United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO)
Office Action (Official Letter) About Applicant’s Trademark Application
|
U.S. Application Serial No. 90041417
Mark: POWERLINE
|
|
|
Correspondence Address: |
|
|
Applicant: ORION ROPEWORKS, LLC
|
|
|
Reference/Docket No. G2480-01401
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: October 27, 2020
· Section 2(d) Refusal – Likelihood of Confusion
SECTION 2(d) REFUSAL – LIKELIHOOD OF CONFUSION
General Principles
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.
Applicant’s and Registrants’ Marks and Goods
Applicant has applied for the mark “POWERLINE” in connection with “rope; webbing; tow ropes” in International Class 22.
U.S. Reg No. 2466847
Mark: POWERLINE
Goods:
“Wire ropes and nonelectric steel cables; wire ropes and nonelectric steel cables covered with or having synthetic materials therein; nonelectric metal strands; nonelectric metal strands covered with or having synthetic materials therein; metal chain slings; assemblies of wire ropes, nonelectric metal strands and synthetic materials with slings and fittings attached thereto, sold as a unit; and metal slings and metal fittings for use with wire ropes, steel cables and metal strands of all kinds; all for electrical utilities applications” in International Class 6.
U.S. Reg No. 2755525
Mark: POWERLINE 4
Goods:
“Equine products for calf and steer roping for use by the working and rodeo cowboy, namely, lariats” in International Class 22.
As Pertaining to U.S. Reg. No. 2466847 (POWERLINE in standard characters)
Comparison of the Marks POWERLINE and POWERLINE
In the present case, applicant’s mark is POWERLINE and registrant’s mark is POWERLINE. 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.
Therefore, the marks are confusingly similar.
Relatedness of the Compared Goods and/or Services
Applicant’s goods are identified as follows: “rope; webbing; tow ropes” in International Class 22.
Registrant’s goods are identified as follows: “Wire ropes and nonelectric steel cables; wire ropes and nonelectric steel cables covered with or having synthetic materials therein; nonelectric metal strands; nonelectric metal strands covered with or having synthetic materials therein; metal chain slings; assemblies of wire ropes, nonelectric metal strands and synthetic materials with slings and fittings attached thereto, sold as a unit; and metal slings and metal fittings for use with wire ropes, steel cables and metal strands of all kinds; all for electrical utilities applications” in International Class 6.
In this case, the application use(s) broad wording to describe “rope”, which presumably encompasses all goods of the type described, including registrant’s more narrow “wire rope”. 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 registrant’s “rope” 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 registrant’s goods are related.
Thus, a likelihood of confusion exists because the marks create a confusingly similar commercial impression and the goods at issue are closely related.
As Pertaining to U.S. Reg. No. 2755525 (POWERLINE 4 in standard characters)
Comparison of the Marks POWERLINE and POWERLINE 4
In a likelihood of confusion determination, the marks in their entireties are compared for similarities in appearance, sound, connotation, and commercial impression. In re i.am.symbolic, llc, 866 F.3d 1315, 1323, 123 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2017); 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)); In re E. I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., 476 F.2d 1357, 1361, 177 USPQ 563, 567 (C.C.P.A. 1973); TMEP §1207.01(b)-(b)(v).
In the present case, applicant’s mark is “POWERLINE” and registrant’s mark is “POWERLINE 4”. The words comprising these marks, namely, “POWERLINE”, are highly similar in appearance and sound. 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).
Indeed, the only difference in the appearance of the marks is the number “4” included in registrant’s mark. Adding a term to a registered mark generally does not obviate the similarity between the compared marks, as in the present case, nor does it overcome a likelihood of confusion under Section 2(d). See Coca-Cola Bottling Co. v. Jos. E. Seagram & Sons, Inc., 526 F.2d 556, 557, 188 USPQ 105, 106 (C.C.P.A. 1975) (finding BENGAL and BENGAL LANCER and design confusingly similar); In re Toshiba Med. Sys. Corp., 91 USPQ2d 1266, 1269 (TTAB 2009) (finding TITAN and VANTAGE TITAN confusingly similar); In re El Torito Rests., Inc., 9 USPQ2d 2002, 2004 (TTAB 1988) (finding MACHO and MACHO COMBOS confusingly similar); TMEP §1207.01(b)(iii). In the present case, the marks are identical in part.
Further, the word “POWERLINE” in both marks creates the connotation and commercial impression of a strong rope. See attached definitions from Merriam Webster’s online dictionary indicating the word “power” means “of, relating to, or utilizing strength” and “line” means “a length of cord” or “rope”. Thus, the applied-for mark and the registered mark have the same connotation.
Therefore, the marks are confusingly similar.
Relatedness of the Compared Goods and/or Services
The goods are compared to determine whether they are similar, commercially related, or travel in the same trade channels. See Coach Servs., Inc. v. Triumph Learning LLC, 668 F.3d 1356, 1369-71, 101 USPQ2d 1713, 1722-23 (Fed. Cir. 2012); Herbko Int’l, Inc. v. Kappa Books, Inc., 308 F.3d 1156, 1165, 64 USPQ2d 1375, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2002); TMEP §§1207.01, 1207.01(a)(vi).
Applicant’s goods are identified as follows: “rope; webbing; tow ropes” in International Class 22.
Registrant’s goods are identified as follows: “Equine products for calf and steer roping for use by the working and rodeo cowboy, namely, lariats” in International Class 22.
In this case, the application use(s) broad wording to describe ropes, which presumably encompasses all goods of the type described, including registrant’s more narrow “equine products for calf and steer roping for use by the working and rodeo cowboy, namely, lariats”. 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 registrant’s 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 registrant’s goods are related.
The attached Internet evidence, consisting of online rope retail stores, establishes that 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. See attached evidence from Knot & Rope Supply, Teufelberger, and Smith and Edwards Co., indicating that “rope; webbing; and tow ropes” similar to applicant’s goods, are of a kind that is commonly sold in the same trade channel with rope namely “lariats”, similar to registrant’s goods. Thus, applicant’s and registrant’s goods and/or services 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).
Thus, a likelihood of confusion exists because the marks create a confusingly similar commercial impression and the goods at issue are closely related.
Other Considerations
Generally, the greater degree of similarity between the applied-for mark and the registered mark, the lesser the degree of similarity between the goods of the parties is required to support a finding of likelihood of confusion. In re C.H. Hanson Co., 116 USPQ2d 1351, 1353 (TTAB 2015) (citing In re Opus One Inc., 60 USPQ2d 1812, 1815 (TTAB 2001)); In re Thor Tech, Inc., 90 USPQ2d 1634, 1636 (TTAB 2009). In this case, the registered marks are either identical or nearly identical to the applied-for mark
Applicant should note the following additional ground for refusal.
SPECIMEN REFUSAL
Unattached tag or label does not include information about the goods. Registration is refused because the image of a tag or label submitted as a specimen in International Class 22 does not show the tag or label (1) attached to the goods or (2) including informational matter that typically appears on an actual tag or label for these types of goods as they are sold or transported in commerce and thus fails to show the applied-for mark as actually used in commerce. Trademark Act Sections 1 and 45, 15 U.S.C. §§1051, 1127; 37 C.F.R. §§2.34(a)(1)(iv), 2.56(a), (b)(1); Mandatory Electronic Filing & Specimen Requirements, Examination Guide 1-20, at V.A. (Rev. Feb. 2020); TMEP §§904.04(a), 904.07(a). An application based on Trademark Act Section 1(a) must include a specimen showing the applied-for mark as actually used in commerce for each international class of goods identified in the application or amendment to allege use. 15 U.S.C. §1051(a)(1); 37 C.F.R. §§2.34(a)(1)(iv), 2.56(a); TMEP §§904, 904.07(a).
Electronic specimens may be an image, such as a photograph or scanned copy, of the physical specimen. An image of a real tag or label attached to the goods generally meets the requirement for a specimen showing the applied-for mark as actually used in commerce. 37 C.F.R. §2.56(a), (b)(1); TMEP §904.03(a). If not shown physically attached to the goods, an image of a tag or label may be accepted if, in addition to showing the mark, the tag or label bears indicia that it is an actual tag or label that is affixed to the goods as they are sold or transported in commerce. For example, the label “include[s] informational matter that typically appears on a label in use in commerce for those types of goods such as net weight, volume, UPC bar codes, lists of contents or ingredients, or other information that is not part of the mark but provides information about the goods.” Examination Guide 1-20, at V.A.
In this case, the specimen is a label that is not attached to the goods identified in the application. While the label bears the mark POWERLINE, it does not include sufficient specification to indicate “rope; webbing; tow ropes” are being sold in commerce. The specimen description is not able to clarify the connection to the goods, as it appears to mistakenly indicate that the label is attached to applicant’s goods. See attached specimen description in the application. Further, the application does not clarify the type of goods that might be used with the specimen label, e.g. the label contains the type of information that typically appears on a tag or label in use in commerce for webbing. Therefore, the specimen is not acceptable to show the applied-for mark as actually used in commerce with the identified goods.
Examples of specimens for goods include a photograph of (1) the actual goods bearing the mark; (2) labels or tags shown attached to the goods or including informational matter that typically appears on a tag or label in use in commerce for these types of goods; (3) an actual container or packaging for the goods bearing the mark; or (4) 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). 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 the specimen 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.
IDENTIFICATION AND CLASSIFICATION OF GOODS
THIS PARTIAL REQUIREMENT APPLIES ONLY TO THE GOODS SPECIFIED THEREIN
Introduction
The Trademark Act requires that a trademark or service mark application must include a “specification of … the goods [or services]” in connection with which the mark is being used or will be used. 15 U.S.C. §1051(a)(2) (emphasis added), (b)(2) (emphasis added); see 15 U.S.C. §1053. Specifically, a complete application must include a “list of the particular goods or services on or in connection with which the applicant uses or intends to use the mark.” 37 C.F.R. §2.32(a)(6) (emphasis added). This requirement for a specification of the particular goods and/or services applies to applications filed under all statutory bases. See 15 U.S.C. §§1051(a)(2), 1051(b)(2), 1053, 1126(d)-(e), 1141f; 37 C.F.R. §2.32(a)(6); TMEP §§1402.01, 1402.01(b)-(c).
Specific Deficiencies and Suggestions
International Class 022 (goods)
The wording “webbing” in the identification of goods in International Class 22 is indefinite and too broad. This wording must be clarified because it is not clear what the goods are and could identify goods in more than one international class. See 37 C.F.R. §2.32(a)(6); TMEP §§1402.01, 1402.03, 1904.02(c), (c)(ii). For example, “synthetic webbing” are in International Class 22 and “Webbing in the nature of woven fabric tape for sewing purposes” are in International Class 26.
Applicant may substitute the following wording for this class, if accurate:
“Synthetic webbing” in International Class 22.
Applicant may also consider adding an additional class, which will require an additional fee, to include the following identification, if accurate:
“Webbing in the nature of woven fabric tape for sewing purposes” in International Class 26.
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.
(1) List the goods and/or services by their international class number in consecutive numerical order, starting with the lowest numbered class (for example, International Class 3: perfume; International Class 18: cosmetic bags sold empty).
(2) Submit a filing fee for each international class not covered by the fee(s) already paid (view the USPTO’s current fee schedule). Specifically, the application identifies goods and/or services based on use in commerce that are classified in at least 2 classes; however, applicant submitted a fee(s) sufficient for only 1 class. Applicant must either (a) submit the filing fees for the classes not covered by the submitted fees or (b) restrict the application to the number of classes covered by the fees already paid.
(3) Submit verified dates of first use of the mark anywhere and in commerce for each international class. See more information about verified dates of use.
(4) Submit a specimen for each international class. The current specimen is not acceptable for any international class. See more information about specimens.
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). 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, whether for goods or services, must include the webpage’s URL and the date it was accessed or printed. 37 C.F.R. §2.56(c).
(5) Submit a verified statement that “The specimen was in use in commerce on or in connection with the goods listed in the application at least as early as the filing date of the application.” See more information about verification.
See 37 C.F.R. §2.86(a); TMEP §§1403.01, 1403.02(c).
For an overview of the requirements for a Section 1(a) multiple-class application and how to satisfy the requirements online using the Trademark Electronic Application System (TEAS) form, see the Multiple-class Application webpage.
How to respond. Click to file a response to this nonfinal Office action.
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.
Rummery, Mary
/Mary Rummery/
Examining Attorney
Law Officer 105
571-270-0964
Mary.Rummery@USPTO.GOV
RESPONSE GUIDANCE
