Offc Action Outgoing

United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO)

Office Action (Official Letter) About Applicant’s Trademark Application

 

 

 

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:  June 08, 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.

 

LIKELIHOOD OF CONFUSION REFUSAL

 

THIS PARTIAL REFUSAL APPLIES ONLY TO THE SERVICES SPECIFIED THEREIN

 

Registration of the applied-for mark is refused because of a likelihood of confusion with the mark in U.S. Registration No. 6322423.  Trademark Act Section 2(d), 15 U.S.C. §1052(d); see TMEP §§1207.01 et seq.  See the attached registration.

 

Trademark Act Section 2(d) bars registration of an applied-for mark that is so similar to a registered mark that it is likely consumers would be confused, mistaken, or deceived as to the commercial source of the goods and/or services of the parties.  See 15 U.S.C. §1052(d).  Likelihood of confusion is determined on a case-by-case basis by applying the factors set forth in In re E. I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., 476 F.2d 1357, 1361, 177 USPQ 563, 567 (C.C.P.A. 1973) (called the “du Pont factors”).  In re i.am.symbolic, llc, 866 F.3d 1315, 1322, 123 USPQ2d 1744, 1747 (Fed. Cir. 2017).  Any evidence of record related to those factors need be considered; however, “not all of the DuPont factors are relevant or of similar weight in every case.”  In re Guild Mortg. Co., 912 F.3d 1376, 1379, 129 USPQ2d 1160, 1162 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (quoting In re Dixie Rests., Inc., 105 F.3d 1405, 1406, 41 USPQ2d 1531, 1533 (Fed. Cir. 1997)).

 

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. 

 

Similarity of Marks

 

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)).

 

The applicant has applied for the mark “DCARD” with a stylized design of an eye, hair and mouth inside of the letter “D.”  The registrant’s mark is “D CARD” in standard characters. The literal portion of applicant’s mark is practically identical to the registered mark.

 

Relatedness of Services

 

The applicant’s services are “Advertising; Publication of publicity texts; Presentation of goods on communication media, for retail purposes; Development of internet advertising concepts; Pay per click advertising; On-line advertising on a computer network; Rental of advertising space; Electronic billboard advertising; Rental of advertising space on web sites; Operating an on-line shopping site in the field of cosmetics, clothes, accessories; Providing commercial information and advice for consumers in the choice of products and services,” in relevant part.

 

The services listed in the registration include “Sales promotion for others; Promoting the goods and services of others by distributing electronic coupons; Administration of a consumer loyalty program to promote restaurant services and retail services of others; Advertising agencies; On-line advertising on a computer network.”

 

Where the services in the application at issue or in the cited registration are broadly identified as to their nature and type, without restrictions as to the channels of trade and limitations as to the classes of purchasers, it is presumed that the scope the of the services encompasses all services of the nature and type described, and that the identified services are offered in all normal channels of trade, and to all potential purchasers.  In re Elbaum, 211 U.S.P.Q. 639, 640 (TTAB 1981); see TMEP § 1207.01(a)(iii). In the present case, the identification in the registration includes broad language that is presumed to encompass all services of the type described, including the narrower services listed in the application.

 

Because the marks are highly similar and the services are closely related, confusion is likely in accordance with Section 2(d) of the Act. Although applicant’s mark has been refused registration, applicant may respond to the refusal by submitting evidence and arguments in support of registration.

 

DESCRIPTION OF MARK REQUIREMENT

 

Applicant must submit an amended description of the mark because the current one uses vague language that does not accurately describe the mark.  37 C.F.R. §2.37; see TMEP §§808.01, 808.02.  Descriptions must be accurate and identify all the literal and design elements in the mark.  See 37 C.F.R. §2.37; TMEP §808.02.

 

The following description is suggested, if accurate:  The mark consists of the word “DCARD” in stylized letters with a stylized design of an eye, hair and mouth inside of the letter “D.”

 

IDENTIFICATION OF SERVICES REQUIREMENTS

 

THIS PARTIAL REQUIREMENT APPLIES ONLY TO THE SERVICES SPECIFIED THEREIN

 

The wording “Operating an on-line shopping site in the field of accessories” in the identification of services is indefinite and must be clarified because the type of accessories has not been specified.  See 37 C.F.R. §2.32(a)(6); TMEP §1402.01.  Applicant may substitute the following wording, if accurate:  Operating an on-line shopping site in the field of cosmetics, clothes and clothing accessories.

 

Applicant may amend the identification to clarify or limit the services, but not to broaden or expand the services beyond those in the original application or as acceptably amended.  See 37 C.F.R. §2.71(a); TMEP §1402.06. 

 

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.

 

How to respond.  Click to file a response to this nonfinal Office action.    

 

 

/Khanh M. Le/

Trademark Examining Attorney

Law Office 116

U.S. Patent & Trademark Office

Khanh.Le@USPTO.gov

(571) 272-9435

 

 

RESPONSE GUIDANCE

• Missing the response deadline to this letter will cause the application to abandon.  A response or notice of appeal must be received by the USPTO before midnight Eastern Time of the last day of the response period.  TEAS and ESTTA maintenance or unforeseen circumstances could affect an applicant’s ability to timely respond.  

 

• Responses signed by an unauthorized party are not accepted and can cause the application to abandon.  If applicant does not have an attorney, the response must be signed by the individual applicant, all joint applicants, or someone with legal authority to bind a juristic applicant.  If applicant has an attorney, the response must be signed by the attorney.

 

• If needed, find contact information for the supervisor of the office or unit listed in the signature block.

 

United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO)

 

USPTO OFFICIAL NOTICE

 

Office Action (Official Letter) has issued

on June 08, 2021 for

U.S. Trademark Application Serial No. 90381940

 

Your trademark application has been reviewed by a trademark examining attorney.  As part of that review, the assigned attorney has issued an official letter that you must respond to by the specified deadline or your application will be abandoned.  Please follow the steps below.

 

(1)  Read the official letter.

 

(2)  Direct questions about the contents of the Office action to the assigned attorney below. 

 

 

/Khanh M. Le/

Trademark Examining Attorney

Law Office 116

U.S. Patent & Trademark Office

Khanh.Le@USPTO.gov

(571) 272-9435

 

Direct questions about navigating USPTO electronic forms, the USPTO website, the application process, the status of your application, and/or whether there are outstanding deadlines or documents related to your file to the Trademark Assistance Center (TAC).

 

(3)  Respond within 6 months (or earlier, if required in the Office action) from June 08, 2021, using the Trademark Electronic Application System (TEAS).  The response must be received by the USPTO before midnight Eastern Time of the last day of the response period.  See the Office action for more information about how to respond

 

 

 

GENERAL GUIDANCE

·       Check the status of your application periodically in the Trademark Status & Document Retrieval (TSDR) database to avoid missing critical deadlines.

 

·       Update your correspondence email address, if needed, to ensure you receive important USPTO notices about your application.

 

·       Beware of misleading notices sent by private companies about your application.  Private companies not associated with the USPTO use public information available in trademark registrations to mail and email trademark-related offers and notices – most of which require fees.  All official USPTO correspondence will only be emailed from the domain “@uspto.gov.”