| To: | Mccullum, Akheem (amccullum@soundsymmetry.com) |
| Subject: | U.S. Trademark Application Serial No. 90564089 - SYMMETRY - N/A |
| Sent: | October 04, 2021 04:01:42 PM |
| Sent As: | ecom105@uspto.gov |
| Attachments: | Attachment - 1 Attachment - 2 Attachment - 3 Attachment - 4 Attachment - 5 Attachment - 6 Attachment - 7 Attachment - 8 Attachment - 9 Attachment - 10 |
United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO)
Office Action (Official Letter) About Applicant’s Trademark Application
|
U.S. Application Serial No. 90564089
Mark: SYMMETRY
|
|
|
Correspondence Address:
|
|
|
Applicant: Mccullum, Akheem
|
|
|
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: October 04, 2021
SECTION 2(d) REFUSAL – 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.
Applicant has applied to register the mark “SYMMETRY” in stylized text with a design for use in connection with “Hooded sweatshirts for adults, children; Shorts for adults, children; T-shirts for adults, children” in International Class 25 and “Embroidered patches for clothing” in Class 26.
Registrant’s mark is “SYMMETRY” in standard for “clothing, namely, pants, tops, skirts, shirts, blouses, dresses, jackets, coats, sweaters, t-shirts, tank tops, and camisoles” in International Class 25.
Similarity of 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).
In this case, the literal element of applicant’s mark, “SYMMETRY”, is identical to registrant’s mark. Accordingly, this portion of applicant’s mark is identical in sound, meaning, and appearance to registrant’s mark and has the potential to be used in the same manner.
The fact that applicant’s mark includes a design element does not obviate the similarity between the marks or the likelihood of confusion between them. 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)).
Thus, consumers encountering applicant’s and registrant’s marks will perceive them as having essentially the same commercial impression because the dominant portion of the marks is identical. Because the marks sound similar and create the same overall commercial impression, the marks are considered similar for likelihood of confusion purposes.
Relatedness of the Goods
In this case, the registration uses broad wording to describe various items of clothing, including “pants, tops, coats, sweaters, t-shirts”, which presumably encompasses all goods of the type described, including applicant’s more narrow sweatshirts, shorts, and t-shirts for adults and children. 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 and/or services are related.
Further, the attached evidence from contendersclothing.com, obeyclothing.com, and strange-ways.com shows Contenders, OBEY, and Monsters Outside (distributed by Strange Ways) offering both clothing and embroidered patches. This evidence establishes that the same entity commonly produces applicant’s embroidered patches for clothing and registrant’s clothing items.
Accordingly, the goods are considered related for purposes of the likelihood of confusion analysis. 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).
Because the marks are similar and the goods are related, there is a likelihood of confusion as to the source of applicant’s goods.
Therefore, applicant’s mark is not entitled to registration.
Applicant should note the following potential ground for refusal.
The filing date of pending U.S. Application Serial No. 90542731 precedes applicant’s filing date. See attached referenced application. If the mark in the referenced application registers, applicant’s mark may be refused registration under Trademark Act Section 2(d) because of a likelihood of confusion between the two marks. See 15 U.S.C. §1052(d); 37 C.F.R. §2.83; TMEP §§1208 et seq. Therefore, upon receipt of applicant’s response to this Office action, action on this application may be suspended pending final disposition of the earlier-filed referenced application.
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 mark in the referenced application. 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.
Applicant should note the following additional ground for refusal.
SPECIMEN
In particular, the details of applicant’s mark, such as the wording and the finer lines within the cone design, are not visible because the image are blurry and the specimen displays the mark at too small a size.
Specifically, applicant’s Class 26 goods are identified as “Embroidered patches for clothing”. However, none of the specimens provided show use of applicant’s mark in connection with embroidered patches for clothing. The specimen submitted for Class 26 shows applicant’s mark embroidered directly on clothing, but does not show use of applicant’s mark as indicating the source of embroidered patches sold independently of clothing goods. Accordingly, none of the specimens show applicant’s mark in use with applicant’s goods in Class 26.
An application based on Trademark Act Section 1(a) must include a specimen showing the applied-for mark as actually used in commerce for each international class of goods identified in the application or amendment to allege use. 15 U.S.C. §1051(a)(1); 37 C.F.R. §§2.34(a)(1)(iv), 2.56(a); TMEP §§904, 904.07(a). “Use in commerce” means (1) a bona fide use of the applied-for mark in the ordinary course of trade (and not merely to reserve a right in the mark), (2) the mark is placed in any manner on the goods, packaging, tags or labels affixed to the goods, or displays that directly associate the mark with the goods and have a point-of-sale nature, and (3) the goods are actually sold or transported in commerce. See 15 U.S.C. §1127.
An image of a product or packaging that has been digitally created or altered to include the mark or a mockup of how the mark may be displayed on the product or packaging is not a proper specimen for goods because it does not show actual use of the mark in commerce. See 15 U.S.C. §1127; 37 C.F.R. §2.56(c); TMEP §904.04(a)(i).
In this case, applicant’s mark appears to have been digitally inserted onto stock images of various clothing items, as evidenced by the fact that applicant’s mark appears to float above the clothing items, applicant’s mark does not conform to the contours of the clothing items, the images have pure white backgrounds, and the specimen contains the wording “MOCKUP 1.” Therefore, applicant’s Class 25 specimens appear to have been digitally created and therefore do not show actual use of the mark in commerce.
Applicant also provided a specimen depicting applicant’s mark embroidered on white fabric. Although this specimen does not appear digitally altered, whether or not this specimen shows applicant’s mark in connection with any of applicant’s Class 25 goods is unclear because the image was taken at such a close distance as to make it impossible to tell what kinds of fabric goods the mark is embroidered upon.
Response options. Applicant may respond to the specimen refusals by satisfying one of the following options for each applicable international class:
(1) Submit a different specimen (a verified “substitute” specimen) that (a) was in actual use in commerce at least as early as the filing date of the application or prior to the filing of an amendment to allege use and (b) shows the mark in actual use in commerce for the goods identified in the application or amendment to allege use. A “verified substitute specimen” is a specimen that is accompanied by the following statement made in a signed affidavit or supported by a declaration under 37 C.F.R. §2.20: “The substitute (or new, or originally submitted, if appropriate) specimen(s) was/were in use in commerce at least as early as the filing date of the application or prior to the filing of the amendment to allege use.” The substitute specimen cannot be accepted without this statement. For instructions on how to submit a different specimen using the online Trademark Electronic Application System (TEAS) form, see the Specimen webpage.
Applicants submitting a webpage as a specimen for goods must include the URL and the date the page was accessed or printed either directly on the specimen itself or in a separate statement, supported by an affidavit or declaration under 37 C.F.R. §2.20 verifying such information. See 37 C.F.R. §2.56(c); TMEP §§904.03(i), 1301.04(a).
(2) Amend the filing basis to intent to use under Section 1(b) (which includes withdrawing an amendment to allege use, if one was filed), as no specimen is required before publication. This option will later necessitate additional fee(s) and filing requirements, including a specimen.
If applicant submits an acceptable verified substitute specimen or amends to Section 1(b), the requirement below for additional information/documentation about the original specimen will be withdrawn. The requirement below as to the original specimen will be made final if applicant submits a substitute specimen that is not acceptable or does not amend to Section 1(b), and does not also respond completely to the requirement below.
Additional information/documentation about original specimen(s) required. To permit proper examination of the application record for compliance with use in commerce requirements, applicant must respond to the following requests for information and documentation about the specimen(s). See 37 C.F.R. §2.61(b); TMEP §§814, 904.04(a)(iii). A specimen must show the mark as actually used in commerce, which means use in the ordinary course of trade, and not merely to reserve a right in the trademark. 15 U.S.C. §§1051, 1052, 1127. Because the specimen of record appears to be digitally created or altered, or is a mockup, further information is necessary to determine whether the specimen is in actual use in commerce.
Answer for each specimen/photograph/image previously provided. For any website source, provide a digital copy of the entire webpage from top to bottom, as rendered in an Internet browser, that includes the URL and access or print date. TMEP §710.01(b) (citing In re I-Coat Co., 126 USPQ2d 1730, 1733 (TTAB 2018)).
(1) Identify the particular good(s) listed in the application for which the specimen(s) was submitted to show use of the mark.
(2) Explain whether the specimen was created for submission with this application. If so, specify the date each specimen was created. If applicant used the image(s) of the goods shown in the specimen(s) from a third-party website, provide the URL of the website and a digital copy of relevant webpage(s) for each image.
(3) Provide information about and examples of how applicant’s goods appear in the actual sales environment.
(a) If sold in stores, provide a representative sample of the name(s) of the stores and of photographs showing the goods for sale in the named stores, such as photographs of the sales displays or goods on shelves with the mark.
(b) If sold online, provide a representative sample of the name(s) of the online retailers, the website URL(s) for each named retailer, and a digital copy of the webpages showing the goods for sale on the named website.
(c) If sold in another type of sales environment (e.g., catalogs, trade shows), identify the environment and provide photographs and/or documentation showing the goods for sale in that environment.
(4) If the information in question (3) about how the goods appear in the actual sales environment is not available to applicant, please describe how applicant’s goods are sold or transported and provide photographs and other documentation showing how applicant’s mark appears on the goods and/or its packaging when the goods are sold or transported to or within the United States.
(5) For each category of sales environment specified in response to questions (3) and (4), specify when the goods bearing the mark were first available for purchase within the United States, the date of the first sale of the goods to or within the United States, and whether the goods are still for sale to or within the United States in that environment.
(6) For the goods identified in response to question (1), provide documentation that shows payment or other consideration made for the goods, redacting personal or private information of buyers as necessary.
Failure to comply with a requirement to furnish information is grounds for refusing registration. In re Harley, 119 USPQ2d 1755, 1757-58 (TTAB 2016); TMEP §814. Merely stating that information is available on applicant’s or a third party website or providing a hyperlink of such a website is an insufficient response and will not make the additional information or materials of record. See In re Planalytics, Inc., 70 USPQ2d 1453, 1457-58 (TTAB 2004).
MARK DESCRIPTION AMENDMENT REQUIRED
The following description is suggested, if accurate: The mark consists of a half-shaded three-dimensional cone, with a curved dotted line showing the hidden edge of the cone, all above the word “SYMMETRY” in a stylized font.
LEGAL ENTITY UNCERTAIN
If applicant is an individual, applicant should simply request that the legal entity be amended to “individual” and must indicate his/her country of citizenship for the record. 37 C.F.R. §2.32(b)(3)(i); TMEP §803.03(a). Alternatively, if applicant is a limited liability company, applicant must provide the correct name of the limited liability company and the U.S. state or foreign country of incorporation or organization. 37 C.F.R. §2.32(a)(3)(ii); TMEP §803.03(h).
If, in response to the above request, applicant provides information indicating that it is not the owner of the mark, registration may be refused because the application was void as filed. See 37 C.F.R. §2.71(d); TMEP §§803.06, 1201.02(b). An application must be filed by the party who owns or is entitled to use the mark as of the application filing date. See 37 C.F.R. §2.71(d); TMEP §1201.02(b).
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.
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.
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.
/Andrew K. Janson/
Andrew K. Janson
Examining Attorney
Law Office 105
571-272-0262
Andrew.Janson@USPTO.gov
RESPONSE GUIDANCE
