To: | Aukey Technology Co.,Ltd (tm@bayramoglu-legal.com) |
Subject: | U.S. Trademark Application Serial No. 88916808 - FANTTIK - N/A |
Sent: | June 26, 2020 10:24:18 PM |
Sent As: | ecom103@uspto.gov |
Attachments: | Attachment - 1 Attachment - 2 Attachment - 3 Attachment - 4 Attachment - 5 Attachment - 6 Attachment - 7 Attachment - 8 Attachment - 9 Attachment - 10 Attachment - 11 Attachment - 12 Attachment - 13 Attachment - 14 Attachment - 15 Attachment - 16 Attachment - 17 Attachment - 18 Attachment - 19 Attachment - 20 Attachment - 21 Attachment - 22 Attachment - 23 Attachment - 24 Attachment - 25 Attachment - 26 Attachment - 27 Attachment - 28 Attachment - 29 Attachment - 30 Attachment - 31 Attachment - 32 |
United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO)
Office Action (Official Letter) About Applicant’s Trademark Application
U.S. Application Serial No. 88916808
Mark: FANTTIK
|
|
Correspondence Address: 1540 WEST WARM SPRINGS ROAD SUITE 100
|
|
Applicant: Aukey Technology Co.,Ltd
|
|
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 26, 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.
Section 2(d) Likelihood of Confusion Refusal
THIS PARTIAL REFUSAL APPLIES ONLY TO THE GOODS SPECIFIED THEREIN
I. 2(d) Standard of Review
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.
II. Application of the 2(d) Standard of Review
The cited registration is the mark FANTIC for “Cabinets for loudspeakers; Camcorders; Cameras; Cell phones; Digital photo frames; Earphones; Electric connections and connectors; Electrical plugs and sockets; Electronic sound devices containing pre-recorded sounds for placement in toy vehicles; Headphones; Loudspeakers; Portable media players; Self-timers; USB cables; Electric wires; Electronic book reader; Mobile phones; Rechargeable batteries”.
The applicant’s mark is FANTTIK for goods including “Accumulator boxes; Batteries, electric; Battery chargers; Electric accumulators; Power switches; Rechargeable batteries”.
A. Comparison of Sound, Appearance and Meaning
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).
Applicant’s mark FANTTIK is visually similar to registrant’s mark FANTIC as each mark begins with the same four letter combination “FANT”, and ends with the letter “I” followed by a consonant. The terms of each mark are of a similar length, as well, giving the marks an overall similar appearance.
Consumers would be likely to confuse the source of related goods offered under marks so visually and phonetically similar.
B. Comparison of Goods
Applicant’s goods “Rechargeable batteries” are identical to registrant’s goods “Rechargeable batteries”.
Applicant’s goods “Accumulator boxes; Batteries, electric; Battery chargers; Electric accumulators; Power switches” are related to registrant’s goods “Electric connections and connectors; Electrical plugs and sockets; Electric wires” because all of these goods are used to bring power to electronic and electrical devices.
Furthermore, as the goods of the applied for mark and the cited registration are related and possibly overlapping, they may travel within the same channels of trade; that is, through retailers of electrical power supplies and batteries.
Here, not only are the goods at issue identical and/or closely related, but the marks under which the goods are offered are also highly similar, such that consumers would be likely to mistakenly believe the source of the goods offered under the marks at issue was one in the same.
C. Summary of 2(d) review
The applied for mark is confusingly similar to the cited registered mark because the marks are visually similar and phonetically equivalent. Because the marks are confusingly similar and because the goods are related and/or travel within the same channels of trade, the applicant’s mark is refused as to the goods “Accumulator boxes; Batteries, electric; Battery chargers; Electric accumulators; Power switches; Rechargeable batteries” on grounds of likelihood of confusion.
RESPONSE TO PARTIAL REFUSAL
(1) Deleting the goods to which the refusal pertains; or
(2) Filing a Request to Divide Application form (form #3) to divide out the goods that have not been refused registration, so that the mark may proceed toward publication for opposition for those goods to which the refusal does not pertain. See 37 C.F.R. §2.87. See generally TMEP §§1110 et seq. (regarding the requirements for filing a request to divide). If applicant files a request to divide, then to avoid abandonment, applicant must also file a timely response to all outstanding issues in this Office action, including the refusal. 37 C.F.R. §2.87(e).
How to respond. Click to file a response to this nonfinal Office action.
/Kaelie E. Kung/
Examining Attorney
Law Office 103
571-272-8265
kaelie.kung@uspto.gov
RESPONSE GUIDANCE