To: | Cai Zhenghao (trademarks@dililaw.com) |
Subject: | U.S. Trademark Application Serial No. 90253095 - VGR VOYAGER - US014200T |
Sent: | April 05, 2021 12:59:02 PM |
Sent As: | ecom105@uspto.gov |
Attachments: | Attachment - 1 Attachment - 2 Attachment - 3 Attachment - 4 Attachment - 5 Attachment - 6 Attachment - 7 Attachment - 8 Attachment - 9 |
United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO)
Office Action (Official Letter) About Applicant’s Trademark Application
U.S. Application Serial No. 90253095
Mark: VGR VOYAGER
|
|
Correspondence Address: 17700 CASTLETON STREET, STE 353
|
|
Applicant: Cai Zhenghao
|
|
Reference/Docket No. US014200T
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.
SECTION 2(d) REFUSAL – LIKELIHOOD OF CONFUSION
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).
Here, applicant seeks to register the mark VGR VOYAGER in stylized form.
The mark in U.S. Registration No. 2558692 is VOYAGER in standard characters.
The mark in U.S. Registration No. 1212997 is VOYAGER in standard characters.
For the foregoing reasons, applicant’s applied-for mark is confusingly similar to the registered marks.
Comparison of the Goods
Applicant seeks to register its mark for use on or in connection with “Razors; Shears; Curling irons; Curling tongs; Depilation appliances, electric and non-electric; Electric eyelash curlers; Electric hair clippers; Electric hair crimper; Electric hair straightener; Electric hair straightening irons; Electric nasal hair trimmers; Eyelash curlers; Flat irons; Hair clippers; Hair clippers for personal use, electric and non-electric; Razor blades; Razors, electric or non-electric.”
The mark in U.S. Registration No. 2558692 is used on or in connection with “hand-held electric hair dryers.”
The mark in U.S. Registration No. 1212997 is used on or in connection with “Manicure Sets Comprising One or More of the Following Instruments: Fingernail Clipper, Toenail Clipper, Nail File, Tweezer, Pocket Knife, Bottle Opener, Screwdriver, Scissors, and Cuticle Pusher.”
Conclusion
Because the marks are similar and the goods are related, there is a likelihood of confusion as to the source of applicant’s goods. Accordingly, applicant’s mark is not entitled to registration.
CONTACT 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.
/Molly Segal/
Molly Segal
Trademark Examining Attorney
Law Office 105
(571) 272-6490
Molly.Segal@uspto.gov
RESPONSE GUIDANCE