| To: | Menlo One Inc (matt@menlo.one) |
| Subject: | U.S. Trademark Application Serial No. 88859454 - ONE - N/A |
| Sent: | June 24, 2020 02:34:24 PM |
| Sent As: | ecom123@uspto.gov |
| Attachments: | Attachment - 1 Attachment - 2 Attachment - 3 Attachment - 4 Attachment - 5 Attachment - 6 Attachment - 7 Attachment - 8 Attachment - 9 |
United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO)
Office Action (Official Letter) About Applicant’s Trademark Application
|
U.S. Application Serial No. 88859454
Mark: ONE
|
|
|
Correspondence Address:
|
|
|
Applicant: Menlo One Inc
|
|
|
Reference/Docket No. N/A
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: June 24, 2020
ADVISORY – PRIOR-FILED APPLICATION
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 mark in the referenced application. 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.
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. 5614137 and 5273235. 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).
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; TMEP §1207.01.
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); 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); TMEP §1207.01(b).
In this case, the following marks must be compared:
Application: ONE, in standard characters
Reg. 5614137: O ONECOIN JOIN THE FINANCIAL REVOLUTION, featured in a design
Reg. 5273235: C ONE COIN, featured in a design
Although marks are compared in their entireties, one feature of a mark may be more significant or dominant in creating a commercial impression. See In re Detroit Athletic Co., 903 F.3d 1297, 1305, 128 USPQ2d 1047, 1050 (Fed. Cir. 2018); TMEP §1207.01(b)(viii), (c)(ii). For example, disclaimed matter that is descriptive of or generic for a party’s services is typically less significant or less dominant when comparing marks. In re Detroit Athletic Co., 903 F.3d 1297, 1305, 128 USPQ2d 1047, 1050 (Fed. Cir. 2018); TMEP §1207.01(b)(viii), (c)(ii). For marks containing both words and design elements, the word portion is normally accorded greater weight because it is likely to make a greater impression upon purchasers, be remembered by them, and be used by them to refer to or request the goods and/or services. In re Aquitaine Wine USA, LLC, 126 USPQ2d 1181, 1184 (TTAB 2018); TMEP §1207.01(c)(ii). Additionally, consumers are generally more inclined to focus on the first word, prefix, or syllable in any trademark or service mark. See Palm Bay Imps., Inc. v. Veuve Clicquot Ponsardin Maison Fondee En 1772, 396 F.3d 1369, 1372, 73 USPQ2d 1689, 1692 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (finding similarity between VEUVE ROYALE and two VEUVE CLICQUOT marks in part because “VEUVE . . . remains a ‘prominent feature’ as the first word in the mark and the first word to appear on the label”); Century 21 Real Estate Corp. v. Century Life of Am., 970 F.2d 874, 876, 23 USPQ2d 1698, 1700 (Fed Cir. 1992) (finding similarity between CENTURY 21 and CENTURY LIFE OF AMERICA in part because “consumers must first notice th[e] identical lead word”); see also In re Detroit Athletic Co., 903 F.3d 1297, 1303, 128 USPQ2d 1047, 1049 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (finding “the identity of the marks’ two initial words is particularly significant because consumers typically notice those words first”).
Greater weight is often given to dominant features when determining whether marks are confusingly similar. See In re Detroit Athletic Co., 903 F.3d at 1305, 128 USPQ2d at 1050. This is because “[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); TMEP §1207.01(b). The analysis is based 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); TMEP §1207.01(b).
In this case, the wording ONE dominates in creating the commercial impression of the registered marks because it is the first word appearing in the marks. This matter also comprises the applied-for mark in its entirety. Therefore, the marks create a confusingly similar commercial impression.
Similarity of the Services
The services must be compared to determine whether they are similar, 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); TMEP §§1207.01, 1207.01(a)(vi). Determining likelihood of confusion is based on the description of the 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). 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); 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., 668 F.3d at 1369, 101 USPQ2d at 1722; TMEP §1207.01(a)(i).
In this case, the relatedness of the following relevant services must be considered:
Application: Financial services, namely, providing a virtual currency for use by members of an on-line community via a global computer network
Reg. 5614137: Stocks and bonds brokerage; stock exchange quotations; currency trading; on-line real-time currency trading; financial services for providing virtual currency for use by members of an online community via a global computer network; financing services; financial consulting; clearing-houses, financial; electronic funds transfer; online banking; banking; conducting of financial affairs on-line, namely, providing financial information, management and analysis services; issuance of credit and debit cards; processing of debit card payments; processing of payments in relation to credit cards; financial management; fund investments; organization of debt collections; financial sponsorship of car races, sporting events, music events, entertainment events, sports teams; financial analysis; financial research in the field of risk management; actuarial services; financial evaluation of commodities, securities, and financial instruments in the insurance, banking, and real estate fields; financial information; providing financial information via a web site
Reg. 5273235: Financial and monetary services, namely, financial management of reimbursement payments for others; currency trading and exchange services; financial information services relating to currencies; computerized financial services relating to foreign currency dealings, namely, providing for the exchange of foreign currency, commodities, financial derivatives, interest rate products, and equities via the internet and intranet systems; financial services, namely, providing a virtual currency for use by members of an on-line community via a global computer network; virtual currency exchange transaction services for transferable electronic cash equivalent units having a specified cash value
The services in the application and registrations are related because each includes “financial services for providing virtual currency for use by members of an online community via a global computer network.” Therefore, the services are related.
Conclusion
The overriding concern is not only to prevent buyer confusion as to the source of the services, but also 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).
Where the services of an applicant and registrant are identical, as here, the degree of similarity between the marks required to support a finding that confusion is likely declines. See Cai v. Diamond Hong, Inc., 901 F.3d 1367, 1373, 127 USPQ2d 1797, 1801 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (quoting In re Viterra Inc., 671 F.3d 1358, 1363, 101 USPQ2d 1905, 1908 (Fed. Cir. 2012)); TMEP §1207.01(b). Considering the marks in light of the identical services, and resolving any doubt in favor of registrant, there is a likelihood that consumers will be confused as to the source or sponsorship of the services offered under the respective marks. Therefore, registration is refused under Trademark Act Section 2(d) due to a likelihood of confusion with the marks in U.S. Trademark Registration Nos. 5614137 and 5273235.
Although applicant’s mark has been refused registration, applicant may respond to the refusal(s) by submitting evidence and arguments in support of registration. However, applicant should note the following additional ground for refusal.
SECTIONS 1 AND 45 REFUSAL – SPECIMEN DOES NOT SHOW USE
Registration is refused because the specimen is not acceptable as a webpage specimen; it lacks the required date printed/accessed. See 37 C.F.R. §2.56(c); Mandatory Electronic Filing & Specimen Requirements, Examination Guide 1-20, at V.B. (Rev. Feb. 2020).
An application based on Trademark Act Section 1(a) must include a specimen showing the applied-for mark as actually used in commerce for each international class of goods and services identified in the application or amendment to allege use. 15 U.S.C. §1051(a)(1); 37 C.F.R. §§2.34(a)(1)(iv), 2.56(a); TMEP §§904, 904.07(a). A webpage submitted as a specimen must include both the URL and the access or print date to show actual use in commerce. 37 C.F.R. §2.56(c). Because the webpage specimen lacks the associated URL and/or access or print date on it, within the TEAS form used to submit the specimen, or in a verified statement in a later-filed response, it is unacceptable to show use of the mark in commerce.
Response options. Applicant may respond to this refusal by satisfying one of the following for each applicable international class:
(1) Submit a verified statement, in a signed affidavit or supported by a declaration under 37 C.F.R. §2.20 or 28 U.S.C. §1746, specifying the URL of the original webpage specimen and the date it was accessed or printed.
(2) Submit a different specimen (a verified “substitute” specimen), including the URL and date accessed/printed on it, that (a) was in actual use in commerce at least as early as the filing date of the application or prior to the filing of an amendment to allege use and (b) shows the mark in actual use in commerce for the goods and/or services identified in the application or amendment to allege use. Applicant must also submit the following statement made in a signed affidavit or supported by a declaration under 37 C.F.R. §2.20: “The substitute (or new, or originally submitted, if appropriate) specimen(s) was/were in use in commerce at least as early as the filing date of the application or prior to the filing of the amendment to allege use.”
Examples of specimens. Specimens for services must show a direct association between the mark and the services and include: (1) copies of advertising and marketing material, (2) a photograph of business signage or billboards, or (3) materials showing the mark in the sale, rendering, or advertising of the services. See 37 C.F.R. §2.56(b)(2), (c); TMEP §1301.04(a), (h)(iv)(C).
(3) Amend the filing basis to intent to use under Section 1(b) (which includes withdrawing an amendment to allege use, if one was filed), as no specimen is required before publication. This option will later necessitate additional fee(s) and filing requirements, including a specimen.
For an overview of the response options referenced above and instructions on how to satisfy these options using the online Trademark Electronic Application System (TEAS) form, see the Specimen webpage.
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.
How to respond. Click to file a response to this nonfinal Office action.
If needed, find contact information for the supervisor of the office or unit listed in the signature block.
· /John LaMont/
· Examining Attorney
· Law Office 123
· (571) 270-0404
· john.lamont@uspto.gov
