictures via a video-on-demand service

 

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).

 

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.

 

MULTIPLE-CLASS APPLICATION REQUIREMENTS

 

The application identifies goods and/or services in more than one international class; therefore, applicant must satisfy all the requirements below for each international class based on Trademark Act Section 1(b):

 

(1)        List the goods and/or services by their international class number in consecutive numerical order, starting with the lowest numbered class.

 

(2)        Submit a filing fee for each international class not covered by the fee(s) already paid (view the USPTO’s current fee schedule).  The application identifies goods and/or services that are classified in at least nine classes; however, applicant submitted fees sufficient for only eight classes.  Applicant must either submit the filing fees for the classes not covered by the submitted fees or restrict the application to the number of classes covered by the fees already paid.

 

See 37 C.F.R. §2.86(a); TMEP §§1403.01, 1403.02(c).

 

For an overview of the requirements for a Section 1(b) multiple-class application and how to satisfy the requirements online using the Trademark Electronic Application System (TEAS) form, see the Multiple-class Application webpage.

 

DISCLAIMER REQUIRED

 

Applicant must disclaim the wording “HOUSE” because it is merely descriptive of a quality or characteristic of applicant’s goods and/or services.  See 15 U.S.C. §1052(e)(1); DuoProSS Meditech Corp. v. Inviro Med. Devices, Ltd., 695 F.3d 1247, 1251, 103 USPQ2d 1753, 1755 (Fed. Cir. 2012); TMEP §§1213, 1213.03(a). 

 

Terms that describe the provider of a product or service may also be merely descriptive of the product and/or service.  See In re The Chamber of Commerce of the U.S., 675 F.3d 1297, 1301, 102 USPQ2d 1217, 1220 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (affirming Board’s finding that NATIONAL CHAMBER was merely descriptive of online service providing directory information for local and state chambers of commerce and business and regulatory data analysis services to promote the interest of businessmen and businesswomen); In re Major League Umpires, 60 USPQ2d 1059, 1060 (TTAB 2001) (holding MAJOR LEAGUE UMPIRE merely descriptive of clothing, face masks, chest protectors and shin guards); TMEP §1209.03(q).

 

The attached definition from the Lexico Dictionary defines “house” as “A business or institution.”  See the attached definition 2.1.  Thus, the wording merely describes applicant’s goods and/or services because it is descriptive of the fact that applicant is a business.

 

Applicant may respond to this issue by submitting a disclaimer in the following format: 

 

No claim is made to the exclusive right to use “HOUSE” apart from the mark as shown. 

 

For an overview of disclaimers and instructions on how to provide one using the Trademark Electronic Application System (TEAS), see the Disclaimer webpage. 

 

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.    

 

 

/William D Jackson/

Attorney Advisor - Trademarks

U.S. Patent and Trademark Office

Law Office 117

(571) 272-3064

William.Jackson@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 18, 2020 for

U.S. Trademark Application Serial No. 88811717

 

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. 

 

 

/William D Jackson/

Attorney Advisor - Trademarks

U.S. Patent and Trademark Office

Law Office 117

(571) 272-3064

William.Jackson@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 18, 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.”