Offc Action Outgoing

United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO)

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

 

 

 

FINAL 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) and/or Electronic System for Trademark Trials and Appeals (ESTTA).  A link to the appropriate TEAS response form and/or to ESTTA for an appeal appears at the end of this Office action. 

 

 

Issue date:  May 17, 2021

 

INTRODUCTION

 

This Office action is in response to applicant’s communication filed on April 16, 2021.

 

In a previous Office action dated December 7, 2020, the trademark examining attorney refused registration of the applied-for mark based on the following:  Trademark Act Section 2(d) for a likelihood of confusion with a registered mark.  In addition, applicant was required to satisfy the following requirements:  representative specimens of use and U.S. Attorney information and clarification.

 

Based on applicant’s voluntary amended identification of goods, the trademark examining attorney notes that the requirement for representative specimens of use is withdrawn. See TMEP §§713.02, 714.04. 

 

Further, the trademark examining attorney maintains and now makes FINAL the refusal(s) and/or requirement(s) in the summary of issues below.  See 37 C.F.R. §2.63(b); TMEP §714.04.

 

SUMMARY OF ISSUES MADE FINAL that applicant must address:

• Trademark Act, Section 2(d) refusal
• U.S. Attorney information and clarification  

 

The applicant failed to respond to the above two issues.  Its response is comprised solely of an amendment to the identification of goods.  Therefore, as there are no arguments, evidence, information or clarifications for the examining attorney to address, the issues listed in the summary of issues are maintained and made final for the reasons set forth in the prior Office action of December 7, 2020, which are incorporated by reference herein.  Nonetheless, the issues are briefly restated below.

 

 

SECTION 2(d) REFUSAL – LIKELIHOOD OF CONFUSION

 

Applicant seeks registration of the mark THEON for (as amended) “Scissors; Eyelash curlers; Hair-removing tweezers; Hair clippers for personal use, electric and non-electric; Hair clippers for babies; Non-electric fingernail polishers; Non-electric razors; Razors; Razors, electric or non-electric; Electric eyelash curlers; Electric hair clippers; Hand-operated hair clippers; Non-electric shavers; Non-electric hair clippers.”  The cited registration is for the mark THEONS for “nail polish; nail polish remover.”

 

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. 

 

As discussed in the previous Office action, the marks are nearly identical, with the sole difference being the addition of the letter “S” at the end of the registered mark.  This difference is negligible and does not obviate the near identity between the marks.  Consumers are likely to view the registered mark as simply either the plural or the possessive of the applied-for mark. See e.g. In re Binion, 93 USPQ2d 1531, 1534 (TTAB 2009) (noting that “[t]he absence of the possessive form in applicant’s mark . . . has little, if any, significance for consumers in distinguishing it from the cited mark”); In re Curtice-Burns, Inc., 231 USPQ 990, 992 (TTAB 1986) (finding the marks McKENZIE’S and McKENZIE “virtually identical in commercial impression”); Swiss Grill Ltd., v. Wolf Steel Ltd., 115 USPQ2d 2001, 2011 n.17 (TTAB 2015) (holding “it is obvious that the virtually identical marks [the singular and plural of SWISS GRILL] are confusingly similar”); Weider Publ’ns, LLC v. D & D Beauty Care Co., 109 USPQ2d 1347, 1355 (TTAB 2014) (finding the singular and plural forms of SHAPE to be essentially the same mark) (citing Wilson v. Delaunay, 245 F.2d 877, 878, 114 USPQ 339, 341 (C.C.P.A. 1957) (finding no material difference between the singular and plural forms of ZOMBIE such that the marks were considered the same mark).

 

Moreover, the goods of the applicant and registrant are commercially related because they are the types of beauty/cosmetic products that are known to be offered by the same source. In support, the examining attorney submitted Internet evidence from three websites and five third-party registrations showing the same entity providing the relevant goods.  Thus, applicant’s and registrant’s goods 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); See In re I-Coat Co., 126 USPQ2d 1730, 1737 (TTAB 2018) (citing In re Infinity Broad. Corp., 60 USPQ2d 1214, 1217-18 (TTAB 2001); In re Albert Trostel & Sons Co.,29 USPQ2d 1783, 1785-86 (TTAB 1993); In re Mucky Duck Mustard Co., 6 USPQ2d 1467, 1470 n.6 (TTAB 1988)); TMEP §1207.01(d)(iii).

 

The overriding concern is not only to prevent buyer confusion as to the source of the goods and/or services, but to protect the registrant from adverse commercial impact due to use of a similar mark by a newcomer.  See In re Shell Oil Co., 992 F.2d 1204, 1208, 26 USPQ2d 1687, 1690 (Fed. Cir. 1993).  Therefore, any doubt regarding a likelihood of confusion determination is resolved in favor of the registrant.  TMEP §1207.01(d)(i); see Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Packard Press, Inc., 281 F.3d 1261, 1265, 62 USPQ2d 1001, 1003 (Fed. Cir. 2002); In re Hyper Shoppes (Ohio), Inc., 837 F.2d 463, 464-65, 6 USPQ2d 1025, 1026 (Fed. Cir. 1988).

 

Accordingly, the refusal under Trademark Act, Section 2(d) is maintained and made FINAL.

U.S. ATTORNEY INFORMATION AND CLARIFICATION REQUIRED

Attorney bar or other licensing authority number required.  Applicant’s attorney entered “N/A” in the field for the attorney bar number; however, all U.S.-licensed attorneys representing applicants before the USPTO must provide the number used by the U.S. state, commonwealth, or territory that licenses the attorney, when one is issued.  37 C.F.R. §2.17(b)(3).  This number is generally available to the public and may be called by different names in different U.S. states, commonwealths, or territories, such as a bar number, membership number, an account number, an identification number, or a registration number.  If the U.S. state, commonwealth, or territory does not issue such a number, applicant must state this for the record.  See id.

 

Attorney bar credentials required. The application record indicates that applicant is represented by Feng Lin who is purportedly a member of the bar of California; however, the record indicates that this individual is not qualified to practice before the USPTO. See previously attached screenshots from the website for the State Bar of California show no results for a search of this name. See 37 C.F.R. §11.14(a); TMEP §§602 et seq. Only attorneys who are active members in good standing of the bar of a highest court of a U.S. state (including the District of Columbia or any U.S. commonwealth or territory) may practice before the USPTO in trademark matters. 37 C.F.R. §§2.17(a), 11.14; TMEP §§602.01-.03.  Accordingly, applicant must provide documentation showing the attorney’s active bar membership in good standing in the designated bar, such as a certificate of good standing, a letter from the bar, or if the bar lists a member’s standing and admission details, a webpage containing the details from the bar’s website, showing the URL and access or print date. 37 C.F.R. §§2.17(b)(3), 2.61(b). 

 

If the originally submitted attorney bar information is incorrect, applicant’s attorney must specify the correct bar information and provide supporting documentation showing the attorney’s active bar membership in good standing. 37 C.F.R. §§2.17(b)(3), 2.61(b). Otherwise, applicant may appoint or designate a different attorney who is qualified to practice before the USPTO under 37 C.F.R. §11.14. See 37 C.F.R. §2.17(a).

 

Failure to comply with this requirement is grounds for refusing registration. In re Harley, 119 USPQ2d 1755, 1757-58 (TTAB 2016); TMEP §814. Merely stating that the attorney’s bar information is available on a state bar’s website is an insufficient response and will not make the relevant information of record. See In re Planalytics, Inc., 70 USPQ2d 1453, 1457-58 (TTAB 2004).

 

To provide an attorney bar or other licensing authority number.  Applicant’s U.S.-licensed attorney must respond to this Office action by using the appropriate TEAS response form and provide his or her bar number or the number provided by the U.S. state, commonwealth, or territory used to identify the attorney in the “Attorney Information” page of the form, within the bar information section.  Bar information provided in any other area of the form will be viewable by the public in USPTO records.

How to respond.  Click to file a request for reconsideration of this final Office action that fully resolves all outstanding requirements and refusals and/or click to file a timely appeal to the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB) with the required filing fee(s).

 

 

/Jean H. Im/

Trademark Examining Attorney

Law Office 101

U.S. Patent and Trademark Office

571-272-9303

jean.im@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 May 17, 2021 for

U.S. Trademark Application Serial No. 90173413

 

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. 

 

 

/Jean H. Im/

Trademark Examining Attorney

Law Office 101

U.S. Patent and Trademark Office

571-272-9303

jean.im@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 May 17, 2021, 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.”