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:  January 05, 2022

INTRODUCTION

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.

Search

The trademark examining attorney searched the USPTO database of registered and pending marks and found no conflicting marks that would bar registration under Trademark Act Section 2(d).  15 U.S.C. §1052(d); TMEP §704.02.

SUMMARY OF ISSUES:

• Section 2(d) – Likelihood of Confusion
• Specimen (International Class 042)
• Identification of Services
• Response Guidelines

SECTION 2(d) – LIKELIHOOD OF CONFUSION

Registration of the applied-for mark is refused because of a likelihood of confusion with the marks in U.S. Registration No. 6180814 and 6190707.  Trademark Act Section 2(d), 15 U.S.C. §1052(d); see TMEP §§1207.01 et seq.  See the attached registrations.

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 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 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 applicant seeks registration of the mark “RENEGADE” for

“Insurance agency services provided by insurance professionals directly to end-consumer policy holders; Insurance brokerage services provided by insurance professionals directly to end-consumer policy holders; Providing insurance information; Insurance brokerage; Insurance consultancy; Insurance underwriting services; Insurance underwriting consultation,” in International Class 036; and

“Non-downloadable computer software for use by insurance professionals within insurance brokerages and agencies for attracting and servicing end-consumer policy holders, said software for managing websites for said brokerages and agencies, receiving insurance policy information, aggregating and comparing insurance carriers, managing insurance customer relationships, managing certificates of insurances, and providing brokerage and agency insurance information; Non-downloadable computer software for providing insurance information and insurance services,” in International Class 042.

Registrant DBAFC, LLC owns the marks “RENEGADE” and “RENEGADE PARTNERS” for “Venture capital advisory, financing, funding and management services; Providing venture capital, working capital, development capital, private equity and investment funding; Incubation services, namely, providing financing to freelancers, start-ups, existing businesses and non-profits; Financial services, namely, investment advice, investment management, investment consultation and investment of funds for others, including private and public equity and debt investment services; Financial and investment services, namely, asset and investment acquisition, consultation, advisory and development; Providing loan financing; Financial portfolio management,” in International Class 036.

Comparison 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, applicant’s mark is “RENEGADE” and registrant’s marks are “RENEGADE” and “RENEGADE PARTNERS”.  With respect to the registered mark “RENEGADE”, applicant’s and registrants’ marks are identical in appearance, sound, and meaning, “and have the potential to be used . . . in exactly the same manner.”  In re i.am.symbolic, llc, 116 USPQ2d 1406, 1411 (TTAB 2015), aff’d, 866 F.3d 1315, 123 USPQ2d 1744 (Fed. Cir. 2017).  Additionally, because they are identical, these marks are likely to engender the same connotation and overall commercial impression when considered in connection with applicant’s and registrant’s respective services.  Id.

Although one of the registered marks contains the additional disclaimed term “PARTNERS” describing applicant’s business, that does not obviate the similarity between the marks, because disclaimed matter that is descriptive of or generic for a party’s 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).

In sum, because the marks share the confusingly similar wording “RENEGADE”, and the other matter in the marks does not obviate the similarity between the marks, the marks are confusingly similar.

Relatedness of the Services

The 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).

The services of the parties need not be identical or even competitive to find a likelihood of confusion.  See On-line Careline Inc. v. Am. Online Inc., 229 F.3d 1080, 1086, 56 USPQ2d 1471, 1475 (Fed. Cir. 2000); Recot, Inc. v. Becton, 214 F.3d 1322, 1329, 54 USPQ2d 1894, 1898 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (“[E]ven if the goods in question are different from, and thus not related to, one another in kind, the same goods can be related in the mind of the consuming public as to the origin of the goods.”); TMEP §1207.01(a)(i). 

The respective services need only be “related in some manner and/or if the circumstances surrounding their marketing [be] such that they could give rise to the mistaken belief that [the services] emanate from the same source.”  Coach Servs., Inc. v. Triumph Learning LLC, 668 F.3d 1356, 1369, 101 USPQ2d 1713, 1722 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (quoting 7-Eleven Inc. v. Wechsler, 83 USPQ2d 1715, 1724 (TTAB 2007)); Gen. Mills Inc. v. Fage Dairy Processing Indus. SA, 100 USPQ2d 1584, 1597 (TTAB 2011); TMEP §1207.01(a)(i).

In this case, applicant’s services are various insurance services and software used in the field of insurance, and registrant’s services are various financing, funding, and advisory services in the field of finance.  Applicant’s and registrant’s services are confusingly similar, because they are typically offered by the same entities in the same channels of trade.

For example, the attached Internet evidence, consisting of online webpages from qbe.com, miga.org, and svb.com, establishes that the same entity commonly manufactures, produces, or provides the relevant services and markets the services under the same mark.  Thus, applicant’s and registrant’s services 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).

Because the marks are confusingly similar and because the marks refer to closely related financial and insurance services, consumers would be likely to mistakenly believe that the goods and/or services emanate from a single source. Accordingly, registration is refused under Trademark Section 2(d).

Although applicant’s mark has been refused registration, applicant may respond to the refusals by submitting evidence and arguments in support of registration.  Applicant should note the following additional ground for refusal.

SPECIMEN

This Refusal Applies to International Class Only 042

Webpage specimen does not include required URL and date printed/accessed.  Registration is refused because the specimen is not acceptable as a webpage specimen; it lacks the required URL and date printed/accessed.  See 37 C.F.R. §2.56(c); TMEP §§904.03(i), 1301.04(a).  Thus, it is unclear whether the specimen shows the applied-for mark in actual use in commerce.  See Trademark Act Sections 1 and 45, 15 U.S.C. §§1051, 1127; 37 C.F.R. §§2.34(a)(1)(iv), 2.56(a); TMEP §§904, 904.03(g), 904.07(a).  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 and services 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).

Any webpage printout or screenshot submitted as a specimen must include the webpage’s URL and the date it was accessed or printed on the specimen itself, within the TEAS form that submits the specimen, or in a verified statement under 37 C.F.R. §2.20 or 28 U.S.C. §1746 in a later-filed response.  See 37 C.F.R. §2.56(c); TMEP §§904.03(i), 1301.04(a).  Applicant submitted one website address for both insurance agency and software services, but the software interface shown on the specimen is inconsistent with the website address, which does show applicant’s class 036 insurance services.  Because the webpage specimen for software lacks the associated URL and/or access or print date on it, within the TEAS form used to submit the specimen, or in a verified statement in a later-filed response, it is unacceptable to show use of the mark in commerce.  TMEP §§904.03(i), 1301.04(a).

Examples of specimens.  Specimens for services must show a direct association between the mark and the services and include:  (1) copies of advertising and marketing material, (2) a photograph of business signage or billboards, or (3) materials showing the mark in the sale, rendering, or advertising of the services.  See 37 C.F.R. §2.56(b)(2), (c); TMEP §1301.04(a), (h)(iv)(C). 

Response options.  Applicant may respond to this refusal by satisfying one of the following for each applicable international class:

(1)       Submit a verified statement, in a signed affidavit or supported by a declaration under 37 C.F.R. §2.20 or 28 U.S.C. §1746, specifying the URL of the original webpage specimen and the date it was accessed or printed.

(2)       Submit a different specimen (a verified “substitute” specimen), including the URL and date accessed/printed directly on the specimen itself or in a separate statement, 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 services identified in the application or amendment to allege use.  Applicant must also submit 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.”

(3)       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 fees and filing requirements, including a specimen.

For an overview of the response options referenced above and instructions on how to satisfy these options using the online Trademark Electronic Application System (TEAS) form, see the Specimen webpage.

IDENTIFICATION OF SERVICES

The identification of services is indefinite and must be clarified according to the explanations and suggestions below.  See TMEP §1402.01.  The USPTO has the discretion to determine the degree of particularity needed to clearly identify services covered by a mark.  In re Fiat Grp. Mktg. & Corp. Commc’ns S.p.A, 109 USPQ2d 1593, 1597 (TTAB 2014) (citing In re Omega SA, 494 F.3d 1362, 1365, 83 USPQ2d 1541, 1543-44 (Fed. Cir. 2007)).  Accordingly, the USPTO requires the description of services in a U.S. application to be specific, definite, clear, accurate, and concise.  TMEP §1402.01; see In re Fiat Grp. Mktg. & Corp. Commc’ns S.p.A, 109 USPQ2d at 1597-98; Cal. Spray-Chem. Corp. v. Osmose Wood Pres. Co. of Am., 102 USPQ 321, 322 (Comm’r Pats. 1954).  

The identification for software in International Class 042 is indefinite and must be clarified to specify whether the format is online non-downloadable or whether applicant provides temporary use of non-downloadable software.  See 37 C.F.R. §2.32(a)(6); TMEP §§1402.03(d), 1402.11(a). 

Applicant may adopt the following for its identification of services, if accurate, providing additional specificity where indicated.

“Insurance agency services provided by insurance professionals directly to end-consumer policy holders; Insurance brokerage services provided by insurance professionals directly to end-consumer policy holders; Providing insurance information; Insurance brokerage; Insurance consultancy; Insurance underwriting services; Insurance underwriting consultation,” in International Class 036;

“{Specify format, e.g., “Providing online”} non-downloadable computer software for use by insurance professionals within insurance brokerages and agencies for attracting and servicing end-consumer policy holders, said software for managing websites for said brokerages and agencies, receiving insurance policy information, aggregating and comparing insurance carriers, managing insurance customer relationships, managing certificates of insurances, and providing brokerage and agency insurance information; {Specify format, e.g., “Providing temporary use of”} non-downloadable computer software for providing insurance information and insurance services,” in International Class 042.

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.  Generally, any deleted 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.

RESPONSE GUIDELINES

Response guidelines.  Please 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 refusals and requirements 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.    

Davis, Marc

/Marc S. Davis/

Examining Attorney, Law Office 122

(571) 270 - 0973

marc.davis@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 January 05, 2022 for

U.S. Trademark Application Serial No. 90687711

A USPTO examining attorney has reviewed your trademark application and issued an Office action.  You must respond to this Office action in order to avoid your application abandoning.  Follow the steps below.

(1)  Read the Office action HERE.  This email is NOT the Office action.

(2)  Respond to the Office action by the deadline using the Trademark Electronic Application System (TEAS).  Your response must be received by the USPTO on or before 11:59 p.m. Eastern Time of the last day of the response period.  Otherwise, your application will be abandoned.  See the Office action itself regarding how to respond.

(3)  Direct general questions about using USPTO electronic forms, the USPTO website, the application process, the status of your application, and whether there are outstanding deadlines to the Trademark Assistance Center (TAC).

After reading the Office action, address any question(s) regarding the specific content to the USPTO examining attorney identified in the Office action.

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 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 may mail or email you trademark-related offers and notices – most of which require fees.  The USPTO will only email official USPTO correspondence from the domain “@uspto.gov.”

·        Hiring a U.S.-licensed attorney.  If you do not have an attorney and are not required to have one under the trademark rules, we encourage you to hire a U.S.-licensed attorney specializing in trademark law to help guide you through the registration process.  The USPTO examining attorney identified above is not your attorney and cannot give you legal advice, but rather works for and represents the USPTO in trademark matters.