United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO)
Office Action (Official Letter) About Applicant’s Trademark Application
|
U.S. Application Serial No. 90086653
Mark: GAME TIME
|
|
|
Correspondence Address: METRO SPORTS & ENTERTAINMENT GROUP
|
|
|
Applicant: Metro Sports & Entertainment Group
|
|
|
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: December 01, 2020
The referenced application has been reviewed by the assigned trademark examining attorney. Applicant must respond timely and completely to the issue(s) 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
Registration of the applied-for mark is refused because of a likelihood of confusion with the marks in U.S. Registration Nos. 4580039 and 4584139 – both owned by NBA Properties, Inc. Trademark Act Section 2(d), 15 U.S.C. §1052(d); see TMEP §§1207.01 et seq. See the attached registrations.
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/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.
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 this case, the marks create substantially similar commercial impressions because the applied-for mark, GAME TIME, contains the same wording as the mark in Registration No. 4584139, GAME TIME. Further, in regards to Registration No. 4580039, the applied-for mark shares the wording GAME TIME with the registered mark and appears to be a shortened form.
The likelihood of confusion is not negated even though the applied-for mark and Registration No. 4584139 contain design elements nor because of the word NBA in Registration No. 4580039. Although marks are compared in their entireties, one feature of a mark may be more significant or dominant in creating a commercial impression. See In re Detroit Athletic Co., 903 F.3d 1297, 1305, 128 USPQ2d 1047, 1050 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (citing In re Dixie Rests., 105 F.3d 1405, 1407, 41 USPQ2d 1531, 1533-34 (Fed. Cir. 1997)); TMEP §1207.01(b)(viii), (c)(ii). Greater weight is often given to this dominant feature when determining whether marks are confusingly similar. See In re Detroit Athletic Co., 903 F.3d at 1305, 128 USPQ2d at 1050 (citing In re Dixie Rests., 105 F.3d at 1407, 41 USPQ2d at 1533-34).
First, in regards to the designs, 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)).
Finally, as the marks are used in connection with similar goods and/or services, the marks are likely to engender similar connotations and overall commercial impressions.
Therefore, the marks are confusingly similar.
Similarity of the Goods and Services
The goods and/or services 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 services are recited as “Entertainment services in the nature of an ongoing reality based television program”.
Registration No. 4584139 is for “Entertainment and educational services in the nature of an ongoing television show in the field of basketball”.
Registration No. 4580039 is for “Downloadable mobile applications to access and view video highlights, scores, statistics, schedules, games, live games, on demand games, simultaneous viewing of multiple live games, game recaps, and archived games with special viewing features, all in the field of basketball in High Definition quality across mobile, PC, smartphone, tablet, connected TV, and other digital platforms”.
Therefore, upon encountering the applied-for mark and the registrant’s mark for substantially similar goods and/or services, consumers are likely to be confused and mistakenly believe that the applicant’s services and the registrant’s goods and/or services emanate from a common source or are otherwise connected in some way. Accordingly, registration of the applied-for mark is refused under Section 2(d) because of a likelihood of confusion.
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.
PRIOR-PENDING APPLICATIONS
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 marks in the referenced applications. 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.
Applicant must disclaim the wording “GAME” because it is merely descriptive of a characteristic or feature of applicant’s services. See 15 U.S.C. §1052(e)(1); DuoProSS Meditech Corp. v. Inviro Med. Devices, Ltd., 695 F.3d 1247, 1251, 103 USPQ2d 1753, 1755 (Fed. Cir. 2012); TMEP §§1213, 1213.03(a).
The attached evidence from Pc Mag and Wikipedia shows that reality shows can include shows about video games. Thus, the wording merely describes applicant’s services because applicant provides an ongoing reality tv series which presumably includes reality series focused on games.
Applicant may respond to this issue by submitting a disclaimer in the following format:
No claim is made to the exclusive right to use “GAME” 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.
COLOR CLAIM CLARIFICATION REQUIRED
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 the words “GAME” and “TIME” separated by a heart-shaped video game controller.
(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 white and purple are claimed as a feature of the mark.”
Description: “The mark consists of the words “GAME” and “TIME” separated by a heart-shaped video game controller all in white, on a purple background.”
See TMEP §807.07(b).
GUIDELINES FOR RESPONDING TO THIS OFFICE ACTION
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.
/Luke Cash Browning/
Luke Cash Browning
Trademark Examining Attorney
Law Office 127 | (571) 270-5767
Luke.Browning@USPTO.gov
RESPONSE GUIDANCE
