To: | Parfitt Creative, LLC (liz@olinerlaw.com) |
Subject: | U.S. Trademark Application Serial No. 90040438 - BINK - N/A |
Sent: | July 15, 2021 11:15:51 AM |
Sent As: | ecom125@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 |
United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO)
Office Action (Official Letter) About Applicant’s Trademark Application
U.S. Application Serial No. 90040438
Mark: BINK
|
|
Correspondence Address:
|
|
Applicant: Parfitt Creative, LLC
|
|
Reference/Docket No. N/A
Correspondence Email Address: |
|
FINAL 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) and/or Electronic System for Trademark Trials and Appeals (ESTTA). A link to the appropriate TEAS response form and/or to ESTTA for an appeal appears at the end of this Office action.
Issue date: July 15, 2021
This Office action is in response to applicant’s communication filed on December 05, 2020.
In a previous Office action dated October 21, 2020, the trademark examining attorney refused registration of the applied-for mark based on the following: Trademark Act Section 2(d) for a likelihood of confusion with a registered mark. In addition, applicant was required to satisfy the following requirement: amend the identification of goods. Furthermore, applicant was advised of a potential likelihood of confusion with the mark in prior filed application serial no. 88656703. In the December 05, 2020, Response applicant requested suspension of the application pending final disposition of the earlier-filed referenced application and thus the examining attorney issued a suspension letter on December 15, 2020. On February 4, 2021, prior filed application serial no. 88656703 abandoned and thus no longer poses a bar to registration.
As such, based on applicant’s response, the trademark examining attorney maintains and now makes FINAL the refusal and requirement in the summary of issues below. See 37 C.F.R. §2.63(b); TMEP §714.04.
SUMMARY OF ISSUES MADE FINAL that applicant must address:
SECTION 2(d) REFUSAL – 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. 4337843. Trademark Act Section 2(d), 15 U.S.C. §1052(d); see TMEP §§1207.01 et seq. See the previously sent registration attached to the October 21, 2020, Office action.
The applied-for mark is BINK in International Class 021 for: “Mugs; Beverage glassware; Containers for household or kitchen use; Household utensils, namely, kitchen tongs; Household utensils, namely, kitchen utensils; Reusable plastic water bottles sold empty; Reusable metal water bottles sold empty.”
The registered mark is BINK in International Class 020 for: “furniture.”
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
In the present case, applicant’s mark is BINK in standard character format and registrant’s mark is also BINK in standard character format. These marks are identical in appearance, 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, 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.
The fact that the applied-for mark contains a design does not obviate the similarity between the two marks because, when evaluating a composite mark consisting of words and a design, the word portion is normally accorded greater weight because it is likely to make a greater impression upon purchasers, be remembered by them, and be used by them to refer to or request the goods and/or services. In re Aquitaine Wine USA, LLC, 126 USPQ2d 1181, 1184 (TTAB 2018) (citing In re Viterra Inc., 671 F.3d 1358, 1362, 101 USPQ2d 1905, 1908 (Fed. Cir. 2012)); TMEP §1207.01(c)(ii). Thus, although marks must be compared in their entireties, the word portion is often considered the dominant feature and is accorded greater weight in determining whether marks are confusingly similar, even where the word portion has been disclaimed. In re Viterra Inc., 671 F.3d at 1366-67, 101 USPQ2d at 1911 (citing Giant Food, Inc. v. Nation’s Foodservice, Inc., 710 F.2d 1565, 1570-71, 218 USPQ2d 390, 395 (Fed. Cir. 1983)).
Applicant has not provided any arguments or evidence regarding the identical nature of the marks.
Therefore, the examining attorney maintains that the marks are confusingly similar.
Comparison of Goods
Applicant’s goods are in International Class 021 for: “ Mugs; Beverage glassware; Containers for household or kitchen use; Household utensils, namely, kitchen tongs; Household utensils, namely, kitchen utensils; Reusable plastic water bottles sold empty; Reusable metal water bottles sold empty.”
Registrant’s goods are in International Class 020 for: “furniture.”
Applicant has not provided any arguments or evidence regarding the relatedness of the parties’ goods.
Therefore, the examining attorney maintains that the goods of the parties are related.
In sum, the applied-for and registered marks are identical and the goods of the parties are considered related. As such, the registration refusal under Section 2(d) for likelihood of confusion purposes is made final.
Applicant should note the following requirement being made final at this time.
IDENTIFICATION OF GOODS
The October 21, 2020, Office action set forth several amendments to the identification of goods in Class 021 in order to clarify their nature. Applicant’s December 5, 2020, Response did not address the identification amendments and, as such, this requirement is being made final at this time, as set forth in greater detail below.
The wording “HOUSEHOLD UTENSILS, NAMELY, KITCHEN UTENSILS” in the identification of goods is indefinite and must be clarified to identify the nature of the goods. See 37 C.F.R. §2.32(a)(6); TMEP §1402.01.
In addition, the wording “REUSABLE METAL WATER BOTTLES SOLD EMPTY” in the identification of goods is indefinite and must be clarified to identify the nature of the goods. See 37 C.F.R. §2.32(a)(6); TMEP §1402.01.
In sum, applicant may substitute the following wording, if accurate:
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.
How to respond. Click to file a request for reconsideration of this final Office action that fully resolves all outstanding requirements and refusals and/or click to file a timely appeal to the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB) with the required filing fee(s).
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 and requirement 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.
Lucy Ellen Browne
Examining Attorney
Law Office 125
571-270-0961
lucy.browne@uspto.gov
RESPONSE GUIDANCE