To: | Fairtex Equipment Company Limited (cabrahams@earthlink.net) |
Subject: | U.S. Trademark Application Serial No. 90421581 - FAIRTEX - 1609-108.US |
Sent: | June 27, 2021 04:21:39 PM |
Sent As: | ecom125@uspto.gov |
Attachments: | Attachment - 1 Attachment - 2 Attachment - 3 |
United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO)
Office Action (Official Letter) About Applicant’s Trademark Application
U.S. Application Serial No. 90421581
Mark: FAIRTEX
|
|
Correspondence Address: LAW OFFICE OF COLIN P. ABRAHAMS 310 N. WESTLAKE BOULEVARD, SUITE 120
|
|
Applicant: Fairtex Equipment Company Limited
|
|
Reference/Docket No. 1609-108.US
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: June 27, 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.
PARTIAL SECTION 2(d) REFUSAL – LIKELIHOOD OF CONFUSION
(THIS IS A PARTIAL REFUSAL THAT APPLIES ONLY TO THOSE GOODS SET FORTH BELOW IN CLASS 009 – IT DOES NOT APPLY TO THE ENTIRETY OF CLASS 009, THE GOODS IN CLASS 010, OR THE SERVICES IN CLASSES 041 AND 045)
Applicant has applied-for the mark FAIRTEX for, in part, the following goods in Class 009: “Electronic devices, namely, wearable activity performance trackers and electronic devices in the nature of wearable activity trackers for tracking and monitoring energy usage, performance, and other information.”
The registered mark is FAIR in International Class 009 for: “Bags adapted for laptops; Battery chargers; Blank USB flash drives; Cabinets for loudspeakers; Cases for smartphones; Cell phone straps; Global positioning system (GPS); Headphones; Mobile phone cases featuring rechargeable batteries; Mobile telephones; Protective covers and cases for tablet computers; Protective films adapted for computer screens; Smartglasses; Smartphones; Smartwatches; Tablet computers; Wearable activity trackers; Data cables; Monopods for handheld digital electronic devices, namely, cell phones; Protective covers and cases for cell phones, laptops and portable media players.”
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
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).
When comparing marks, “[t]he proper test is not a side-by-side comparison of the marks, but instead whether the marks are sufficiently similar in terms of their commercial impression such that [consumers] who encounter the marks would be likely to assume a connection between the parties.” Cai v. Diamond Hong, Inc., 901 F.3d 1367, 1373, 127 USPQ2d 1797, 1801 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (quoting Coach Servs., Inc. v. Triumph Learning LLC, 668 F.3d 1356, 1368, 101 USPQ2d 1713, 1721 (Fed. Cir. 2012)); TMEP §1207.01(b). The proper focus is on the recollection of the average purchaser, who retains a general rather than specific impression of trademarks. In re Inn at St. John’s, LLC, 126 USPQ2d 1742, 1746 (TTAB 2018) (citing In re St. Helena Hosp., 774 F.3d 747, 750-51, 113 USPQ2d 1082, 1085 (Fed. Cir. 2014); Geigy Chem. Corp. v. Atlas Chem. Indus., Inc., 438 F.2d 1005, 1007, 169 USPQ 39, 40 (C.C.P.A. 1971)), aff’d per curiam, 777 F. App’x 516, 2019 BL 343921 (Fed. Cir. 2019); TMEP §1207.01(b).
Applicant’s mark is FAIRTEX in stylized format.
The registered mark is FAIR in standard character format.
Adding a term to a registered mark generally does not obviate the similarity between the compared marks, as in the present case, nor does it overcome a likelihood of confusion under Section 2(d). See Coca-Cola Bottling Co. v. Jos. E. Seagram & Sons, Inc., 526 F.2d 556, 557, 188 USPQ 105, 106 (C.C.P.A. 1975) (finding BENGAL and BENGAL LANCER and design confusingly similar); In re Toshiba Med. Sys. Corp., 91 USPQ2d 1266, 1269 (TTAB 2009) (finding TITAN and VANTAGE TITAN confusingly similar); In re El Torito Rests., Inc., 9 USPQ2d 2002, 2004 (TTAB 1988) (finding MACHO and MACHO COMBOS confusingly similar); TMEP §1207.01(b)(iii). In the present case, the marks are identical in part as applicant has merely added the highly suggestive wording “TEK” to the registered mark, “FAIR”, to create the applied-for mark “FAIRTEX”.
In sum, the marks are highly similar and confusion is likely.
Comparison of Goods
Applicant goods are, in part, in Class 009 for: “Electronic devices, namely, wearable activity performance trackers and electronic devices in the nature of wearable activity trackers for tracking and monitoring energy usage, performance, and other information.”
Registrant’s goods are in International Class 009 for: “Bags adapted for laptops; Battery chargers; Blank USB flash drives; Cabinets for loudspeakers; Cases for smartphones; Cell phone straps; Global positioning system (GPS); Headphones; Mobile phone cases featuring rechargeable batteries; Mobile telephones; Protective covers and cases for tablet computers; Protective films adapted for computer screens; Smartglasses; Smartphones; Smartwatches; Tablet computers; Wearable activity trackers; Data cables; Monopods for handheld digital electronic devices, namely, cell phones; Protective covers and cases for cell phones, laptops and portable media players.”
In this case, the registration uses broad wording to describe “wearable activity tracker”, which presumably encompasses all goods of the type described, including applicant’s more narrow “electronic devices, namely, wearable activity performance trackers and electronic devices in the nature of wearable activity trackers for tracking and monitoring energy usage, performance, and other information.” 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 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 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 are related.
In sum, the applied-for and registered mark are highly similar and the goods of the parties are related. As such, registration is refused in part under Section 2(d) for likelihood of confusion purposes as to applicant’s “electronic devices, namely, wearable activity performance trackers and electronic devices in the nature of wearable activity trackers for tracking and monitoring energy usage, performance, and other information.”
Partial Refusal Response Options: In response to a refusal or requirement that pertains only to certain goods, and/or services, an applicant may file a request to divide the application (form # 3) into two or more separate applications so that any acceptable classes, goods, and/or services may be transferred to the divided out application(s) and proceed toward registration. See 37 C.F.R. §2.87; TMEP §1110 et seq. Any outstanding deadline in effect at the time the application is divided will generally apply to each new divided out application. See 37 C.F.R. §2.87(e); TMEP §1110.05 (see list of exceptions).
There is a fee for each new application created. See 37 C.F.R. §§2.6(a)(19)(ii), 2.87(b); TMEP §1110.04. And if dividing out some, but not all, of the goods or services within a class, an additional application filing fee will be required for each new separate application created by the division. 37 C.F.R. §§2.6(a)(1)(i)-(iii), 2.87(b); TMEP §1110.02.
IDENTIFICATION OF GOODS AND SERVICES
The wording “FILED” in the identification of services in International Class 045 appears to be misspelled and is thus indefinite; the spelling must be corrected or the wording further clarified. See 37 C.F.R. §2.32(a)(6); TMEP §1402.01(a).
The wording “ELECTRONIC DEVICES, NAMELY, WEARABLE ACTIVITY PERFORMANCE TRACKERS AND ELECTRONIC DEVICES IN THE NATURE OF WEARABLE ACTIVITY TRACKERS FOR TRACKING AND MONITORING ENERGY USAGE, PERFORMANCE, AND OTHER INFORMATION” in the identification of goods in International Class 009 is indefinite and must be clarified to better identify what the electronic devices are monitoring. See 37 C.F.R. §2.32(a)(6); TMEP §1402.01.
In sum, applicant may substitute the following wording, if accurate:
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.
For this application to proceed, applicant must explicitly address each refusal and 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.
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 and requirement 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.
Lucy Ellen Browne
Examining Attorney
Law Office 125
571-270-0961
lucy.browne@uspto.gov
RESPONSE GUIDANCE