| To: | Jackson, Walter R (rai@thelandla.com) |
| Subject: | U.S. Trademark Application Serial No. 88947739 - THE LAND - N/A |
| Sent: | September 08, 2020 12:32:24 PM |
| Sent As: | ecom120@uspto.gov |
| Attachments: | Attachment - 1 Attachment - 2 Attachment - 3 Attachment - 4 Attachment - 5 |
United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO)
Office Action (Official Letter) About Applicant’s Trademark Application
|
U.S. Application Serial No. 88947739
Mark: THE LAND
|
|
|
Correspondence Address:
|
|
|
Applicant: Jackson, Walter R
|
|
|
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: September 08, 2020
Applicant has applied for the mark “THE LAND” in special form for use in connection with the following:
International Class 25 Clothing, namely, Belts; coats; footwear, namely, shoes; headgear, namely, hats, caps, beanies, scarves; hosiery; jackets; jerseys; pants; rainwear; scarves; shirts; shorts; socks; sweat pants; sweat suits; sweatshirts; swim suits; T-shirts; tank tops; wind resistant jackets
SUMMARY OF ISSUES THAT APPLICANT MUST ADDRESS
REFUSAL: SECTION 2(d) – LIKELIHOOD OF CONFUSION
Registration of the applied-for mark is refused because of a likelihood of confusion with the mark in U.S. Registration No. 4736702, “THE GOOD LAND”. Trademark Act Section 2(d), 15 U.S.C. §1052(d); see TMEP §§1207.01 et seq. See the attached registration.
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 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. 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.
In this case, a likelihood of confusion is present because there are similarities between the compared marks and relatedness of the compared goods.
SIMILARITY OF THE MARKS
The applicant’s and registrant’s respective marks, “THE LAND” and “THE GOOD LAND”, are similar in appearance, sound, connotation, and commercial impression.
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).
In this case, applicant’s mark deletes the word “GOOD” from registrant’s mark for “THE GOOD LAND”. Although applicant’s resulting mark for “THE LAND” does not contain the entirety of the registered mark, applicant’s mark is likely to appear to prospective purchasers as a shortened form of registrant’s mark. See In re Mighty Leaf Tea, 601 F.3d 1342, 1348, 94 USPQ2d 1257, 1260 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (quoting United States Shoe Corp., 229 USPQ 707, 709 (TTAB 1985)). Thus, merely omitting some of the wording from a registered mark may not overcome a likelihood of confusion. See In re Mighty Leaf Tea, 601 F.3d 1342, 94 USPQ2d 1257; In re Optica Int’l, 196 USPQ 775, 778 (TTAB 1977); TMEP §1207.01(b)(ii)-(iii). In this case, applicant’s mark does not create a distinct commercial impression from the registered mark because it contains some of the wording in the registered mark and does not add any wording that would distinguish it from that mark.
Because the marks are similar in appearance, sound, connotation, and commercial impression, the marks are confusingly similar.
RELATEDNESS OF THE GOODS
The applicant’s relevant goods are listed below:
International Class 25 Clothing, namely, Belts; coats; footwear, namely, shoes; headgear, namely, hats, caps, beanies, scarves; hosiery; jackets; jerseys; pants; rainwear; scarves; shirts; shorts; socks; sweat pants; sweat suits; sweatshirts; swim suits; T-shirts; tank tops; wind resistant jackets
The registrant’s relevant goods are listed below:
International Class 25 Clothing, namely, tops, bottoms, t-shirts, sweatshirts, hats, bandanas
The applicant’s and registrant’s goods are related and could give rise to the mistaken belief that they emanate from the same source.
In this case, applicant’s and registrant’s goods could give rise to the mistaken belief that they emanate from the same source because they are commonly provided by the same entity. For example, the attached Internet evidence, consisting of third-party clothing webpages, establishes that the same entity commonly manufactures, produces, or provides the relevant goods and markets the goods under the same mark, the relevant goods are sold or provided through the same trade channels and used by the same classes of consumers in the same fields of use, and the goods are similar or complementary in terms of purpose or function. See the attached internet evidence showing that the same entity commonly provides a wide variety of clothing and shoes:
Thus, applicant’s and registrant’s goods are considered related for likelihood of confusion purposes. See, e.g., In re Davey Prods. Pty Ltd., 92 USPQ2d 1198, 1202-04 (TTAB 2009); In re Toshiba Med. Sys. Corp., 91 USPQ2d 1266, 1268-69, 1271-72 (TTAB 2009).
Upon encountering “THE LAND” used on applicant’s goods and “THE GOOD LAND” used on registrant’s goods, consumers are likely to be confused and mistakenly believe that the respective goods emanate from a common source. Because the marks are similar and the goods are related, there is a likelihood of confusion as to the source of applicant’s goods. Therefore, applicant’s mark is not entitled to registration under Section 2(d) of Trademark Act.
Applicant should note the following additional ground for refusal.
REFUSAL: SPECIMEN
A webpage or catalog display specimen (1) must show use of the mark directly associated with the goods and (2) such use must be of a point-of-sale nature. 37 C.F.R. §2.56(b)(1). This means that this type of display specimen must include the following:
(1) A picture or sufficient textual description of the goods;
(2) The mark associated with the goods; and
(3) A means for ordering the goods such as a “shopping cart” button/link, an order form, or a telephone number for placing orders.
See In re Sones, 590 F.3d 1282, 1286-89, 93 USPQ2d 1118, 1122-24 (Fed. Cir. 2009); In re Azteca Sys., Inc., 102 USPQ2d 1955, 1957-58 (TTAB 2012); In re Dell Inc., 71 USPQ2d 1725, 1727 (TTAB 2004); Lands’ End v. Manbeck, 797 F. Supp. 511, 514, 24 USPQ2d 1314, 1316 (E.D. Va. 1992); TMEP §904.03(h), (i)-.03(i)(D).
In this case, the specimen does not show sufficient means for ordering the goods. Specifically, the specimen of record merely shows an enlarged image of a t-shirt bearing the applied-for mark on the front and a webpage URL for www.thelandla.com at the top. However, the specimen does not show a buy now button, shopping cart, or the like to purchase the goods nor does it provide the date that the webpage was accessed or printed.
Accordingly, such material is mere advertising, which is not acceptable as a specimen for goods. See In re Siny Corp., 920 F.3d 1331, 1336, 2019 USPQ2d 127099, at *2-3 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (citing Powermatics, Inc. v. Globe Roofing Prods. Co., 341 F.2d 127, 130, 144 USPQ 430, 432 (C.C.P.A. 1965)); see also Avakoff v. S. Pac. Co., 765 F.2d 1097, 1098, 226 USPQ 435, 436 (Fed. Cir. 1985); TMEP §904.04(b), (c).
Examples of specimens. Specimens for goods include a photograph of (1) the actual goods bearing the mark; (2) an actual container, packaging, tag or label for the goods bearing the mark; or (3) a point-of-sale display showing the mark directly associated with the goods. See 37 C.F.R. §2.56(b)(1), (c); TMEP §904.03(a)-(m). As specified above, a webpage specimen submitted as a display associated with the goods must show the mark in association with a picture or textual description of the goods and include information necessary for ordering the goods. TMEP §904.03(i); see 37 C.F.R. §2.56(b)(1), (c). Any webpage printout or screenshot submitted as a specimen must include the webpage’s URL and the date it was accessed or printed. 37 C.F.R. §2.56(c).
Response options. Applicant may respond to this refusal by satisfying one of the following for each applicable international class:
(1) Submit a different specimen (a verified “substitute” specimen) 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 identified in the application or amendment to allege use. A “verified substitute specimen” is a specimen that is accompanied by 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.” The substitute specimen cannot be accepted without this statement.
(2) 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.
Applicant should note the following additional ground for refusal.
REFUSAL: ORNAMENTAL
The size, location, dominance, and significance of the alleged mark as used on the goods are all relevant factors in determining the commercial impression of the applied-for mark. See, e.g., In re Peace Love World Live, LLC, 127 USPQ2d 1400, 1403 (TTAB 2018) (quoting In re Hulting, 107 USPQ2d 1175, 1178 (TTAB 2013)); In re Lululemon Athletica Can. Inc., 105 USPQ2d at 1687 (quoting In re Right-On Co., 87 USPQ2d 1152, 1156 (TTAB 2008)); TMEP §1202.03(a).
With respect to clothing, consumers may recognize small designs or discrete wording as trademarks, rather than as merely ornamental features, when located, for example, on the pocket or breast area of a shirt. See TMEP §1202.03(a). Consumers may not, however, perceive larger designs or slogans as trademarks when such matter is prominently displayed across the front of a t-shirt. See In re Pro-Line Corp., 28 USPQ2d at 1142; In re Dimitri’s Inc., 9 USPQ2d 1666, 1667-68 (TTAB 1988); TMEP §1202.03(a), (b), (f)(i), (f)(ii).
In this case, the submitted specimen shows the applied-for mark, “THE LAND”, located directly on the upper-center area of the front of the shirt, where ornamental elements often appear. See TMEP §1202.03(a), (b). Furthermore, the mark is displayed in a relatively large size on the clothing such that it dominates the overall appearance of the goods. Lastly, the applied-for mark appears to be a slogan that is used in a merely decorative manner that would be perceived by consumers as having little or no particular source-identifying significance.
Therefore, consumers would view the applied-for mark as a decorative or ornamental feature of the goods, rather than as a trademark to indicate the source of applicant’s goods and to distinguish them from others.
In appropriate circumstances, applicant may overcome this refusal by satisfying one of the following options:
(1) Submit a different specimen (a verified “substitute” specimen) that 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 that shows proper trademark use for the identified goods in International Class 25. Examples of acceptable specimens that show non-ornamental use on clothing include hang tags and labels used inside a garment.
(2) Amend to the Supplemental Register, which is a second trademark register for marks not yet eligible for registration on the Principal Register, but which may become capable over time of functioning as source indicators.
(3) Claim acquired distinctiveness under Trademark Act Section 2(f) by submitting evidence that the applied-for mark has become distinctive of applicant’s goods; that is, proof that applicant’s extensive use and promotion of the mark allowed consumers now directly to associate the mark with applicant as the source of the goods.
(4) Submit evidence that the applied-for mark is an indicator of secondary source; that is, proof that the mark is already recognized as a source indicator for other goods or services that applicant sells/offers.
(5) Amend the filing basis to intent to use under Section 1(b). This option will later necessitate additional fee(s) and filing requirements.
For an overview of the response options above and instructions on how to satisfy each option online using the Trademark Electronic Application System (TEAS) form, see the Ornamental Refusal webpage.
IDENTIFICATION OF GOODS
Applicant must clarify the below listed wording in the identification of goods because the respective identifications are indefinite and/or too broad. See 37 C.F.R. §2.32(a)(6); TMEP §§1402.01, 1402.03.
International Class 25:
The wording “headgear” is indefinite and must be clarified because the nature of the goods is not clear. For example, “headgear” is broad enough to encompass “baseball batting helmets” and “hard hats” in Class 9. See 37 C.F.R. §2.32(a)(6); TMEP §1402.01.
Suggested Amendment:
Applicant may substitute the following wording, if accurate (additions in bold):
International Class 25 Clothing, namely, Belts; coats; footwear, namely, shoes; headwear, namely, hats, caps, beanies, scarves; hosiery; jackets; jerseys; pants; rainwear; scarves; shirts; shorts; socks; sweat pants; sweat suits; sweatshirts; swim suits; T-shirts; tank tops; wind resistant jackets
For assistance with identifying and classifying goods in trademark applications, please see the USPTO’s online searchable U.S. Acceptable Identification of Goods and Services Manual. See TMEP §1402.04.
MARK DESCRIPTION
The following description is suggested, if accurate: The mark consists of the stylized wording “THE LAND”.
RESPONSE OPTIONS
For this application to proceed, applicant must explicitly address each refusal and/or requirement in this Office action. For a refusal, applicant may provide written arguments and evidence against the refusal, and may have other response options if specified above. For a requirement, applicant should set forth the changes or statements. Please see “Responding to Office Actions” and the informational video “Response to Office Action” for more information and tips on responding.
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.
Because of the legal technicalities and strict deadlines of the trademark application process, applicant is encouraged to hire a private attorney who specializes in trademark matters to assist in this process. The assigned trademark examining attorney can provide only limited assistance explaining the content of an Office action and the application process. USPTO staff cannot provide legal advice or statements about an applicant’s legal rights. TMEP §§705.02, 709.06. See Hiring a U.S.-licensed trademark attorney for more information.
How to respond. Click to file a response to this nonfinal Office action.
/Shari Gadson/
Trademark Examining Attorney
Law Office 120
United States Patent and Trademark Office
571-272-9319
shari.gadson@uspto.gov
RESPONSE GUIDANCE
