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:  September 29, 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.

 

SUMMARY OF ISSUES:

• Likelihood of Confusion – Section 2(d) Refusal
• Identification and Classification of Goods and/or Services
• Multiple-Class Application Requirements
• Domicile Address Required

 

LIKELIHOOD OF CONFUSION – SECTION 2(d) REFUSAL

 

Registration of the applied-for mark is refused because of a likelihood of confusion with the markin U.S. Registration No. 3133762.  Trademark Act Section 2(d), 15 U.S.C. §1052(d); see TMEP §§1207.01 et seq.  See the attached registration.

Applicant's mark is PLAYSTORMING (standard characters) for “Educational services, namely, developing, arranging, and conducting educational conferences and programs and providing courses of instruction in the field of brainstorming, decision-making enhancement and experiential learning; Educational services, namely, providing on-line digital products, webcasts, videos, and virtual training programs in the field of brainstorming and decision-making enhancement; Educational services, namely, providing a learning and innovation center featuring fully customized leadership, motivational, educational, and brainstorming training; Educational services, namely, providing training programs, workshops, events, workbooks, and videos in the fields of brainstorming, decision-making enhancement and experiential learning” in International Class 041.

Registrant's mark is PLAYSTORM TOYS (standard characters) for “Games and playthings, namely, manipulative games; toy figures; play figures; fantasy character toys; toy action figures and accessories therefore; toy vehicles; toy figures, accessories and vehicles for play in water; mechanical toys; party favors in the nature of small toys; plush toys; manipulative puzzles; collectible toy figures; sand toys; electronic and mechanically operated educational and entertainment toys” in International Class 028.

 

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. 

 

Similarities between the 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).

 

As it relates to the registrant’s mark, 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). The registrant has disclaimed the wording TOYS. Therefore, the wording PLAYSTORM is the dominant portion of the registrant’s mark.

 

Accordingly, the applicant’s mark is PLAYSTORMING and the registrant’s mark is PLAYSTORM. Both marks are comprised of the identical term PLAY plus a form of the word STORM/STORMING. Moreover, both marks appear to be a take on the term BRAINSTORM/BRAINSTORMING. 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).

 

Accordingly, consumers encountering the similar marks with the related goods and services would likely assume an association between the parties based on the shared wording and similar commercial impressions conveyed by the marks. Therefore, the marks are confusingly similar.

 

Relatedness of the Goods and Services

 

The goods and/or services are compared to determine whether they are similar, commercially related, or travel in the same trade channels.  See Coach Servs., Inc. v. Triumph Learning LLC, 668 F.3d 1356, 1369-71, 101 USPQ2d 1713, 1722-23 (Fed. Cir. 2012); Herbko Int’l, Inc. v. Kappa Books, Inc., 308 F.3d 1156, 1165, 64 USPQ2d 1375, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2002); TMEP §§1207.01, 1207.01(a)(vi).

Applicant has applied to register its mark for “Educational services, namely, developing, arranging, and conducting educational conferences and programs and providing courses of instruction in the field of brainstorming, decision-making enhancement and experiential learning; Educational services, namely, providing on-line digital products, webcasts, videos, and virtual training programs in the field of brainstorming and decision-making enhancement; Educational services, namely, providing a learning and innovation center featuring fully customized leadership, motivational, educational, and brainstorming training; Educational services, namely, providing training programs, workshops, events, workbooks, and videos in the fields of brainstorming, decision-making enhancement and experiential learning” in International Class 041.

The registrant has registered its mark for “Games and playthings, namely, manipulative games; toy figures; play figures; fantasy character toys; toy action figures and accessories therefore; toy vehicles; toy figures, accessories and vehicles for play in water; mechanical toys; party favors in the nature of small toys; plush toys; manipulative puzzles; collectible toy figures; sand toys; electronic and mechanically operated educational and entertainment toys” in International Class 028.

The attached Internet evidence, consisting of Leap Frog, National Geographic, and Sesame Street, establishes that the same entity commonly manufactures, produces, or provides the registrant’s educational toys as well as the applicant’s educational workbooks and videos and markets the goods and/or services under the same mark.  Thus, applicant’s and registrant’s workbooks, videos, and toys 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).

 

Conclusion

 

When assessing a likelihood of confusion determination, the overriding concern is not only to prevent buyer confusion as to the source of the goods and services, but to protect the registrant from adverse commercial impact due to use of a similar mark by a newcomer.  See In re Shell Oil Co., 992 F.2d 1204, 1208, 26 USPQ2d 1687, 1690 (Fed. Cir. 1993).  Therefore, any doubt regarding a likelihood of confusion determination is resolved in favor of the registrant.  TMEP §1207.01(d)(i); see Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Packard Press, Inc., 281 F.3d 1261, 1265, 62 USPQ2d 1001, 1003 (Fed. Cir. 2002); In re Hyper Shoppes (Ohio), Inc., 837 F.2d 463, 464-65, 6 USPQ2d 1025, 1026 (Fed. Cir. 1988). 

 

In the present case, the marks are similar and the goods and services are related. Thus, registration is refused pursuant to Section 2(d) of the Trademark Act.  

 

Although applicant’s mark has been refused registration, applicant may respond to the refusal(s) by submitting evidence and arguments in support of registration.

 

If applicant responds to the refusal(s), applicant must also respond to the requirement(s) set forth below.

 

IDENTIFICATION AND CLASSIFICATION OF GOODS AND/OR SERVICES

 

Applicant has applied to register its mark for “Educational services, namely, developing, arranging, and conducting educational conferences and programs and providing courses of instruction in the field of brainstorming, decision-making enhancement and experiential learning; Educational services, namely, providing on-line digital products, webcasts, videos, and virtual training programs in the field of brainstorming and decision-making enhancement; Educational services, namely, providing a learning and innovation center featuring fully customized leadership, motivational, educational, and brainstorming training; Educational services, namely, providing training programs, workshops, events, workbooks, and videos in the fields of brainstorming, decision-making enhancement and experiential learning” in International Class 41.

 

The applicant’s identification requires amendment. Specifically, the wording “Educational services, namely, providing on-line digital products, webcasts, videos, and virtual training programs in the field of brainstorming and decision-making enhancement” and “Educational services, namely, providing training programs, workshops, events, workbooks, and videos in the fields of brainstorming, decision-making enhancement and experiential learning” requires amendment.

 

Applicant must clarify the wording “digital products”, “videos” and “workbooks” in the identification of goods and/or services in International Class(es) 41 because it is indefinite and too broad.  See 37 C.F.R. §2.32(a)(6); TMEP §§1402.01, 1402.03. In the case of “digital products” and “events” this wording is indefinite because it does not make clear what the specific goods and/or services are.   Further, applicant’s identification could identify goods and/or services in more than one international class.  For example, if the applicant is offering “downloadable educational digital products, namely, downloadable videos and downloadable audio in the fields of virtual training programs in the field of brainstorming and decision-making enhancement” the proper Class is 09. However, if the applicant is offering “Educational services, namely, providing on-line digital products, namely, non-downloadable webcasts, online non-downloadable videos, and virtual training programs in the field of brainstorming and decision-making enhancement” the proper Class is International Class 41. Similarly, the wording “workbooks” in applicant’s identification could also encompass multiple classes. For example, if the applicant is providing “printed educational workbooks in the fields of brainstorming, decision-making enhancement and experiential learning” the proper class is 16.

 

Applicant may substitute the following wording, if accurate: 

 

International Class 16: Printed educational workbooks in the fields of in the fields of brainstorming, decision-making enhancement and experiential learning

 

International Class 41: Educational services, namely, developing, arranging, and conducting educational conferences and programs and providing courses of instruction in the field of brainstorming, decision-making enhancement and experiential learning; Educational services, namely, providing on-line digital products in the nature of non-downloadable webcasts, online non-downloadable videos, and virtual training programs in the field of brainstorming and decision-making enhancement; Educational services, namely, providing a learning and innovation center featuring fully customized leadership, motivational, educational, and brainstorming training; Educational services, namely, providing training programs, workshops, educational events in the nature of educational conferences, and online non-downloadable videos in the fields of brainstorming, decision-making enhancement and experiential learning

 

Applicant may amend the identification to clarify or limit the goods and/or services, but not to broaden or expand the goods and/or services beyond those in the original application or as acceptably amended.  See 37 C.F.R. §2.71(a); TMEP §1402.06.  Generally, any deleted goods and/or services may not later be reinserted.  See TMEP §1402.07(e).

 

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.

 

MULTIPLE-CLASS APPLICATION REQUIREMENTS

 

The application identifies goods and/or services in more than one international class; therefore, applicant must satisfy all the requirements below for each international class based on Trademark Act Section 1(b):

 

(1)        List the goods and/or services by their international class number in consecutive numerical order, starting with the lowest numbered class.

 

(2)        Submit a filing fee for each international class not covered by the fee(s) already paid (view the USPTO’s current fee schedule).  The application identifies goods and/or services that are classified in at least 2 classes; however, applicant submitted a fee(s) sufficient for only 1 class(es).  Applicant must either submit the filing fees for the classes not covered by the submitted fees or restrict the application to the number of classes covered by the fees already paid.

 

See 37 C.F.R. §2.86(a); TMEP §§1403.01, 1403.02(c).

 

For an overview of the requirements for a Section 1(b) multiple-class application and how to satisfy the requirements online using the Trademark Electronic Application System (TEAS) form, see the Multiple-class Application webpage.

 

DOMICILE ADDRESS REQUIRED

 

Applicant must clarify its domicile street address because the domicile address of record identifies “c/o” or in “care of” another party’s address and does not appear to be applicant’s permanent legal place of residence or principal place of business.  See 37 C.F.R. §§2.11(b), 2.189; TMEP §601.01(b)(1).  A domicile address must identify either (1) the permanent legal place of residence, which is the place an individual applicant resides and intends to be the applicant’s principal home; or (2) the principal place of business, which is the juristic applicant’s headquarters where its senior executives or officers ordinarily direct and control the entity’s activities.  See37 C.F.R. §2.2(o)-(p); TMEP §803.05(a).  All applications must include the applicant’s domicile address, which is required for a complete application.  See 37 C.F.R. §§2.22(a)(1), 2.32(a)(2), 2.189. 

 

In this case, the application record lists applicant as an individual and specifies applicant’s domicile as “c/o” or in “care of” another party’s address.  In most cases, an address that is listed as “c/o” or in “care of” another party’s address is not acceptable/ as a domicile address because it does not identify the location of the place applicant resides and intends to be applicant’s principal home.  See37 C.F.R. §2.2(o)-(p); TMEP §601.01(b)(1). 

 

Response options.  Applicant must provide its domicile street address.  See 37 C.F.R. §2.32(a)(2), 2.189; TMEP §803.05.  Alternatively, applicant may provide documentation showing that the listed address is, in fact, applicant’s domicile.  See37 C.F.R. §2.11(b); TMEP §601.01(b)-(b)(1).

 

To provide applicant’s domicile street address.  After opening the correct Trademark Electronic Application System (TEAS) response form and entering the serial number, (1) answer “yes” to wizard question #5 and click “Continue;” (2) on the “Owner Information” page, in the “Domicile Address” field, uncheck the box stating the domicile and mailing address are not the same; and (3) below the checkbox provide applicant’s domicile street address.  Applicant’s domicile street address will be hidden from public view if it is entered into the “Domicile Address” field.  However, any street address listed in the “Mailing Address” field will be publicly viewable.

 

To provide documentation to support applicant’s domicile address.  Applicant should provide documentation showing the name and listed domicile address of the individual, for example one of the following:  (1) a current, valid signed rental, lease, or mortgage agreement; (2) a current, valid homeowner’s, renter’s, or motor vehicle insurance policy; or (3) a computer-generated bill issued by a utility company dated no earlier than 60 days before the application filing date.  TMEP §601.01(b)-(b)(1); see 37 C.F.R. §2.11(b).  Submitted documentation must show the name, listed domicile address, and the date of the document but should redact other personal and financial information.

 

To provide this documentation, open the correct TEAS response form and enter the serial number, answer “yes” to wizard question #3, and on the “Additional Statement(s)” page, below the “Miscellaneous Statement” field, click the button below the text box to attach documentation to support the street address.

 

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.

 

Because of the legal technicalities and strict deadlines of the trademark application process, applicant is encouraged to hire a private attorney who specializes in trademark matters to assist in this process.  The assigned trademark examining attorney can provide only limited assistance explaining the content of an Office action and the application process.  USPTO staff cannot provide legal advice or statements about an applicant’s legal rights.  TMEP §§705.02, 709.06.  See Hiring a U.S.-licensed trademark attorney for more information. 

 

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.    

 

 

Joseph Canfield

/Joseph Canfield/

Examining Attorney

Law Office 105

(571) 270 - 0509

Joseph.Canfield@USPTO.gov

 

 

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 September 29, 2021 for

U.S. Trademark Application Serial No. 90534837

 

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. 

 

 

Joseph Canfield

/Joseph Canfield/

Examining Attorney

Law Office 105

(571) 270 - 0509

Joseph.Canfield@USPTO.gov

 

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 September 29, 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.”