To: | Icon DE Holdings LLC (ldooley@iconixbrand.com) |
Subject: | U.S. Trademark Application Serial No. 88892204 - OCEAN PACIFIC - N/A |
Sent: | February 08, 2021 02:02:18 PM |
Sent As: | ecom128@uspto.gov |
Attachments: |
United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO)
Office Action (Official Letter) About Applicant’s Trademark Application
U.S. Application Serial No. 88892204
Mark: OCEAN PACIFIC
|
|
Correspondence Address: |
|
Applicant: Icon DE Holdings LLC
|
|
Reference/Docket No. N/A
Correspondence Email Address: |
|
SUSPENSION NOTICE
No Response Required
Issue date: February 08, 2021
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 Nos. 88669628 and 88669637
Refusal maintained and continued. The following refusal is maintained and continued:
Partial 2(d) Refusal – Likelihood of Confusion (Class 009)
The applicant has argued that there is no likelihood of confusion based on the shared wording “PACIFIC” and that the applicant’s mark should be able to coexist with the cited registration because of applicant’s prior registrations for “OCEAN PACIFIC” for use with other goods. The examining attorney is not persuaded by these arguments because the shared wording creates the same commercial impression in both marks, the cited registration has disclaimed the wording “PPE” and the applicant’s prior registrations are for different, non-related goods.
The compared marks share the wording “PACIFIC” which has the same commercial impression in each – the Pacific Ocean. 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).
However, in In re Strategic Partners, Inc., 102 USPQ2d 1397, 1399-1400 (TTAB 2012), the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board only reversed a Section 2(d) refusal based on an applicant’s prior registration for the following unique set of facts: (1) the marks in applicant’s prior registration and application were virtually identical (“no meaningful difference” existed between them, such that they were “substantially similar”); (2) the goods were identical in part; and (3) the prior registration had co-existed for at least five years with the cited registration (both being more than five years old and thus immune from attack on likelihood of confusion grounds). See TMEP §1207.01. The Board acknowledged these facts constituted a “unique situation,” such that an applicant’s prior registration would generally need to fit within these precise parameters to overcome a Section 2(d) refusal. In re Strategic Partners, Inc., 102 USPQ2d at 1400; see In re USA Warriors Ice Hockey Program, Inc., 122 USPQ2d 1790, 1793-94 (TTAB 2017); TMEP §1207.01.
In this case, by contrast, applicant’s prior registration does not correspond to the facts set forth in In re Strategic Partners, Inc. See TMEP §1207.01. Specifically, applicant’s prior registrations are not for the same goods and has not co-existed for at least five years with the cited registration. Thus applicant’s prior registration does not obviate the Section 2(d) refusal.
See id. These refusal will be made final once this application is removed from suspension, unless a new issue arises. See TMEP §716.01.
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.
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.
/Ojeyemi, Ashley/
Examining Attorney
Law Office 128
(571)270-3399
ashley.ojeyemi@uspto.gov