To: | Lewis, Richard D. (ricklewis8675309@gmail.com) |
Subject: | U.S. Trademark Application Serial No. 90085373 - WASHINGTON REDHAWKS - N/A |
Sent: | October 30, 2020 07:46:25 PM |
Sent As: | ecom111@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 |
United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO)
Office Action (Official Letter) About Applicant’s Trademark Application
U.S. Application Serial No. 90085373
Mark: WASHINGTON REDHAWKS
|
|
Correspondence Address:
|
|
Applicant: Lewis, Richard D.
|
|
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: October 30, 2020
SECTION 2(d) REFUSAL – LIKELIHOOD OF CONFUSION
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 THE MARKS
Applicant’s mark is WASHINGTON REDHAWKS displayed in a standard character format. Registrant’s marks are WASHINGTON RED-TAILED HAWKS and is also displayed in a standard character format. Both marks contain the wording WASHING RED HAWK and all of the wording of applicant’s mark is in registrant’s mark. The marks are virtually identical in sound, appearance and meaning. The only difference between the marks is the addition of the word TAILED to registrant’s marks. These similarities create the same commercial impression in the minds of consumers.
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 Davia, 110 USPQ2d 1810, 1812 (TTAB 2014) (citing In re White Swan Ltd., 8 USPQ2d 1534, 1535 (TTAB 1988); In re 1st USA Realty Prof’ls, Inc., 84 USPQ2d 1581, 1586 (TTAB 2007)); TMEP §1207.01(b).
In sum, given the highly similar appearance and sound of the marks, it follows that the marks create a highly similar commercial impression and therefore the marks are confusingly similar.
COMPARISON OF THE GOODS AND SERVICES
Applicant’s services are: “Entertainment in the nature of football games; Organization of sports events in the field of football.”
Registrant’s goods and services are clothing and sports services: “Athletic apparel, namely, shirts,” and “Providing a website featuring information relating to the sport of football.”
As the case law and attached evidence shows, applicant’s and registrant’s goods and services are commercially related.
In total, the marks create the same commercial impression and the evidences shows that the goods and services are commercially related and likely to be encountered together in the marketplace by consumers. Therefore, consumers are likely to be confused and mistakenly believe that the goods and services originate from a common source. Therefore, there is a likelihood of confusion and registration must be refused under Section 2(d) of the Lanham Act.
In response to this Office action, applicant may present arguments in support of registration by addressing the issue of the potential conflict between applicant’s mark and the mark in the referenced application. Applicant’s election not to submit arguments at this time in no way limits applicant’s right to address this issue later if a refusal under Section 2(d) issues.
INFORMATION ABOUT SERVICES REQUIRED
Applicant must provide a written statement explaining whether the services or any aspect of the services will be rendered in, or will have any other connection with, the geographic location named in the mark. See 37 C.F.R. §2.61(b); TMEP §§814, 1210.03. Failure to comply with a request for information is grounds for refusing registration. In re Harley, 119 USPQ2d 1755, 1757-58 (TTAB 2016); TMEP §814.
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.
/Jonathan Falk/
Jonathan R. Falk
Trademark Examining Attorney
Law Office 111
(571)272-5301
Jonathan.falk@uspto.gov
RESPONSE GUIDANCE