To: | Chocolate by Kwaku Bediako LLC (margareteasante@gmail.com) |
Subject: | U.S. Trademark Application Serial No. 90121688 - CHOCOLATE - N/A |
Sent: | December 14, 2020 05:29:37 PM |
Sent As: | ecom115@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. 90121688
Mark: CHOCOLATE
|
|
Correspondence Address: CHOCOLATE BY KWAKU BEDIAKO LLC
|
|
Applicant: Chocolate by Kwaku Bediako LLC
|
|
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 14, 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.
1. 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. 5460234 and 6133771. 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). Only those factors that are “relevant and of record” need be considered. M2 Software, Inc. v. M2 Commc’ns, Inc., 450 F.3d 1378, 1382, 78 USPQ2d 1944, 1947 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (citing Shen Mfg. Co. v. Ritz Hotel Ltd., 393 F.3d 1238, 1241, 73 USPQ2d 1350, 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2004)); see In re Inn at St. John’s, LLC, 126 USPQ2d 1742, 1744 (TTAB 2018).
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.
In this case, applicant has applied to register CHOCOLATE (and Design) for “Shirts; Trousers; Caftans; Dresses; Kaftans.”
U.S. Registration No. 5460234 is CHOCOLETTE (Standard Characters) for “Clothing and footwear for children and infants, namely, belts, blouses, bonnets, coats, cardigans, dresses, dressing gowns, footwear, gloves, hats, headbands, jackets, leggings, nightgowns, pants, sandals, shirts, shoes, shorts, skirts, slippers, socks, scarves, sweaters, bathing suits, tights, T-shirts, baby bibs not of paper” in Class 25 and “Retail store services and online retail store services featuring clothing, shoes and related accessories” in Class 35.
U.S. Registration No. 6133771 is CHOCOOLATE (Standard Characters) for “Clothing for athletic use, namely, padded pants; Clothing for athletic use, namely, padded shirts; Clothing for athletic use, namely, padded shorts; Clothing items, namely, adhesive pockets that may be affixed directly to the body as a decorative piece of clothing with utility; Clothing items, namely, adhesive pockets that may be affixed directly to the inside of clothing for storage and safekeeping of personal items; Clothing items, namely, blindfolds worn over the eyes; Clothing items, namely, gags worn over the mouth; Clothing layettes; Clothing wraps; Clothing, namely, arm warmers; Clothing, namely, base layers; Clothing, namely, cowls and smoke ring scarves; Clothing, namely, crops; Clothing, namely, folk costumes; Clothing, namely, hand-warmers; Clothing, namely, khakis; Clothing, namely, knee warmers; Clothing, namely, maternity bands; Clothing, namely, neck tubes; Clothing, namely, neck warmers; Clothing, namely, thobes; Clothing, namely, wrap-arounds; Adult novelty gag clothing item, namely, socks; Baby layettes for clothing; Belts; Belts for clothing; Belts made out of cloth; Bibs not of cloth or paper; Bottoms as clothing; Bottoms as clothing for adult, women and men; Children's and infants' cloth bibs; Coats for adult, women and men; Collar guards for protecting clothing collars; Collar liners for protecting clothing collars; Collar protector pads for application to clothing collars; Collar protector strips for application to clothing collars; Combinations; Corsets being clothing; Corsets being foundation clothing; Drawers as clothing; Dresses for adult, women and men; Ear warmers being clothes; Fingerless gloves as clothing; Foulards; Furs being clothing; Gloves as clothing; Head wraps; Headbands for clothing; Headwear for adult, women and men; Hooded sweatshirts for adult, women and men; Hoodies; Hoods; Infant and toddler one piece clothing; Infant sleepers being clothing; Jackets; Jackets for adult, women and men; Jerseys; Knitwear, namely, shirts, dresses, and sweaters; Korean traditional tops as clothing (Jeogori); Leather belts; Leather harnesses worn by people as clothing; Mantles; Maternity clothing, namely, shirts, pants, shorts, and dress; Non-disposable cloth training pants; Outerwear, namely, coats, hats, gloves; Pants for adult, women and men; Paper hats for use as clothing items; Parts of clothing, namely, gussets for tights, gussets for stockings, gussets for bathing suits, gussets for underwear, gussets for leotards and gussets for footlets; Parts of clothing, namely, underarm gussets; Perspiration absorbent underwear clothing; Pockets for clothing; Ready-made linings being parts of clothing; Shifts as clothing; Shirts for adult, women and men.; Shoes for adult, women and men; Short sets; Shorts for adult, women and men; Shoulder wraps; Shoulder wraps for clothing; Sun protective clothing, namely, shirts, pants, and dress; Swaddling clothes; Sweaters for adult, women and men; Sweatpants for adult, women and men; Sweatshirts for adult, women, and men; T-shirts for adult, women, and men; Ties as clothing; Tops as clothing; Tops as clothing for adults, children, women, and men; Travel clothing contained in a package comprising reversible jackets, pants, skirts, tops and a belt or scarf; Triathlon clothing, namely, triathlon tights, triathlon shorts, triathlon singlets, triathlon shirts, triathlon suits; Trousers for adult, women and men; Trunks being clothing; Underarm clothing shields; Wearable garments and clothing, namely, shirts; Women's clothing, namely, shirts, dresses, skirts, blouses; Woven shirts for adult, women and men; Wrist bands as clothing; Wristbands as clothing.”
Comparison 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).
The fact that applicant’s mark contains a design element while registrants’ marks are in standard characters is insufficient to overcome the likelihood of confusion. A mark in standard characters, like registrants’ marks, may be displayed in any lettering style; the rights reside in the wording or other literal element and not in any particular display or rendition. See In re Viterra Inc., 671 F.3d 1358, 1363, 101 USPQ2d 1905, 1909 (Fed. Cir. 2012); In re Mighty Leaf Tea, 601 F.3d 1342, 1348, 94 USPQ2d 1257, 1260 (Fed. Cir. 2010); 37 C.F.R. §2.52(a); TMEP §1207.01(c)(iii). Thus, a mark presented in stylized characters and/or with a design element, like applicant’s mark, generally will not avoid likelihood of confusion with a mark in standard characters because the word portion could be presented in the same manner of display. See, e.g., In re Viterra Inc., 671 F.3d at 1363, 101 USPQ2d at 1909; Squirtco v. Tomy Corp., 697 F.2d 1038, 1041, 216 USPQ 937, 939 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (stating that “the argument concerning a difference in type style is not viable where one party asserts rights in no particular display”).
Relatedness of the Goods
In this case, the application uses broad wording to describe “Shirts; Trousers” and “Dresses,” which presumably encompasses all goods of the type described, including registrants’ more narrow “Clothing and footwear for children and infants, namely, … dresses … shirts … T-shirts …” (U.S. Registration No. 5460234) and “Clothing for athletic use, namely, padded shirts,” “Dresses for adult, women and men,” “Knitwear, namely, shirts, dresses, and sweaters,” “Maternity clothing, namely, shirts, pants, shorts, and dress,” “Shirts for adult, women and men,” “Sun protective clothing, namely, shirts, pants, and dress,” “T-shirts for adult, women, and men,” “triathlon shirts,” “Trousers for adult, women and men,” and “Wearable garments and clothing, namely, shirts; Women's clothing, namely, shirts, dresses, skirts, blouses; Woven shirts for adult, women and men” (U.S. Registration No. 6133771). 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 registrants’ goods are legally identical in part. 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, applicant’s goods 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” as registrants’ goods. 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 registrants’ goods are related.
2. Prior Pending Applications
Also attached are copies of pending U.S. Application Serial Nos. 88723727 and 90075826. The filing dates of pending U.S. Application Serial Nos. 88723727 and 90075826 precede applicant’s filing date. If one or more of the marks in the referenced applications registers, the registrations may be used as an additional basis for refusing registration in this case under Trademark Act Section 2(d). See 15 U.S.C. §1052(d); 37 C.F.R. §2.83; TMEP §§1208 et seq. Therefore, upon receipt of applicant’s response to this Office action, action on this application may be suspended pending final disposition of the earlier-filed referenced 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 with respect to the above-referenced applications.
3. Sections 1 and 45 Specimen Refusal
Specifically, applicant submitted an advertisement for a “Fathers’ Day Package” consisting of a “Men’s Kaftan + Surprise Free Gift!”. Moreover, applicant describes it specimens as “Promotional advertisements.”[1]
Advertising is not acceptable as a specimen for goods. See In re Yarnell Ice Cream, LLC, 2019 USPQ2d 265039, at *15-16 (TTAB 2019) (quoting In re Siny Corp., 920 F.3d 1331, 1336, 2019 USPQ2d 127099, at *2-3 (Fed. Cir. 2019)); see also Avakoff v. S. Pac. Co., 765 F.2d 1097, 1098, 226 USPQ 435, 436 (Fed. Cir. 1985); TMEP §904.04(b), (c). Advertising includes online advertising banners appearing on search-engine results pages or in social media, advertising circulars and brochures, price lists, and business cards. See TMEP §904.04(b).
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 must include the webpage’s URL and the date it was accessed or printed on the specimen itself, within the TEAS form that submits the specimen, or in a verified statement under 37 C.F.R. §2.20 or 28 U.S.C. §1746 in a later-filed response. See 37 C.F.R. §2.56(c); TMEP §§904.03(i), 1301.04(a).
Response options. Applicant may respond to this refusal by satisfying one of the following:
(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 and (b) shows the mark in actual use in commerce for the Class 25 goods identified in the application. 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.
Color Claim and Mark Description
Where the color claim and/or description of the mark and drawing are inconsistent with one another, generally the USPTO looks to the drawing to determine what the mark is. TMEP §807.07(a)(i)-(a)(ii), (c). Additionally, the colors in the drawing, color claim, and description must match. See 37 C.F.R. §2.52(b)(1); TMEP §§807.07 et seq.
To clarify the colors in the mark, applicant may satisfy one of the following:
(1) Submit a new color drawing that shows the mark in the colors specified in the color claim and description. TMEP §807.07(c). However, any other amendments to the drawing will not be accepted if they would materially alter the mark. 37 C.F.R. §2.72; see TMEP §§807.07(c), 807.14 et seq.
(2) Submit an amended color claim and mark description that match the colors in the drawing. 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 mark description are suggested:
Color claim: The colors brown, tan, and black are claimed as a feature of the mark.
Mark description: The mark consists of the tan stylized wording “CHOCOLATE”, where the second letter “C” is shown in brown with black lining and black drippings at the bottom of the letter and is outlined in tan.
For more information about drawings and instructions on how to submit a new color drawing, amended color claim and/or description online using the Trademark Electronic Application System (TEAS) form, see the Drawing webpage.
RESPONSE GUIDELINES
1. 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.
2. 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.
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.
A prompt response to this Office action will expedite the handling of this matter.
/Barbara A. Gaynor/
Barbara A. Gaynor
Trademark Examining Attorney
Law Office 115
571-272-9164
Barbara.Gaynor@uspto.gov
ADDITIONAL RESPONSE GUIDANCE
[1] The second specimen provided by applicant, which also is an advertisement, does not contain the applied-for mark.