United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO)
Office Action (Official Letter) About Applicant’s Trademark Application
|
U.S. Application Serial No. 90310160
Mark: DUCHATEAU
|
|
|
Correspondence Address:
|
|
|
Applicant: B&M Noble Co.
|
|
|
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: February 05, 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.
PARTIAL SECTION 2(d) REFUSAL – LIKELIHOOD OF CONFUSION
THIS REFUSAL PERTAINS ONLY TO THE GOODS DISCUSSED HEREIN.
Applicant’s mark is DUCHATEAU presented in standard character form, for use with the following goods related to this refusal:
Class 020: Bathroom vanities; Fitted kitchen furniture; Kitchen cabinets;
Registrant’s mark is CUISINES DE CHATEAU presented in typed form, with the term CUISINES disclaimed, for use with the following registered goods:
Class 020: Kitchen furniture including cabinets
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
Regarding the first prong of the test, a comparison must be made between applicant’s applied-for mark DUCHATEAU and the registered mark CUISINE DE CHATEAU.
In a likelihood of confusion determination, 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).
In the present case, applicant’s marks share the terms “DE” or “DU” together with “CHATEAU”. 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).
Indeed, both applicant’s and registrant’s marks connote similar meanings because applicant’s mark means “OF THE CASTLE” and registrant’s mark means KITCHENS OF THE CASTLE. See applicant’s translation statement and the attached evidence from Collins Dictionary that demonstrates “DE” means “OF” and “CHATEAU” means “CASTLE”. Thus, the marks share not only similar terms but also similar means that the marks are both OF THE CASTLE. Moreover, registrant’s term “CUISINES” is disclaimed for being descriptive of the kitchen related goods. 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 Viterra Inc., 671 F.3d 1358, 1362, 101 USPQ2d 1905, 1908 (Fed. Cir. 2012); In re Nat’l Data Corp., 753 F.2d 1056, 1058, 224 USPQ 749, 751 (Fed. Cir. 1985); TMEP §1207.01(b)(viii), (c)(ii). Disclaimed matter that is descriptive of or generic for a party’s goods and/or services is typically less significant or less dominant when comparing marks. In re Detroit Athletic Co., 903 F.3d 1297, 1305, 128 USPQ2d 1047, 1050 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (citing In re Dixie Rests., Inc., 105 F.3d 1405, 1407, 41 USPQ2d 1531, 1533-34 (Fed. Cir. 1997)); TMEP §1207.01(b)(viii), (c)(ii).
Further, even if potential purchasers realize the apparent differences between the marks, they could still reasonably assume, due to the overall similarities in sound, appearance, connotation, and commercial impression in the respective marks, that applicant’s goods and services sold under the DUCHATEAU mark constitute a new or additional product line from the same source as the goods and services sold under the CUISINES DE CHATEAU mark with which they are acquainted or familiar, and that applicant’s mark is merely a variation of the registrant’s mark. See, e.g., SMS, Inc. v. Byn-Mar Inc. 228 USPQ 219, 220 (TTAB 1985) (applicant’s marks ALSO ANDREA and ANDREA SPORT were “likely to evoke an association by consumers with opposer's preexisting mark [ANDREA SIMONE] for its established line of clothing.”).
Accordingly, giving each feature of the marks appropriate weight, the marks DU CHATEAU of applicant and CUISINES DE CHATEAU of registrant when compared in their entireties are sufficiently similar to create consumer confusion or mistake as to the source of the goods and services despite minor differences in the marks.
Comparison of Goods/Services
Here, applicant’s goods at issue are “Bathroom vanities; Fitted kitchen furniture; Kitchen cabinets” and registrant’s goods are “kitchen furniture including cabinets” (emphasis added). In this case registrant uses broad wording to describe “kitchen furniture including cabinets” which presumably encompasses all goods and/or services of the type described, including applicant’s more narrow fitted kitchen furniture and kitchen cabinets. 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 kitchen 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 and/or services 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.
Accordingly, with the contemporaneous use of sufficiently similar marks, consumers are likely to conclude that the goods and services are related and originate from a single source. As such, registration is herein refused registration under Section 2(d) of the Trademark Act.
PARTIAL ABANDONMENT ADVISORY & 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.
If applicant does not timely respond to this Office action, the following goods will be deleted from the application: “Bathroom vanities; Fitted kitchen furniture; Kitchen cabinets”. See 37 C.F.R. §2.65(a); TMEP §718.02(a).
In such case, the application will then proceed with the following goods only: Wardrobes; Prefabricated closet organization systems. See TMEP §718.02(a).
How to respond. Click to file a response to this nonfinal Office action.
/Courtney M. Caliendo/
Courtney M. Caliendo
Trademark Examining Attorney
Law Office 121 - USPTO
Courtney.Caliendo@uspto.gov
571-270-1871
RESPONSE GUIDANCE
