To: | STEEL CITY VACUUM CO. (LELANDJN@HH-LAW.COM) |
Subject: | U.S. Trademark Application Serial No. 88874295 - EVERCLEAN - N/A |
Sent: | August 05, 2020 05:08:58 PM |
Sent As: | ecom104@uspto.gov |
Attachments: |
United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO)
Office Action (Official Letter) About Applicant’s Trademark Application
U.S. Application Serial No. 88874295
Mark: EVERCLEAN
|
|
Correspondence Address: |
|
Applicant: STEEL CITY VACUUM CO.
|
|
Reference/Docket No. N/A
Correspondence Email Address: |
|
SUSPENSION NOTICE
No Response Required
Issue date: August 05, 2020
The application is suspended for the reason(s) specified below. See 37 C.F.R. §2.67; TMEP §§716 et seq.
The pending application(s) below has an earlier filing date or effective filing date than applicant’s application. If the mark in the application(s) below registers, the USPTO may refuse registration of applicant’s mark under Section 2(d) because of a likelihood of confusion with the registered mark(s). 15 U.S.C. §1052(d); see 37 C.F.R. §2.83; TMEP §§1208.02(c). Action on this application is suspended until the prior-filed application(s) below either registers or abandons. 37 C.F.R. §2.83(c). Information relevant to the application(s) below was sent previously.
- U.S. Application Serial No(s). 87471863
Applicant was previously provided information regarding pending U.S. Application Serial No(s). 87471863, which may present a bar to registration of applicant’s mark based on a likelihood of confusion under Trademark Act Section 2(d). See 15 U.S.C. §1052(d); 37 C.F.R. §2.83; TMEP §§1208 et seq. In response, applicant argued that the mark in the pending application is not likely to cause confusion with applicant’s mark. Specifically, applicant argued that the wording KLEEN has a meaning separate from the wording CLEAN, and that the goods identified by prior pending mark EVER-KLEEN do not relate to International Class 10, and are not designed to protect or prevent disease but are rather used for workplace safety.
With respect to applicant’s arguments, a slang meaning of the term KLEEN is not sufficient to overcome the fact that the terms KLEEN and CLEAN in the marks are essentially phonetic equivalents and thus sound similar. Similarity in sound alone may be sufficient to support a finding that the marks are confusingly similar. In re White Swan Ltd., 8 USPQ2d 1534, 1535 (TTAB 1988); see In re 1st USA Realty Prof’ls, Inc., 84 USPQ2d 1581, 1586 (TTAB 2007); TMEP §1207.01(b)(iv).
In addition, the marks as a whole are visually similar and share the same first term EVER. Marks may be confusingly similar in appearance where similar terms or phrases or similar parts of terms or phrases appear in the compared marks and create a similar overall commercial impression. See Crocker Nat’l Bank v. Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce, 228 USPQ 689, 690-91 (TTAB 1986), aff’d sub nom. Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce v. Wells Fargo Bank, Nat’l Ass’n, 811 F.2d 1490, 1495, 1 USPQ2d 1813, 1817 (Fed. Cir. 1987) (finding COMMCASH and COMMUNICASH confusingly similar); In re Corning Glass Works, 229 USPQ 65, 66 (TTAB 1985) (finding CONFIRM and CONFIRMCELLS confusingly similar); In re Pellerin Milnor Corp., 221 USPQ 558, 560 (TTAB 1983) (finding MILTRON and MILLTRONICS confusingly similar); TMEP §1207.01(b)(ii)-(iii).
With respect to the goods, the fact that the Office classifies goods or services in different classes does not establish that the goods and services are unrelated under Trademark Act Section 2(d). See TMEP §1207.01(d)(v). The determination concerning the proper classification of goods or services is a purely administrative determination unrelated to the determination of likelihood of confusion. In re Detroit Athletic Co., 903 F.3d 1297, 1307, 128 USPQ2d 1047, 1051 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (citing Jean Patou, Inc. v. Theon, Inc., 9 F.3d 971, 975, 29 USPQ2d 1771, 1774 (Fed. Cir. 1993)).
The trademark examining attorney has found applicant’s arguments unpersuasive and still believes there may be a likelihood of confusion between applicant’s mark and the mark in the cited prior-pending application, should they register. Thus, this application is suspended.
Refusal(s) and/or requirement(s) resolved and maintained and continued. The following requirements are satisfied:
• An amended identification has been provided.
See TMEP §713.02.
Suspension process. The USPTO will periodically check this application to determine if it should remain suspended. See TMEP §716.04. As needed, the trademark examining attorney will issue a letter to applicant to inquire about the status of the reason for the suspension. TMEP §716.05.
No response required. Applicant may file a response, but is not required to do so.
Erdman, Rachel
/Rachel Erdman/
Examining Attorney
Law Office 104
(571) 272-4717
rachel.erdman@uspto.gov