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:  February 24, 2022

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.

LIKELIHOOD OF CONFUSION

Registration of the applied-for mark is refused because of a likelihood of confusion with the mark(s) in U.S. Registration No(s). 6471155.  Trademark Act Section 2(d), 15 U.S.C. §1052(d); see TMEP §§1207.01 et seq.  See the attached registration(s).

For the reasons discussed below, the examining attorney concludes that confusion as to the source of goods and services is likely between the applicant’s mark SYMMETRY for “card games” and the registrant’s mark SYMMETRY for “Virtual reality computer game software; virtual reality computer software, namely, software for 3DVR and 3DCAD virtual reality design in the field of building construction and building city planning; Headsets for use with computers; Headsets for virtual reality; computer game programs for arcade video game machines; Telecommunication machines and apparatus, namely, telecommunication transmitters; Electronic machines, apparatus and their parts, namely, electronic virtual reality headsets and replacement parts therefor; Computer game programs for home video game machines; Electronic circuits and CD-ROMs recorded with computer game programs for hand-held games with liquid crystal displays; Electronic publications, namely, book, magazine, and manuals featuring building construction, building planning, and architecture information recorded on computer media,” “Entertainment services, namely, providing online computer game programs on data networks,” and “Cloud computing featuring software for 3D and 3D CAD virtual reality design in the field of building construction and building city planning; Rental of memory space on servers; Hosting websites on the Internet in the field of virtual reality design software for building construction and building city planning; Rental of computers; Providing temporary use of online, non-downloadable computer software programs for use in virtual reality space design on data networks in the field of building construction and building city planning; Computer software design, computer programming or maintenance of computer software in virtual reality space design in the field of building construction and building city planning; Designing of machines, apparatus, instruments and their parts or systems composed of such machines, apparatus and instruments, namely, design of computer hardware; providing advice relating to computers, automobiles and industrial machines, namely, providing technical advice related to the installation of software on computers, automobiles, and industrial machines; Product testing and product research on machines, apparatus and instruments; Research on building construction or city planning; Testing or research on prevention of pollution; Testing or research on electricity; Testing or research on civil engineering; Design of virtual reality computer software for building construction and city planning, other than for advertising purposes.”

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. 

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 marks are identical.  In a likelihood of confusion determination, the marks in their entireties are compared for similarities in appearance, sound, connotation, and commercial impression.  In re i.am.symbolic, llc, 866 F.3d 1315, 1323, 123 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2017); 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)); In re E. I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., 476 F.2d 1357, 1361, 177 USPQ 563, 567 (C.C.P.A. 1973); TMEP §1207.01(b)-(b)(v). 

In the present case, applicant’s mark is SYMMETRY and registrant’s mark is SYMMETRY.  These 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 goods and/or services.  Id.

Therefore, the marks are confusingly similar. 

The compared goods and/or services 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); TMEP §1207.01(a)(i).  They need only be “related in some manner and/or if the circumstances surrounding their marketing are such that they could give rise to the mistaken belief that [the goods and/or 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)); TMEP §1207.01(a)(i).

The goods and services of the parties are highly related games, namely, card games, computer games, computer game software and computer services.  The goods and services of the parties are related and are likely to be marketed within the same trade channels.  The goods and services of both parties are likely to be displayed in close proximity in various stores and retail establishments.  The trademark examining attorney has attached evidence from the USPTO’s X-Search database consisting of a number of third-party marks registered for use in connection with the same or similar goods and/or services as those of both applicant and registrant in this case.  This evidence shows that the goods and/or services listed therein, namely card games, computer software apps and services, online games, and computer software services, are of a kind that may emanate from a single source under a single mark.  See In re I-Coat Co., 126 USPQ2d 1730, 1737 (TTAB 2018) (citing In re Infinity Broad. Corp., 60 USPQ2d 1214, 1217-18 (TTAB 2001); In re Albert Trostel & Sons Co.,29 USPQ2d 1783, 1785-86 (TTAB 1993); In re Mucky Duck Mustard Co., 6 USPQ2d 1467, 1470 n.6 (TTAB 1988)); TMEP §1207.01(d)(iii).

The attached Internet evidence, consisting of excerpts from the Internet featuring various versions of card games such as Uno, Spot It, Exploding Kittens, and other available in the form of actual card games, software and/or online, establishes that the same entity commonly manufactures, produces, or provides the relevant goods and/or services and markets the goods and/or services under the same mark and  that the relevant goods and/or services are sold or provided through the same trade channels and used by the same classes of consumers in the same fields of use.  Thus, applicant’s and registrant’s goods and/or 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).

The marks are virtually identical.  The goods and services are very highly related.  The similarities among the marks and the goods and services are so great as to create a likelihood of confusion among consumers. The overriding concern is not only to prevent buyer confusion as to the source of the goods and/or 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).

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

MERE DESCRIPTIVENESS

Registration is refused because the applied-for mark merely describes a feature or subject matter of applicant’s goods.  Trademark Act Section 2(e)(1), 15 U.S.C. §1052(e)(1); see TMEP §§1209.01(b), 1209.03 et seq.

A mark is merely descriptive if it describes an ingredient, quality, characteristic, function, feature, purpose, or use of an applicant’s goods and/or services.  TMEP §1209.01(b); see, e.g., In re TriVita, Inc., 783 F.3d 872, 874, 114 USPQ2d 1574, 1575 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (quoting In re Oppedahl & Larson LLP, 373 F.3d 1171, 1173, 71 USPQ2d 1370, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2004)); In re Steelbuilding.com, 415 F.3d 1293, 1297, 75 USPQ2d 1420, 1421 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (citing Estate of P.D. Beckwith, Inc. v. Comm’r of Patents, 252 U.S. 538, 543 (1920)). 

In this instant case, applicant seeks registration of SYMMETRY for “card games.”  The term SYMMETRY is defined as “the property of being symmetrical especially: correspondence in size, shape, and relative position of parts on opposite sides of a dividing line or median plane or about a center or axis.”  Merriam-Webster Dictionary, http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary (visited on February 24, 2022).  See attached definitions for the term(s) SYMMETRY.  The applicant’s specimen indicates the goods are a “visual math card games.”  As demonstrated by the attached excerpts from the Internet, symmetry math games are commonly found in the game and math industries.  And as noted on the applicant’s website, “The “Symmetry” cards introduce players to the mathematical concepts of symmetry groups which are highly visual and accessible to students of all ages and backgrounds.”  Math Inked, www.mathinked.com (visited on February 24, 2022).

The term SYMMETRY merely describes a feature or subject matter of the applicant’s goods.  The mark immediately names the exact nature and purpose of the goods and does nothing else.  Accordingly, the mark is refused registration on the Principal Register under Section 2(e)(1).

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

REQUIREMENT FOR INFORMATION

Due to the descriptive nature of the applied-for mark, applicant must provide the following information and documentation regarding the goods and/or services and wording appearing in the mark: 

(1)       Fact sheets, instruction manuals, brochures, advertisements and pertinent screenshots of applicant’s website as it relates to the goods and/or services in the application, including any materials using the terms in the applied-for mark.  Merely stating that information about the goods and/or services is available on applicant’s website is insufficient to make the information of record.; 

(2)       If these materials are unavailable, applicant should submit similar documentation for goods and services of the same type, explaining how its own product or services will differ.  If the goods and/or services feature new technology and information regarding competing goods and/or services is not available, applicant must provide a detailed factual description of the goods and/or services.  Factual information about the goods must make clear how they operate, salient features, and prospective customers and channels of trade.  For services, the factual information must make clear what the services are and how they are rendered, salient features, and prospective customers and channels of trade.  Conclusory statements will not satisfy this requirement.; and

(3)       Applicant must respond to the following questions:  Whether applicant’s card game is a symmetry game?  Whether applicant’s card game features math games or concepts related to symmetry?  Whether symmetry is the subject matter or purpose of the applicant’s card games?  Whether applicant’s card games features symmetrical shapes?  Whether applicant’s card game is used to instruct or teach about symmetry concepts?

See 37 C.F.R. §2.61(b); TMEP §§814, 1402.01(e). 

Failure to comply with a request for information is grounds for refusing registration.  In re Harley, 119 USPQ2d 1755, 1757-58 (TTAB 2016); TMEP §814. 

RESPONSE GUIDELINES FOR PRO SE APPLICANTS

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 attorney referral information, applicant may consult the American Bar Association’s Consumers’ Guide to Legal Help; an online directory of legal professionals, such as FindLaw®; or a local telephone directory.  The USPTO, however, may not assist an applicant in the selection of a private attorney.  37 C.F.R. §2.11.

http://www.gov.uspto.report/trademarks/teas/index.jsp.  If applicant has technical questions about the TEAS response to Office action form, applicant can review the electronic filing tips available online at http://www.gov.uspto.report/trademarks/teas/e_filing_tips.jsp and e-mail technical questions to TEAS@uspto.gov.

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.    

/Sharon A. Meier/

Trademark Attorney, LO 112

571-272-9195 - phone

sharon.meier1@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 February 24, 2022 for

U.S. Trademark Application Serial No. 90743669

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.