United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO)
Office Action (Official Letter) About Applicant’s Trademark Application
U.S. Application Serial No. 90181797
Mark: CYCLO
|
|
Correspondence Address:
|
|
Applicant: M5 BRANDS 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: January 28, 2021
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.
SECTION 2(d) REFUSAL – LIKELIHOOD OF CONFUSION
In the current case, the applicant seeks registration of the mark “CYCLO” with a design for use in connection with “Golf Shoes; Golf Shirts; Golf caps; Hats; Sweat Suits; Bottoms as clothing; Footwear; Head Wear; Hoods; Jackets; Jeans; Jerseys; Shirts; Tops as clothing” in International Class 25.
The mark in Registration No. 4033722 is “CYCLOSPORTIF” in standard characters for use in connection with “Cycling-themed apparel, namely, jerseys, shorts, bib shorts, tights, and jackets” in International Class 25.
The mark in Registration No. 5034144 is “CYCLOHAUS” in standard characters for use in connection with “On-line retail store services featuring cyclo-cross apparel, clothing, hats, and gear, all for use in cyclo-cross sports” in International Class 35.
The mark in Registration No. 5803986 is “CYCLO” with a design for use in connection with “Yarn fibers” in International Class 22.
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.
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).
Again, the applied-for mark is “CYCLO” with a design, whereas the mark in Registration No. 4033722 is “CYCLOSPORTIF” in standard characters; the mark in Registration No. 5034144 is “CYCLOHAUS” in standard characters; and the mark in Registration No. 5803986 is “CYCLO” with a design.
In the present case, applicant’s mark is “CYCLO” with a design in which the letter “O” is composed of six triangles and registrant’s mark in Registration No. 5803986 is “CYCLO” with the same design of the letter “O” formed by six triangles. These marks are identical in appearance, sound, and meaning, “and have the potential to be used . . . in exactly the same manner.” In re i.am.symbolic, llc, 116 USPQ2d 1406, 1411 (TTAB 2015), aff’d, 866 F.3d 1315, 123 USPQ2d 1744 (Fed. Cir. 2017). Additionally, because they are identical, these marks are likely to engender the same connotation and overall commercial impression when considered in connection with applicant’s and registrant’s respective goods. Id.
Therefore, these marks are confusingly similar.
Otherwise, the applied-for mark shares the term “CYCLO” with the marks in Registration Nos. 4033722 and 5034144. Marks may be confusingly similar in appearance where similar terms or phrases or similar parts of terms or phrases appear in the compared marks and create a similar overall commercial impression. See Crocker Nat’l Bank v. Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce, 228 USPQ 689, 690-91 (TTAB 1986), aff’d sub nom. Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce v. Wells Fargo Bank, Nat’l Ass’n, 811 F.2d 1490, 1495, 1 USPQ2d 1813, 1817 (Fed. Cir. 1987) (finding COMMCASH and COMMUNICASH confusingly similar); In re Corning Glass Works, 229 USPQ 65, 66 (TTAB 1985) (finding CONFIRM and CONFIRMCELLS confusingly similar); In re Pellerin Milnor Corp., 221 USPQ 558, 560 (TTAB 1983) (finding MILTRON and MILLTRONICS confusingly similar); TMEP §1207.01(b)(ii)-(iii).
While both Registration Nos. 4033722 and 5034144 include wording subsequent to the shared term, that wording is of less significance in the minds of consumers drawing commercial impressions from the respective marks. First, as already noted, that wording is subsequent in both of the registered marks. Consumers are generally more inclined to focus on the first word, prefix, or syllable in any trademark or service mark. See Palm Bay Imps., Inc. v. Veuve Clicquot Ponsardin Maison Fondee En 1772, 396 F.3d 1369, 1372, 73 USPQ2d 1689, 1692 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (finding similarity between VEUVE ROYALE and two VEUVE CLICQUOT marks in part because “VEUVE . . . remains a ‘prominent feature’ as the first word in the mark and the first word to appear on the label”); Century 21 Real Estate Corp. v. Century Life of Am., 970 F.2d 874, 876, 23 USPQ2d 1698, 1700 (Fed Cir. 1992) (finding similarity between CENTURY 21 and CENTURY LIFE OF AMERICA in part because “consumers must first notice th[e] identical lead word”); see also In re Detroit Athletic Co., 903 F.3d 1297, 1303, 128 USPQ2d 1047, 1049 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (finding “the identity of the marks’ two initial words is particularly significant because consumers typically notice those words first”).
Second, the term “HAUS” in Registration No. 5034144 means “House” in English, which renders that term descriptive when used in connection with clothing and apparel, including retail store services featuring the same. Attachment 1. To that end, the definition of “House” is noted to refer to “a company or organization involved in a particular activity . . . especially those that design and sell clothes,” which largely mirrors the retail store services featuring apparel and clothing identified in Registration No. 5034144. Attachment 2. Similarly, the term “SPORTIF” in Registration No. 4033722 is defined as “(of a garment or style of dress) suitable for sport or informal wear; casual,” which is descriptive of a type of clothing, such as that identified in this registration, forms of “cycling-themed apparel.” Attachment 3.
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). Matter that is descriptive of or generic for a party’s goods is typically less significant or less dominant in relation to other wording in a mark. See Anheuser-Busch, LLC v. Innvopak Sys. Pty Ltd., 115 USPQ2d 1816, 1824-25 (TTAB 2015) (citing In re Chatam Int’l Inc., 380 F.3d 1340, 1342-43, 71 USPQ2d 1944, 1946 (Fed. Cir. 2004)).
In the present case, the above evidence shows that the noted wording in the registered marks is merely descriptive of or generic for the registrants’ respective goods. Thus, this wording is less significant in terms of affecting the mark’s commercial impression, and renders the wording “CYCLO” the more dominant element of the mark in Registration Nos. 4033722 and 5034144.
Finally, while Registration Nos. 4033722 and 5034144 appear in standard characters, the applied-for mark appears with a design. However, 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)).
Therefore, when viewed as a whole, the applicant’s mark is substantially similar in commercial impression to each of the registered marks.
Comparison of the Goods and Services.
First, the application identifies “Golf Shoes; Golf Shirts; Golf caps; Hats; Sweat Suits; Bottoms as clothing; Footwear; Head Wear; Hoods; Jackets; Jeans; Jerseys; Shirts; Tops as clothing.”
In turn, Registration No. 5803986 identifies “Yarn.”
Compared goods need not be identical or even competitive to find a likelihood of confusion. See On-line Careline Inc. v. Am. Online Inc., 229 F.3d 1080, 1086, 56 USPQ2d 1471, 1475 (Fed. Cir. 2000); Recot, Inc. v. Becton, 214 F.3d 1322, 1329, 54 USPQ2d 1894, 1898 (Fed. Cir. 2000); TMEP §1207.01(a)(i). They need only be “related in some manner and/or if the circumstances surrounding their marketing are such that they could give rise to the mistaken belief that [the goods] emanate from the same source.” Coach Servs., Inc. v. Triumph Learning LLC, 668 F.3d 1356, 1369, 101 USPQ2d 1713, 1722 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (quoting 7-Eleven Inc. v. Wechsler, 83 USPQ2d 1715, 1724 (TTAB 2007)); TMEP §1207.01(a)(i).
The attached Internet evidence, consisting of joann.com (Attachments 4-6), michaels.com (Attachments 7-9), and darngoodyarn.com (Attachments 10-12) establishes that the relevant goods services are sold or provided through the same trade channels and used by the same classes of consumers in the same fields of use. Thus, applicant’s and registrant’s goods in Registration No. 5803986 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).
Next, Registration No. 4033722 identifies “Cycling-themed apparel, namely, jerseys, shorts, bib shorts, tights, and jackets.” To recount, the application identifies “Golf Shoes; Golf Shirts; Golf caps; Hats; Sweat Suits; Bottoms as clothing; Footwear; Head Wear; Hoods; Jackets; Jeans; Jerseys; Shirts; Tops as clothing.”
In this case, the application uses broad wording to describe “Jerseys,” “Bottoms as clothing,” “Jackets,” and “Tops as clothing,” language that presumably encompasses all goods of the type described, including the registrant’s more narrowly defined “Cycling-themed apparel, namely, jerseys, shorts, bib shorts, tights, and jackets.” 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 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, the applicant’s and registrant’s goods in Registration No. 4033722 are related.
Finally, Registration No. 5034144 identifies “On-line retail store services featuring cyclo-cross apparel, clothing, hats, and gear, all for use in cyclo-cross sports.”
Because the applicant’s and registrants’ marks are similar and their goods and/or services related, it is likely a potential consumer would be confused, mistaken, or deceived as to the source of the parties’ respective goods and/or services. Accordingly, the applicant’s mark creates a likelihood of confusion with the registered marks, and registration is properly refused pursuant to Section 2(d) of the Trademark Act.
Applicant should note the following additional ground for refusal.
SECTIONS 1 AND 45 SPECIMEN REFUSAL – MOCKUP
An application based on Trademark Act Section 1(a) must include a specimen showing the applied-for mark as actually used in commerce for each international class of goods identified in the application or amendment to allege use. 15 U.S.C. §1051(a)(1); 37 C.F.R. §§2.34(a)(1)(iv), 2.56(a); TMEP §§904, 904.07(a). “Use in commerce” means (1) a bona fide use of the applied-for mark in the ordinary course of trade (and not merely to reserve a right in the mark), (2) the mark is placed in any manner on the goods, packaging, tags or labels affixed to the goods, or displays that directly associate the mark with the goods and have a point-of-sale nature, and (3) the goods are actually sold or transported in commerce. See 15 U.S.C. §1127.
An image of a product or packaging that has been digitally created or altered to include the mark or a mockup of how the mark may be displayed on the product or packaging is not a proper specimen for goods because it does not show actual use of the mark in commerce. See 15 U.S.C. §1127; 37 C.F.R. §2.56(c); TMEP §904.04(a).
In this case, the application identifies goods of “Golf Shoes; Golf Shirts; Golf caps; Hats; Sweat Suits; Bottoms as clothing; Footwear; Head Wear; Hoods; Jackets; Jeans; Jerseys; Shirts; Tops as clothing.” The images in the specimen depict a sweatshirt, a pair of jeans, and a t-shirt, each bearing a label that is illegible; however, each of the aforesaid images also corresponds to a zoomed image presumably reflecting the noted labels depicting the applied-for mark. However, these depiction of the applied-for mark on these labels appear to be mockups of how the mark may appear.
First, records indicate that the applicant previously filed an application for the identical mark on December 17, 2019 (Application No. 88729578, attached), and in doing so, submitted a specimen reflecting the identical images as found in the current application’s specimen. Notably, however, there are no indications online that the mark “CYCLO” with a design is in use with any clothing items from the applicant. Attachment 43. Second, the labels in the current application contain additional text beyond the applied-for mark. However, that labeling is identical on all three articles of clothing, which bear no further labeling or item-specific information. Such labeling is atypical in the marketplace for items of clothing and apparel. Third, the labels appearing in the specimen do not appear to be affixed to the sweatshirt or t-shirt in the images. The labels show a string or twine running through the top, and simply folding under the side of, the collar in these images, an area of attachment that would cause damage to the goods themselves if accurate. Notably, the collars of these products also reflect no further labeling or tags, as typically found in the marketplace for tops as clothing. Therefore, the specimen does not show actual use of the mark in commerce.
Response options. Applicant may respond to the specimen refusal by satisfying one of the following options for each applicable international class:
(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 or prior to the filing of an amendment to allege use and (b) shows the mark in actual use in commerce for the goods identified in the application or amendment to allege use. 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. For instructions on how to submit a different specimen using the online Trademark Electronic Application System (TEAS) form, see the Specimen webpage.
(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.
If applicant submits an acceptable verified substitute specimen or amends to Section 1(b), the requirement below for additional information/documentation about the original specimen will be withdrawn. The requirement below as to the original specimen will be made final if applicant submits a substitute specimen that is not acceptable or does not amend to Section 1(b), and does not also respond completely to the requirement below.
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION/DOCUMENTATION ABOUT SPECIMEN REQUIRED
To permit proper examination of the application record for compliance with use in commerce requirements, applicant must respond to the following requests for information and documentation about the specimen(s). See 37 C.F.R. §2.61(b); TMEP §814. A specimen must show the mark as actually used in commerce, which means use in the ordinary course of trade, and not merely to reserve a right in the trademark. 15 U.S.C. §§1051, 1052, 1127. Because the specimen of record appears to be digitally created or altered, or is a mockup, further information is necessary to determine whether the specimen is in actual use in commerce.
Answer for each specimen/photograph/image previously provided. For any website source, provide a digital copy of the entire webpage from top to bottom, as rendered in an Internet browser, that includes the URL and access or print date. TMEP §710.01(b) (citing In re I-Coat Co., 126 USPQ2d 1730, 1733 (TTAB 2018)).
(1) Identify the particular good(s) listed in the application for which the specimen(s) was submitted to show use of the mark.
(2) Explain whether the specimen was created for submission with this application. If so, specify the date each specimen was created. If applicant used the image(s) of the goods shown in the specimen(s) from a third-party website, provide the URL of the website and a digital copy of relevant webpage(s) for each image.
(3) Provide information about and examples of how applicant’s goods appear in the actual sales environment.
(a) If sold in stores, provide a representative sample of the name(s) of the stores and of photographs showing the goods for sale in the named stores, such as photographs of the sales displays or goods on shelves with the mark.
(b) If sold online, provide a representative sample of the name(s) of the online retailers, the website URL(s) for each named retailer, and a digital copy of the webpages showing the goods for sale on the named website.
(c) If sold in another type of sales environment (e.g., catalogs, trade shows), identify the environment and provide photographs and/or documentation showing the goods for sale in that environment.
(4) If the information in question (3) about how the goods appear in the actual sales environment is not available to applicant, please describe how applicant’s goods are sold or transported and provide photographs and other documentation showing how applicant’s mark appears on the goods and/or its packaging when the goods are sold or transported to or within the United States.
(5) For each category of sales environment specified in response to questions (3) and (4), specify when the goods bearing the mark were first available for purchase within the United States, the date of the first sale of the goods to or within the United States, and whether the goods are still for sale to or within the United States in that environment.
(6) For the goods identified in response to question (1), provide documentation that shows payment or other consideration made for the goods, redacting personal or private information of buyers as necessary.
Failure to comply with a requirement to furnish information is grounds for refusing registration. In re Harley, 119 USPQ2d 1755, 1757-58 (TTAB 2016); TMEP §814. Merely stating that information is available on applicant’s or a third party website or providing a hyperlink of such a website is an insufficient response and will not make the additional information or materials of record. See In re Planalytics, Inc., 70 USPQ2d 1453, 1457-58 (TTAB 2004).
How to respond. Click to file a response to this nonfinal Office action.
/Jeffrey Oakes/
Examining Attorney
Law Office 128
(571) 272-8653
Jeffrey.Oakes@uspto.gov
RESPONSE GUIDANCE