To: | Bonaventure Realty Group, LLC (uspto@tm4smallbiz.com) |
Subject: | U.S. Trademark Application Serial No. 90331566 - ARIA - N/A |
Sent: | May 11, 2021 03:54:06 PM |
Sent As: | ecom123@uspto.gov |
Attachments: | Attachment - 1 Attachment - 2 Attachment - 3 Attachment - 4 Attachment - 5 Attachment - 6 Attachment - 7 Attachment - 8 Attachment - 9 Attachment - 10 Attachment - 11 Attachment - 12 Attachment - 13 Attachment - 14 Attachment - 15 Attachment - 16 |
United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO)
Office Action (Official Letter) About Applicant’s Trademark Application
U.S. Application Serial No. 90331566
Mark: ARIA
|
|
Correspondence Address: ERIK M. PELTON & ASSOCIATES, PLLC
|
|
Applicant: Bonaventure Realty Group, 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: May 11, 2021
SECTION 2(d) REFUSAL – LIKELIHOOD OF CONFUSION
The applied-for mark is ARIA for “real estate services, namely, commercial and residential property management services; real estate services, namely, rental property management; leasing of apartments; rental of apartments; providing a website featuring information in the field of real estate and leasing.”
The registered mark is ARIA for “leasing of shopping mall space to others; building leasing; leasing of office space.”
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.
i. Similarity of the Marks
In the present case, applicant’s mark is ARIA and registrant’s mark is ARIA. 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 and/or services. Id.
Therefore, the marks are confusingly similar.
ii. The Services are Related
The attached Internet evidence, consisting of third-party companies offering property management and leasing services, establishes that the same entity commonly manufactures, produces, or provides the relevant services and markets the services under the same mark. See attached evidence from http://askdag.com/services/leasing-management/ and http://www.cbre.us/real-estate-services/directory/property-management Thus, applicant’s and registrant’s services 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).
In conclusion, upon encountering applicant’s and registrant’s marks used on the identified services, consumers are likely to be confused and mistakenly believe that the respective services emanate from a common source. Accordingly, registration of the applied-for mark is refused because of a likelihood of confusion with the mark in U.S. Registration No. 3920125. Trademark Act Section 2(d), 15 U.S.C. §1052(d); see TMEP §§1207.01 et seq.
If applicant responds to the refusal(s), applicant must also respond to the requirement(s) set forth below.
PRIOR-FILED PENDING APPLICATIONS
In response to this Office action, applicant may present arguments in support of registration by addressing the issue of the potential conflict between applicant’s mark and the marks in the referenced applications. Applicant’s election not to submit arguments at this time in no way limits applicant’s right to address this issue later if a refusal under Section 2(d) issues.
IDENTIFICATION OF SERVICES – AMENDMENT REQUIRED
Applicant may adopt the following identification, if accurate (changes shown in bold):
CLASS 36 real estate services, namely, commercial and residential property management services; Real estate services, namely, rental property management; Leasing of apartments; rental of apartments; providing a website featuring information in the field of real estate and real estate leasing.
For assistance with identifying and classifying goods and services in trademark applications, please see the USPTO’s online searchable U.S. Acceptable Identification of Goods and Services Manual. See TMEP §1402.04.
Assistance. Please call or email the assigned trademark examining attorney with questions about this Office action. Although an examining attorney cannot provide legal advice, the examining attorney can provide additional explanation about the refusal(s) and/or requirement(s) in this Office action. See TMEP §§705.02, 709.06.
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.
/Julie Vo/
Julie Vo
Trademark Examining Attorney
Law Office 123
(571) 272-4880
julie.vo@uspto.gov (preferred)
RESPONSE GUIDANCE