Offc Action Outgoing

United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO)

Office Action (Official Letter) About Applicant’s Trademark Application

 

 

 

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:  November 09, 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.

 

SUMMARY OF ISSUES:

• Section 2(d) Refusal – Likelihood of Confusion
• Identification of Goods and Services Requirement
• Clarification of the Number of Classes for Which Registration is Sought Requirement
• Multiple-Class Application Requirements Advisory
• Color Claim and Mark Description Requirement
• Disclaimer Requirement

 

SECTION 2(d) REFUSAL – LIKELIHOOD OF CONFUSION

 

THIS PARTIAL REFUSAL APPLIES ONLY TO THE GOODS SPECIFIED THEREIN

 

Registration of the applied-for mark is refused because of a likelihood of confusion with the mark in U.S. Registration No. 2691412. Trademark Act Section 2(d), 15 U.S.C. §1052(d); see TMEP §§1207.01 et seq. See the attached registration.

 

In the present case, applicant has applied to register the mark SAN ANTONIO GUNSLINGERS (AND DESIGN) for “Professional Arena Football apparel” in International Class 041.

 

The mark in Registration No. 2691412 is GUN SLINGER for “Hats and shirts” in International Class 025.

 

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 and/or services 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 and 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. 

 

Similarity of the Marks

 

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).

 

In the present case, applicant’s mark SAN ANTONIO GUNSLINGERS (AND DESIGN) is confusingly similar to registrant’s mark GUN SLINGER. 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).

 

Here, the marks both contain slight variations of the similar phrase “GUNSLINGER.” Significantly, the attached evidence from Merriam-Webster Dictionary shows that the term “GUNSLINGER” means “a person noted for speed and skill in handling and shooting a gun especially in the American West.” Therefore, when viewed in relation to the parties’ respective goods, the marks in their entireties convey similar overall commercial impressions of apparel inspired persons noted for speed and skill in handling and shooting a gun. Accordingly, the marks are confusingly similar in appearance because the similar phrase “GUNSLINGER” in the mark create a similar overall commercial impression.

 

Based upon the foregoing, the marks are highly similar in appearance and overall commercial impression. Thus, the marks are confusingly similar.

 

Relatedness of the Goods

 

Determining likelihood of confusion is based on the description of the goods and/or services stated in the application and registration at issue, not on extrinsic evidence of actual use.  See In re Detroit Athletic Co., 903 F.3d 1297, 1307, 128 USPQ2d 1047, 1052 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (citing In re i.am.symbolic, llc, 866 F.3d 1315, 1325, 123 USPQ2d 1744, 1749 (Fed. Cir. 2017)).  

 

In this case, the application uses broad wording to describe “Professional Arena Football apparel,” which presumably encompasses all goods of the type described, including registrant’s more narrow identification of “hats and shirts.” 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.

 

Conclusion

 

In summary, the marks are confusingly similar and the goods are related. Therefore, purchasers are likely to be confused as to the source of the goods. Thus, registration is refused pursuant to 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. However, if applicant responds to the refusal, applicant must also respond to the requirements set forth below.

 

IDENTIFICATION OF GOODS AND SERVICES REQUIREMENT

 

The word “apparel” in the identification of goods is indefinite and too broad and must be clarified because the word does not make clear the nature of the goods and could identify goods in more than one international class. See 37 C.F.R. §2.32(a)(6); TMEP §§1402.01, 1402.03. The following are examples of acceptable identifications: “clothing for protection against accidents, irradiation and fire” in International Class 9; “surgical gowns” in International Class 10; “pet clothing” in International Class 18; and “shirts,” “shorts,” and “pants” in International Class 25. Therefore, applicant must amend the identification to specify the type of clothing.

 

If applicant’s “apparel” is in International Class 25, applicant may amend the identification to insert the word “namely,” after “clothing”/“apparel” and then list the specific types of clothing items in that class (e.g., shirts, pants, coats, dresses). 

 

Furthermore, the wording “merchandise sales” in the identification of services in International Class 041 is indefinite and must be clarified. See 37 C.F.R. §2.32(a)(6); TMEP §§1402.01, 1402.11. To be a registrable service, the activity must be primarily for the benefit of someone other than the applicant. See In re Reichhold Chems., Inc., 167 USPQ 376, 377 (TTAB 1970). “Sales” or “selling” normally refers to selling one’s own goods or services and is not a registrable service rendered for the benefit of others. See TMEP §§1301.01(a)(ii), 1402.11.

 

Therefore, applicant must delete “merchandise sales” from the identification and indicate with greater specificity the nature of the service in International Class 35; e.g., “retail store services featuring athletic clothing and clothing accessories,” “wholesale distributorships featuring athletic clothing and clothing accessories,” and “on-line wholesale and retail store services featuring athletic clothing and clothing accessories.”

 

The wording “Arena Football” in the identification of goods and services is a registered mark not owned by applicant; accordingly, applicant must amend the identification to delete this wording and, if not already included in the identification, provide the common commercial or generic name of the goods. TMEP §1402.09; see 37 C.F.R. §2.32(a)(6); Camloc Fastener Corp. v. Grant, 119 USPQ 264, 264 n.1 (TTAB 1958). See the attached U.S. Registration Nos. 2842045, 2865869, and 6156148. 

 

Identifications of goods and services should generally be comprised of generic everyday wording for the goods and services, and exclude proprietary or potentially-proprietary wording. See TMEP §§1402.01, 1402.09. A registered mark indicates origin in one particular party and so may not be used to identify goods or services that originate in a party other than that registrant. TMEP §1402.09 (citing Camloc Fastener Corp. v. Grant, 119 USPQ at 264 n.1). 

 

Applicant may adopt the following identification, if accurate: 

 

International Class 025:          “Football team apparel, namely,{specify type in International Class 025, e.g., shirts, jackets, jerseys, pants, hoodies, sweaters, etc.}”;

 

International Class 035:          “Retail store services featuring apparel of a professional football team”.

 

Applicant may amend the identification to clarify or limit the goods and services, but not to broaden or expand the goods and services beyond those in the original application or as acceptably amended. See 37 C.F.R. §2.71(a); TMEP §1402.06. Generally, any deleted goods and services may not later be reinserted. See TMEP §1402.07(e).

 

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.

 

CLARIFICATION OF THE NUMBER OF CLASSES FOR WHICH REGISTRATION IS SOUGHT REQUIREMENT

 

The application identifies goods and services that are classified in at least 2 classes; however, applicant submitted a fee sufficient for only 1 class. In a multiple-class application, a fee for each class is required. 37 C.F.R. §2.86(a)(2), (b)(2); TMEP §§810.01, 1403.01. For more information about adding classes to an application, see the Multiple-class Application webpage.

 

Therefore, applicant must either (1) restrict the application to the number of classes covered by the fees already paid, or (2) submit the fees for each additional class.

 

MULTIPLE-CLASS APPLICATION REQUIREMENTS ADVISORY

 

The application identifies goods and/or services in more than one international class; therefore, applicant must satisfy all the requirements below for each international class based on Trademark Act Section 1(b):

 

(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(s) already paid (view the USPTO’s current fee schedule). 

 

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.

 

COLOR CLAIM AND MARK DESCRIPTION REQUIREMENT

 

Applicant must clarify whether color is a feature of the mark because, although the drawing shows the mark in color, the application does not state whether color is a feature of the mark. 37 C.F.R. §§2.37, 2.52(b)(1), 2.61(b); see TMEP §807.07(a)-(a)(ii).

 

Applicant may respond to this requirement by satisfying one of the following:

 

(1)        If color is not a feature of the mark, applicant must submit a black-and-white drawing of the mark to replace the color drawing. See TMEP §807.07(a)(i). However, any other amendments to the drawing will not be accepted if they materially alter the mark. 37 C.F.R. §2.72; see TMEP §§807.14 et seq. Applicant must also submit a revised description of all literal and design elements in the mark, deleting any reference to color, if appropriate. 37 C.F.R. §2.37; see TMEP §§808.01, 808.02. The following description is suggested, if accurate: The mark consists of a cowboy’s eyes with a cowboy hat with two guns across his face with the wording “SAN ANTONIO GUNSLINGERS” below in red and white.

 

(2)        If color is a feature of the mark, applicant must submit a statement (a) listing all the colors that are claimed as a feature of the mark and (b) describing all the literal and design elements in the mark that specifies where each color appears in those elements. 37 C.F.R. §§2.37, 2.52(b)(1); TMEP §807.07(a)-(a)(ii). Generic color names must be used to describe the colors in the mark, e.g., red, yellow, blue.  TMEP §807.07(a)(i)-(ii). If black, white, and/or gray represent background, outlining, shading, and/or transparent areas and are not part of the mark, applicant must so specify in the description. See TMEP §807.07(d). The following color claim and description are suggested, if accurate: 

 

Color claim:  The colors red, white, and blue are claimed as a feature of the mark.

 

Description:  The mark consists of a cowboy with a white face and blue eyes wearing a red cowboy hat outlined in blue with two guns in white and royal blue across his face above the wording “SAN ANTONIO” in white lettering outlined in blue immediately above the word “GUNSLINGERS” in red lettering outlined in blue.

 

See TMEP §807.07(b).

 

DISCLAIMER REQUIREMENT

 

Applicant must disclaim the wording “SAN ANTONIO” in the mark because it is primarily geographically descriptive of the origin of applicant’s goods and services. See 15 U.S.C. §1052(e)(2); In re Societe Generale des Eaux Minerales de Vittel S.A., 824 F.2d 957, 959, 3 USPQ2d 1450, 1451-52 (Fed. Cir. 1987); TMEP §§1210.01(a), 1210.06(a), 1213.03(a).

 

The attached evidence from The Columbia Gazetteer of the World shows that San Antonio is a generally known geographic place or location. See TMEP §§1210.02 et seq. The goods and services for which applicant seeks registration originate in this geographic place or location as shown by applicant’s address. See TMEP §1210.03. Because the goods and/or services originate in this place or location, a public association of the goods and/or services with the place is presumed. See In re Hollywood Lawyers Online, 110 USPQ2d 1852, 1858 (TTAB 2014) (citing In re Spirits of New Merced, LLC, 85 USPQ2d 1614, 1621 (TTAB 2007)); TMEP §§1210.02(a) 1210.04. 

 

Applicant may respond to this issue by submitting a disclaimer in the following format:

 

No claim is made to the exclusive right to use “SAN ANTONIO” apart from the mark as shown.

 

For an overview of disclaimers and instructions on how to provide one using the Trademark Electronic Application System (TEAS), see the Disclaimer webpage.

 

TRADEMARK COUNSEL SUGGESTED

 

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.    

 

 

/Obieze Mmeje/

Examining Attorney

Law Office 122

(571) 272-7694

Obieze.Mmeje@uspto.gov

 

 

 

RESPONSE GUIDANCE

• Missing the response deadline to this letter will cause the application to abandon.  A response or notice of appeal must be received by the USPTO before midnight Eastern Time of the last day of the response period.  TEAS and ESTTA maintenance or unforeseen circumstances could affect an applicant’s ability to timely respond.  

 

• Responses signed by an unauthorized party are not accepted and can cause the application to abandon.  If applicant does not have an attorney, the response must be signed by the individual applicant, all joint applicants, or someone with legal authority to bind a juristic applicant.  If applicant has an attorney, the response must be signed by the attorney.

 

• If needed, find contact information for the supervisor of the office or unit listed in the signature block.

 

United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO)

 

USPTO OFFICIAL NOTICE

 

Office Action (Official Letter) has issued

on November 09, 2020 for

U.S. Trademark Application Serial No. 90054828

 

Your trademark application has been reviewed by a trademark examining attorney.  As part of that review, the assigned attorney has issued an official letter that you must respond to by the specified deadline or your application will be abandoned.  Please follow the steps below.

 

(1)  Read the official letter.

 

(2)  Direct questions about the contents of the Office action to the assigned attorney below. 

 

 

/Obieze Mmeje/

Examining Attorney

Law Office 122

(571) 272-7694

Obieze.Mmeje@uspto.gov

 

 

Direct questions about navigating USPTO electronic forms, the USPTO website, the application process, the status of your application, and/or whether there are outstanding deadlines or documents related to your file to the Trademark Assistance Center (TAC).

 

(3)  Respond within 6 months (or earlier, if required in the Office action) from November 09, 2020, using the Trademark Electronic Application System (TEAS).  The response must be received by the USPTO before midnight Eastern Time of the last day of the response period.  See the Office action for more information about how to respond

 

 

 

GENERAL GUIDANCE

·         Check the status of your application periodically in the Trademark Status & Document Retrieval (TSDR) database to avoid missing critical deadlines.

 

·         Update your correspondence email address, if needed, to ensure you receive important USPTO notices about your application.

 

·         Beware of misleading notices sent by private companies about your application.  Private companies not associated with the USPTO use public information available in trademark registrations to mail and email trademark-related offers and notices – most of which require fees.  All official USPTO correspondence will only be emailed from the domain “@uspto.gov.”