| To: | Elbeco Incorporated (lwmiller1019@millerlawgroup.net) |
| Subject: | U.S. Trademark Application Serial No. 90287969 - EXPRESS - N/A |
| Sent: | April 02, 2021 10:03:19 AM |
| Sent As: | ecom119@uspto.gov |
| Attachments: | Attachment - 1 Attachment - 2 Attachment - 3 Attachment - 4 |
United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO)
Office Action (Official Letter) About Applicant’s Trademark Application
|
U.S. Application Serial No. 90287969
Mark: EXPRESS
|
|
|
Correspondence Address:
|
|
|
Applicant: Elbeco Incorporated
|
|
|
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: April 02, 2021
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.
SECTION 2(d) REFUSAL
Registration of the applied-for mark is refused because of a likelihood of confusion with the mark in each of the below listed U.S. Registration Numbers. Trademark Act Section 2(d), 15 U.S.C. §1052(d); see TMEP §§1207.01 et seq. See the enclosed registrations.
1120073 EXPRESS for SWEATERS, KNIT TOPS, BLOUSES, PANTS, SPORT JACKETS, SHIRTS, AND SKIRTS
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 MARKS
In the present case, applicant’s mark is EXPRESS and registrant’s mark is EXPRESS. Each are standard character marks, and 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 and/or services. Id.
Therefore, the marks are confusingly similar.
COMPARISON OF GOODS/SERVICES
In this instance, applicant’s and registrant’s goods are both the same, namely clothing, and overlap, recited by registrant as “SWEATERS, KNIT TOPS, BLOUSES, PANTS, SPORT JACKETS, SHIRTS, AND SKIRTS ” as comparison to applicant’s more narrowly tailored “Men's and women's Work Shirt and Uniform Shirts” which nevertheless are encompassed by “knit tops” and specifically “SHIRTS” of the registrant.
In this case, the goods and/or services in the application and registration(s) are presumed to be identical based on the recitations. Therefore, it is presumed that the channels of trade and class(es) of purchasers are the same for these goods and/or services. See Cai v. Diamond Hong, Inc., 901 F.3d 1367, 1372, 127 USPQ2d 1797, 1801 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (quoting In re Viterra Inc., 671 F.3d 1358, 1362, 101 USPQ2d 1905, 1908 (Fed. Cir. 2012)). Thus, applicant’s and registrant’s goods and/or services are related.
Hence, the overall similarities between the Registrant’s and Applicant’s marks and goods and/or services, and the commercial impressions that they create, are greater than the differences, and refusal of registration of Applicant’s mark under Section 2(d) is appropriate.
If applicant responds to the refusal(s), applicant must also respond to the requirement(s) set forth below.
DOMICILE REQUIRED: US APPLICANT WITH PO BOX
An individual applicant’s domicile is the place a person resides and intends to be the person’s principal home. 37 C.F.R. §2.2(o); Examination Guide 4-19, at I.A. A juristic entity’s domicile is the principal place of business, i.e., headquarters, where a juristic entity applicant’s senior executives or officers ordinarily direct and control the entity’s activities. 37 C.F.R. §2.2(o); Examination Guide 4-19, at I.A. An applicant whose domicile is located outside of the United States or its territories is foreign-domiciled and must be represented at the USPTO by a U.S.-licensed attorney qualified to practice before the USPTO under 37 C.F.R. §11.14. 37 C.F.R. §2.11(a).
The application record lists applicant as a juristic entity and specifies applicant’s domicile as a post office box or mail forwarding service instead of a street address. In most cases, a post office box or mail forwarding service is not acceptable as a domicile address because it does not identify the location of applicant’s headquarters where the entity’s senior executives or officers ordinarily direct and control the entity’s activities. See37 C.F.R. §§2.2(o)-(p), 2.189; Examination Guide 4-19, at I.A.3. Thus, applicant must provide its domicile street address. See 37 C.F.R. §2.189. Alternatively, an applicant may demonstrate that the listed address is, in fact, the applicant’s domicile. Examination Guide 4-19, at I.A.3.
To provide documentation supporting applicant’s domicile. Open the correct TEAS response form and enter the serial number, answer “yes” to wizard question #3, and on the “Additional Statement(s)” page, below the “Miscellaneous Statement” field, click the button below the text box to attach documentation to support the address.
To provide applicant’s domicile street address. After opening the correct TEAS response form and entering the serial number, answer “yes” to wizard question #5, and provide applicant’s street address on the “Owner Information” page. Information provided in the TEAS response form will be publicly viewable.
If applicant wants to hide its domicile address from public view because of privacy or other concerns, applicant must have a mailing address that can be made public and differs from its domicile address. In this case, applicant must follow the steps below in the correct order to ensure the domicile address will be hidden:
(1) First submit a TEAS Change Address or Representation (CAR) form. Open the form, enter the serial number, click “Continue,” and
(a) Use the radio buttons to select “Attorney” for the role of the person submitting the form;
(b) Answer “Yes” to the wizard question asking, “Do you want to UPDATE the mailing address, email address, phone or fax number(s) for the trademark owner/holder?” and click “Continue;”
(c) On the “Owner Information” page, if the previously provided mailing address has changed, applicant must enter its new mailing address in the “Mailing Address” field, which will be publicly viewable;
(d) On the “Owner Information” page, uncheck the box next to “Domicile Address” and enter the new domicile address in the text box immediately below the checkbox.
(2) Then submit a TEAS response form to indicate the domicile address has been changed. Open the form and
(a) Answer “yes” to wizard question #3 and click “Continue;”
(b) Click on the “Miscellaneous Statement” box on the “Additional Statement(s)” page, and enter a statement in the text box immediately below the checkbox that the domicile address was previously changed in the CAR form.
How to respond. Click to file a response to this nonfinal Office action.
/Hanno Rittner/
Examining Attorney
Law Office 119
hanno.rittner@uspto.gov
571-272-7188
RESPONSE GUIDANCE
