To: | WELLCRAFT, LLC (dockmpls@merchantgould.com) |
Subject: | U.S. Trademark Application Serial No. 90495049 - COASTAL - 4779.20US03 |
Sent: | August 17, 2021 10:50:15 PM |
Sent As: | ecom116@uspto.gov |
Attachments: | Attachment - 1 Attachment - 2 Attachment - 3 Attachment - 4 Attachment - 5 Attachment - 6 Attachment - 7 |
United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO)
Office Action (Official Letter) About Applicant’s Trademark Application
U.S. Application Serial No. 90495049
Mark: COASTAL
|
|
Correspondence Address:
|
|
Applicant: WELLCRAFT, LLC
|
|
Reference/Docket No. 4779.20US03
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: August 17, 2021
The assigned examining attorney has reviewed the referenced application and determined the following.
REGISTRATION
Likelihood of Confusion
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.
The proposed mark is closely related to the prior registered marks in each of the factors listed above in the DuPont case. The sound, commercial meaning, and impression of the marks are closely related. Applicant’s mark is COASTAL. Registrant’s marks are COASTAL MACHANICS and COASTAL MECHANICS with a design. The term MECHANICS is disclaimed in both registrations. The dominant term in registrant’s mark is identical to applicant’s mark.
Applicant offers boats and structural parts therefor; the registrant offers a wide variety of structural parts of naval vessels, which is another name for boats. The goods are overlapping. Consumers, therefore, are likely to believe that the goods of the parties originate from the same source.
Registration of the proposed mark must therefore be refused. Applicant may, however, offer evidence in support of registration.
Applicant’s Response
Guidelines for responding are set forth below.
How to respond. Click to file a response to this nonfinal Office action.
/wgb/
William Breckenfeld
Examining Attorney
Law Office 116
571-272-9133
Email: william.breckenfeld@uspto.gov
informal queries
RESPONSE GUIDANCE