To: | Ranasinghe, Anura (asranasinghe@arcforever.com) |
Subject: | U.S. Trademark Application Serial No. 88956420 - ARC - N/A |
Sent: | September 18, 2020 12:30:32 PM |
Sent As: | ecom124@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 Attachment - 33 Attachment - 34 Attachment - 35 Attachment - 36 |
United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO)
Office Action (Official Letter) About Applicant’s Trademark Application
U.S. Application Serial No. 88956420
Mark: ARC
|
|
Correspondence Address:
|
|
Applicant: Ranasinghe, Anura
|
|
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 18, 2020
The referenced application has been reviewed by the assigned trademark examining attorney. Applicant must respond timely and completely to the issues below. 15 U.S.C. §1062(b); 37 C.F.R. §§2.62(a), 2.65(a); TMEP §§711, 718.03.
SECTION 2(d) REFUSAL – LIKELIHOOD OF CONFUSION
Applicant’s mark is ARC (in special character form) for “Hair care products, primarily hair brushes” in International Class 3.
Registrants’ marks are:
Registration Nos. 1-4 are owned by the same entity.
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.
Comparison of Marks:
Comparison as to Reg. Nos. 5464910; 6102683
In the present case, applicant’s mark is ARC and registrants’ marks are ARC. These marks are identical in sound and meaning, “and have the potential to be used . . . in exactly the same manner.” In re i.am.symbolic, llc, 116 USPQ2d 1406, 1411 (TTAB 2015), aff’d, 866 F.3d 1315, 123 USPQ2d 1744 (Fed. Cir. 2017). Additionally, because they are identical in sound and meaning, these marks are likely to engender the same connotation and overall commercial impression when considered in connection with applicant’s and registrant’s respective goods. Id.
Therefore, the marks are confusingly similar.
Comparison as to Reg. Nos. 3676136; 4071422; 4226697
Here, applicant’s and registrant’s marks are similar because they share the identical dominant first term, ARC. Applicant’s deletion of the 3, 4 or 5 from the marks fails to obviate the overall similarity of the marks because, although applicant’s mark 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.
Comparison as to Reg. No. 5667723
Applicant’s mark, ARC, is the phonetic equivalent to registrant’s mark, AARKE. 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).
Given the identical sound and meaning, the marks create a highly similar overall commercial impression which is sufficient for finding a likelihood of confusion.
Comparison as to Reg. No. 4674947
Here, applicant’s and registrant’s marks are similar because they share the identical term, ARC.
Here, applicant’s hair care products, primarily hair brushes, is broadly written so as to encompass all hair care products across numerous classes. As such, applicant’s goods encompass men’s electric shavers of hair, flat irons, curling irons and hair cutting scissors.
In this case, the application uses broad wording to describe hair care products, which presumably encompasses all goods of the type described, including registrants’ more narrow hair care tools. See, e.g., In re Solid State Design Inc., 125 USPQ2d 1409, 1412-15 (TTAB 2018); Sw. Mgmt., Inc. v. Ocinomled, Ltd., 115 USPQ2d 1007, 1025 (TTAB 2015). Thus, applicant’s and registrants’ goods are legally identical. See, e.g., In re i.am.symbolic, llc, 127 USPQ2d 1627, 1629 (TTAB 2018) (citing Tuxedo Monopoly, Inc. v. Gen. Mills Fun Grp., Inc., 648 F.2d 1335, 1336, 209 USPQ 986, 988 (C.C.P.A. 1981); Inter IKEA Sys. B.V. v. Akea, LLC, 110 USPQ2d 1734, 1745 (TTAB 2014); Baseball Am. Inc. v. Powerplay Sports Ltd., 71 USPQ2d 1844, 1847 n.9 (TTAB 2004)).
Additionally, the goods of the parties have no restrictions as to nature, type, channels of trade, or classes of purchasers and are “presumed to travel in the same channels of trade to the same class of purchasers.” In re Viterra Inc., 671 F.3d 1358, 1362, 101 USPQ2d 1905, 1908 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (quoting Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Packard Press, Inc., 281 F.3d 1261, 1268, 62 USPQ2d 1001, 1005 (Fed. Cir. 2002)). Thus, applicant’s and registrants’ goods are related.
Further, the attached Internet evidence, consisting of webpage screenshots from Chi, Conair, Frizz Defense, Olivia Garden, Revlon, Tyme, Cricket and Fromm, establishes that the same entity commonly provides hair brushes and hair cutting scissors OR hair trimmers OR flat irons OR curling irons, under the same mark. In addition, 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. Finally, the goods are similar or complementary in terms of purpose or function. 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).
The third-party Internet evidence shows that the applicant’s goods and the registrant’s goods are closely related and travel through similar trade channels to the same class of consumers.
Thus, upon encountering registrants’ mark used for the aforementioned goods and applicant’s mark used for the aforementioned goods, consumers are likely to be confused and mistakenly believe that the respective goods emanate from a common source.
Given the foregoing, registration is refused under Section 2(d) of the Trademark Act.
Although applicant’s mark has been refused registration, applicant may respond to the refusal by submitting evidence and arguments in support of registration. If applicant responds to the refusal, applicant must also respond to the requirements set forth below.
IDENTIFICATION OF GOODS
The wording “Hair care products, primarily hair brushes” is unacceptable as indefinite and overly broad.. The wording “primarily” in the identification of goods is indefinite and must be deleted and replaced with a definite term, such as “namely,” “consisting of,” “particularly,” or “in particular.” See 37 C.F.R. §2.32(a)(6); TMEP §§1402.01, 1402.03(a). The identification must be specific and all-inclusive. This wording is an open-ended term (e.g., “including,” “such as”) that is not acceptable because it fails to identify specific goods. See TMEP §1402.03(a).
Please note, the wording is overly broad because hair care products may be in more than one class, depending on the nature of the goods. For example, cosmetics for hair are generally in class 3, however, electric hair trimmers and hair scissors are in Class 8, hair brushes are in Class 21 and hair dryers re in Class 11. As such, applicant must specify the nature of the goods and classify the goods accordingly.
Applicant may adopt any or all of the following suggested amendment to the identification of goods:
- International Class 3: hair care products, namely, {indicate nature, i.e. hair shampoo, hair gel, hair tonics}
- International Class 8: hair care products, namely, electric hair trimmers, hair cutting scissors, flat irons, curling irons
- International Class 11: hair care products, namely, hair dryers
- International Class 21: hair brushes
- International Class 26: hair care products, namely, electric hair-curlers, other than hand implements, rubber bands for hair
For assistance with identifying and classifying goods and services in trademark applications, please see the USPTO’s online searchable U.S. Acceptable Identification of Goods and Services Manual. See TMEP §1402.04.
ADVISORY - MULTIPLE-CLASS APPLICATION REQUIREMENTS
(1) List the goods and/or services by their international class number in consecutive numerical order, starting with the lowest numbered class.
(2) Submit a filing fee for each international class not covered by the fee already paid (view the USPTO’s current fee schedule). The application identifies goods that are classified in at least 5 classes; however, applicant submitted a fee sufficient for only 1 class. Applicant must either submit the filing fees for the classes not covered by the submitted fees or restrict the application to the number of classes covered by the fees already paid.
See 37 C.F.R. §2.86(a); TMEP §§1403.01, 1403.02(c).
For an overview of the requirements for a Section 1(b) multiple-class application and how to satisfy the requirements online using the Trademark Electronic Application System (TEAS) form, see the Multiple-class Application webpage.
RESPONSE GUIDELINES
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.
How to respond. Click to file a response to this nonfinal Office action.
/Tara L. Bhupathi/
Examining Attorney
Law Office 124
(571) 272-5557
tara.bhupathi@uspto.gov
RESPONSE GUIDANCE