To: | Jason M. Harris (daraldschaffer@gmail.com) |
Subject: | U.S. Trademark Application Serial No. 90155316 - ACE - N/A |
Sent: | January 11, 2021 04:00:36 PM |
Sent As: | ecom120@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 Attachment - 15 Attachment - 16 Attachment - 17 Attachment - 18 Attachment - 19 Attachment - 20 Attachment - 21 Attachment - 22 Attachment - 23 Attachment - 24 Attachment - 25 |
United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO)
Office Action (Official Letter) About Applicant’s Trademark Application
U.S. Application Serial No. 90155316
Mark: ACE
|
|
Correspondence Address:
|
|
Applicant: Jason M. Harris
|
|
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: January 11, 2021
INTRODUCTION:
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.
REFUSAL – SECTION 2(d) – LIKELIHOOD OF CONFUSION:
Registration of the applied-for mark is refused because of a likelihood of confusion with the mark in U.S. Registration No. 5571818 (“ACE stylized as a spade” for “jackets, shirts, baseball caps and hats” in International Class 25). Trademark Act Section 2(d), 15 U.S.C. §1052(d); see TMEP §§1207.01 et seq. See the attached registration.
Trademark Act Section 2(d) bars registration of an applied-for mark that so resembles a registered mark that it is likely a potential consumer would be confused, mistaken, or deceived as to the source of the goods and/or services of the applicant and registrant. See 15 U.S.C. §1052(d). A determination of likelihood of confusion under Section 2(d) is made on a case-by case basis and 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) aid in this determination. Citigroup Inc. v. Capital City Bank Grp., Inc., 637 F.3d 1344, 1349, 98 USPQ2d 1253, 1256 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (citing On-Line Careline, Inc. v. Am. Online, Inc., 229 F.3d 1080, 1085, 56 USPQ2d 1471, 1474 (Fed. Cir. 2000)). Not all the du Pont factors, however, are necessarily relevant or of equal weight, and any one of the factors may control in a given case, depending upon the evidence of record. Citigroup Inc. v. Capital City Bank Grp., Inc., 637 F.3d at 1355, 98 USPQ2d at 1260; In re Majestic Distilling Co., 315 F.3d 1311, 1315, 65 USPQ2d 1201, 1204 (Fed. Cir. 2003); see In re E. I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., 476 F.2d at 1361-62, 177 USPQ at 567.
In this case, the following factors are the most relevant: similarity of the marks, similarity and nature of the goods and/or services, and similarity of the trade channels of the goods and/or services. See In re Viterra Inc., 671 F.3d 1358, 1361-62, 101 USPQ2d 1905, 1908 (Fed. Cir. 2012); In re Dakin’s Miniatures Inc., 59 USPQ2d 1593, 1595-96 (TTAB 1999); TMEP §§1207.01 et seq.
Comparison of the Marks
Applicant’s applied-for mark is “ACE” stylized as an ace of spades.
Registrant’s mark is also “ACE” stylized as an ace of spades.
Neither mark has any claim to color.
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 1st USA Realty Prof’ls, Inc., 84 USPQ2d 1581, 1586 (TTAB 2007)); In re White Swan Ltd., 8 USPQ2d 1534, 1535 (TTAB 1988)); TMEP §1207.01(b).
When the marks at issue are both design marks, similarity of the marks is determined primarily on the basis of visual similarity. See, e.g., Volkswagenwerk Aktiengesellschaft v. Rose ‘Vear Enters., 592 F.2d 1180, 1183, 201 USPQ 7, 9 (C.C.P.A. 1979) (quoting In re ATV Network Ltd., 552 F.2d 925, 929, 193 USPQ 331, 332 (C.C.P.A. 1977)); Ft. James Operating Co. v. Royal Paper Converting Inc., 83 USPQ2d 1624, 1628 (TTAB 2007); TMEP §1207.01(c). However, a side-by-side comparison is not the test. See Grandpa Pidgeon’s of Mo., Inc. v. Borgsmiller, 477 F.2d 586, 587, 177 USPQ 573, 574 (C.C.P.A. 1973). When comparing design marks, the focus is on the overall commercial impression conveyed by such marks, not on specific differences. See Grandpa Pidgeon’s of Mo., Inc. v. Borgsmiller, 477 F.2d at 587, 177 USPQ at 574; In re Triple R Mfg. Corp., 168 USPQ 447, 448 (TTAB 1970); TMEP §1207.01(c).
Here, the overall connotation of both marks is that of a spade formed by the letters “ACE”. Each mark has a nearly identical design concept with the identical letterings being molded to fit the shape of the spade design’s contour. Both marks have a stem of the spade at the bottom and a pointed top. The similarities of the look of both marks are enough that a reasonable consumer would perceive the marks to have similar commercial impressions.
As such, viewed as a whole, applicant’s mark is substantially similar in sound, appearance, connotation and commercial impression to the registered mark.
Comparison of the Goods
Applicant’s goods are “Athletic apparel, namely, shirts, pants, jackets, footwear, hats and caps, athletic uniforms”
Registrant’s goods are “Jackets; Shirts; Baseball caps and hats”.
In this case, the registration use(s) broad wording to describe “Jackets;” and “shirts”, which presumably encompasses all goods of the type described, including applicant’s more narrow “athletic apparel, namely, shirts”, “jackets”. Similarly, Applicant uses broad wording to describe “Athletic apparel, namely, hats and caps” which would presumably encompass all goods of the type described, including registrant’s more narrow “Baseball caps and hats”. 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, those of 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 and/or services are related.
Second, with respect to Applicant’s remaining goods, the attached Internet evidence consists of screenshots of products from the websites of “Adidas,” “Nike,” and “New Balance.” See the attached third party evidence. Each of these companies manufactures both uniforms, shoes, and shirts. This evidence establishes that with respect to the remaining goods of Applicant and Registrant’s “shirts”, the same entity commonly manufactures the relevant goods and markets the goods under the same mark. Therefore, 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).
Applicant should note the following additional ground for potential refusal.
POTENTIAL REFUSAL—PRIOR PENDING MARK PRESENTS A BAR TO REGISTRATION:
A mark in a prior-filed pending application may present a bar to registration of applicant’s mark.
The filing date of pending U.S. Application Serial No. 88922801 precedes applicant’s filing date. See attached referenced application. If the mark in the referenced application registers, applicant’s mark may be refused registration under Trademark Act Section 2(d) because of a likelihood of confusion between the two marks. 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 application.
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.
REQUIREMENT—MARK DESCRIPTION:
Applicant must submit an amended description of the mark that agrees with the mark on the drawing. 37 C.F.R. §2.37; see TMEP §§808.01, 808.02. The current description is inconsistent with the mark on the drawing and thus is inaccurate. 37 C.F.R. §2.37; see TMEP §§808.01, 808.02. Descriptions must be accurate and identify only those literal and design elements appearing in the mark. See 37 C.F.R. §2.37; TMEP §§808.02, 808.03(d).
The following description is suggested, if accurate: The mark consists of the letters “A” “C” “E” forming the shape of a playing card spade.
CONCLUSION:
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.
Please have your assigned trademark Attorney 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.
How to respond. Click to file a response to this nonfinal Office action.
Wert, Karl
/Karl A. Wert/
Examining Attorney
Law Office 120
U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
Office Phone: (571) 270-7751
Office Email: karl.wert@uspto.gov
RESPONSE GUIDANCE