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:  December 17, 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, 2.65(a); TMEP §§711, 718.03.

 

SECTION 2(d) REFUSAL – LIKELIHOOD OF CONFUSION

 

Registration of the applied-for mark is refused because of a likelihood of confusion with the marks in the following U.S. Registration Nos. (see below).  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 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. 

 

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).

 

The cited registrations are:

 

U.S. Reg. No. 2882208:  RAGNAROK (stylized)

U.S. Reg. No. 3468394:  RAGNAROK (stylized)

U.S. Reg. No. 3405849:  RAGNAROK RAGNAROK ONLINE (stylized)

U.S. Reg. No. 4359241:  RAGNAROK ODYSSEY (stylized)

U.S. Reg. No. 4552968:  RAGNAROK ODYSSEY ACE (stylized)

U.S. Reg. No. 5329133:  RAGNAROK JOURNEY

U.S. Reg. No. 5429386:  RAGNAROK CLICKER (stylized)

U.S. Reg. No. 5547371:  RAGNAROK MOBILE IDLE PORING (stylized)

U.S. Reg. No. 5547470:  RAGNAROK RUSH (stylized)

U.S. Reg. No. 5962501:  RAGNAROK M ETERNEL LOVE (stylized)

U.S. Reg. No. 6072365:  RAGNAROK M FIRST LOVE

U.S. Reg. No. 6093607:  RAGNAROK MONSTERS

U.S. Reg. No. 6289207:  RAGNAROK TACTICS

 

The above registrations are owned by Gravity Co., Ltd., a Korean corporation.

 

Applicant’s mark is GOD OF WAR RAGNAROK.

 

The word “RAGNAROK” is the dominant source indicator in registrant’s marks.  Consumers are likely to believe that applicant’s GOD OF WAR RAGNAROK is another product line in applicant’s software offerings.

 

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 Detroit Athletic Co., 903 F.3d 1297, 1305, 128 USPQ2d 1047, 1050 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (citing In re Dixie Rests., 105 F.3d 1405, 1407, 41 USPQ2d 1531, 1533-34 (Fed. Cir. 1997)); TMEP §1207.01(b)(viii), (c)(ii).  Greater weight is often given to this dominant feature when determining whether marks are confusingly similar.  See In re Detroit Athletic Co., 903 F.3d at 1305, 128 USPQ2d at 1050 (citing In re Dixie Rests., 105 F.3d at 1407, 41 USPQ2d at 1533-34).

 

Comparison of the Goods and Services/Trade Channels

 

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 identical.  Both parties provide video/computer games.

 

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

 

PENDING APPLICATIONS

 

The filing dates of pending U.S. Application Serial Nos. 90689041, 90561442, 90503716, and 90772831 precede applicant’s filing date.  See attached referenced applications.  If one or more of the marks in the referenced applications register, applicant’s mark may be refused registration under Trademark Act Section 2(d) because of a likelihood of confusion with the registered mark(s).  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 applications.

 

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 marks in the referenced applications.  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.

 

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

 

44(d) SOLE BASIS – Clarification Required

 

The application specifies Trademark Act Section 44(d) as the sole filing basis, but indicates that applicant does not intend to rely on Section 44(e) as a basis for registration.  See 15 U.S.C. §1126(d), (e).  Applicant is advised that, while Section 44(d) provides a basis for receipt of a priority filing date, it does not provide a basis for publication or registration, which is required for an application.  15 U.S.C. §1126(d); TMEP §1003.03. 

 

Therefore, applicant must clarify the basis in the application by satisfying one of the following:

 

(1)        If applicant intends to rely on Section 44(e) as a basis for registration, and applicant’s statement in the application that he or she does not intend to rely on a Section 44(e) basis was inadvertently submitted, then applicant should so specify.  In addition, (a) applicant’s country of origin must either be a party to a convention or treaty relating to trademarks to which the United States is also a party, or must extend reciprocal registration rights to nationals of the United States by law; and (b) applicant must submit a true copy, photocopy, certification or certified copy of the foreign registration from applicant’s country of origin.  See 15 U.S.C. §1126(b)-(c), (e); 37 C.F.R. §2.34(a)(3)(ii); TMEP §§1002.01, 1004, 1016.  A copy of the foreign registration must be a copy of a document that issued to applicant by or was certified by the intellectual property office in applicant’s country of origin.  TMEP §1004.01.  If the foreign registration is not written in English, then applicant must provide an English translation.  37 C.F.R. §2.34(a)(3)(ii); TMEP §1004.01(a)-(b).  The translation should be signed by the translator.  TMEP §1004.01(b).  If the foreign registration is not yet available, applicant should respond to this Office action to indicate that the foreign application is still pending and request suspension of the U.S. application until a copy of the foreign registration is available.  TMEP §§716.02(b), 1003.04(a).

 

(2)        If applicant does not intend to rely on Section 44(e) as a basis for registration, applicant must establish a basis for registration under Section 1(a) or basis for publication under Section 1(b) by satisfying the relevant requirements.  37 C.F.R. §2.34(a)(4)(iii); TMEP §1003.03; see 15 U.S.C. §1051(a)-(b); TMEP §806.01(a)-(b).  Please note that applicant may retain the priority filing date under Section 44(d) without perfecting the Section 44(e) basis, if applicant’s U.S. application satisfied the requirements of Section 44(d) as of the U.S. application filing date and applicant has a continuing valid basis for registration.  See 37 C.F.R. §2.35(b)(3)-(4); TMEP §§806.02(f), 806.03(h).  

 

 

 

How to respond.  Click to file a response to this nonfinal Office action.    

 

 

/med/

Michelle E. Dubois

Trademark Attorney

USPTO, Law Office 107

(571) 272-5887

michelle.dubois@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 December 17, 2021 for

U.S. Trademark Application Serial No. 97028407

 

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.