PTO Form 1957 (Rev 9/2005)
`
`OMB No. 0651-0050 (Exp. 04/2009)
`
`Response to Office Action
`
`Input Field
`
`SERIAL NUMBER
`
`LAW OFFICE ASSIGNED
`
`MARK SECTION (no change)
`
`The table below presents the data as entered.
`
`Entered
`
`78911506
`
`LAW OFFICE 113
`
`ARGUMENT(S)
`(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)
`
`Applicant wishes to address the Examining Attorney’s potential bar to registration in class 32 based on likelihood of confusion with
`pending application serial no. 78806733 for the mark “UFC REFRESH (stylized).” (cid:160) Applicant does not believe there is a likelihood of
`confusion between the cited application and applicant’s UFC trademark.
`Not only are the overall appearances of the marks different, but applicant’s products are different and are provided to a distinctly different and
`unique customer base.
`(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)
`1.(cid:160) The Overall Appearances of the Marks are Different
`(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)
`A finding of confusion cannot be predicated on the sharing of a common element, but the marks must be viewed in their entireties.(cid:160) In
`
`re E.I. DuPont de Nemours, 476 F.2d 1357, 177 U.S.P.Q. 563 (CCPA 1973); In re National Data Corp., 224 U.S.P.Q. 749 (Fed. Cir. 1985).(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)
`
`The marks convey completely different overall impressions.(cid:160) A finding of confusion should not be made based on the fact that
`applicant’s mark is contained within the cited mark. (cid:160) See, e.g., Truescents LLC v. Ride Skin Care LLC, 81 U.S.P.Q. 2d 1334 (T.T.A.B. 2006)
`(no likelihood of confusion between GENUINE SKIN and GENUINE RIDE SKIN CARE, stressing the existence of the prominently
`displayed word RIDE in the latter mark and its absence in the former mark); Colgate-Palmolive Co. v. Carter-Wallace, Inc., 432 F.2d 1400,
`167 U.S.P.Q. 529 (C.C.P.A. 1970) (PEAK PERIOD not confusingly similar to PEAK); Lever Bros. Co. v. Barcoline Co., 463 F.2d 1107, 174
`U.S.P.Q. 392 (C.C.P.A. 1972) (ALL CLEAR not confusingly similar to ALL); In re Ferrero, 479 F.2d 1395, 178 U.S.P.Q. 167 (C.C.P.A.
`1973) (TIC TAC not confusingly similar to TIC TAC TOE);(cid:160) Conde Nast Publictions, Inc. v. Miss Quality, Inc., 507 F.2d 1404, 184 U.S.P.Q.
`422 (C.C.P.A. 1975) (COUNTRY VOGUES not confusingly similar to VOGUE); In re Merchandising Motivation, Inc., 184 U.S.P.Q. 364
`(T.T.A.B. 1974) (there is no absolute rule that no one has the right to incorporate the total mark of another as part of one’s own mark; (cid:160) MMI
`MENSWEAR not confusingly similar to MEN’S WEAR); (cid:160) Plus Products v. General Mills, Inc., 188 U.S.P.Q. 520 (T.T.A.B. 1975)
`(PROTEIN PLUS and PLUS not confusingly similar).
`(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)
`Here, a prior application for UFC REFRESH (stylized) has been cited, but applicant’s proposed registration of UFC is not even close
`to being the same mark . Unlike the cited mark, applicant’s mark consists of a single word, UFC, while the prior mark consists of (cid:160) the letters
`“UFC” in relatively small letters centered above a much larger, bolder and stylized depiction of the word “REFRESH.” (cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)
`In addition, the
`letters UFC in the prior applicant’s mark stand for a completely different phrase and concept, namely the letters are apparently an acronym
`for the prior applicant’s company, “Universal Food Public Company Limited.” (cid:160) On the other hand, applicant’s UFC mark is the acronym for
`ULTIMATE FIGHTING CHAMPIONSHIP.(cid:160) Both the UFC and ULTIMATE FIGHTING CHAMPIONSHIP marks are applicant’s well-
`known and registered trademarks and service marks which are used in connection with applicant’s (cid:160) martial arts competitions and numerous
`
`related goods and services.(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)
`2.(cid:160) The Respective Products and Channels of Trade are Different(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)
`
`The goods covered in the cited application are “fruit juice products,” while applicant intends to use its mark on “energy sports
`drinks.” (cid:160) (cid:160)(cid:160) Applicant’s product is not a “fruit juice.” (cid:160) Rather it is a sports nutrition product which is marketed to athletes who wish to boost
`their hydration and improve their performance by increasing their endurance and stimulating their metabolisms.(cid:160) Energy sports drinks are
`
`typically functional(cid:160) beverages which are specially scientifically formulated to help athletes achieve their desired results.(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)
`
`Moreover, applicant’s core business involves nothing more and nothing less than the production of combat-based mixed martial arts
`competitions.(cid:160) (cid:160) Applicant’s products are marketed to a highly sophisticated group of fans, namely martial arts enthusiasts, who generally tend
`to be adult males.(cid:160) It is difficult to imagine that a “reasonably prudent purchaser,” would confuse applicant’s energy sports drink with the
`prior applicant’s “fruit juice products.”
`(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)
`The differences between the overall appearances of the respective marks and products, and the channels of trade substantially mitigate
`any likelihood of confusion between Applicant’s mark and the mark in the cited application. (cid:160) Federated Foods, Inc. v. Fort Howard Paper Co.,
`544 F.2d 1098, 192 U.S.P.Q. 24, 29 (“The fundamental inquiry mandated by §2d goes to the cumulative effect of differences in the essential
`characteristics of the goods and differences in the marks.”); (cid:160)(cid:160) In re InOvate Communications, 2005 WL 1822535 (Trademark Tr. & App. Bd.))
`(reversed the Examining Attorney’s refusal to register KODIAK NETWORKS based on a prior registration for THE KODIAK GROUP
`ELECTRONIC COMMERCE PLANNING & IMPLEMENTATION & Design, stating that “applicant’s goods and services and registrant’s
`
`

`
`services, as well as the trade channels and classes of purchasers for those respective goods and services, appear to be too dissimilar and
`unrelated for any confusion to be likely, even if they are marketed under similar marks.”)
`(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)
`Applicant respectfully requests that the Examining Attorney remove the potential refusal to register applicant’s mark in class 32 based
`on the prior application.
`
`GOODS AND/OR SERVICES SECTION (005)(no change)
`
`GOODS AND/OR SERVICES SECTION (028)(current)
`
`INTERNATIONAL CLASS
`
`DESCRIPTION
`
`028
`
`Exercise and fitness equipment and accessories, namely, ankle and wrist weights; exercise bars; exercise benches; exercise doorway gym bars;
`rowing machines; stair-stepping machines; stationary cycles; abdominal boards; chest expanders; chest pulls; exercise platforms; trampolines;
`treadmills; weight cuffs; weights; manually-operated exercise equipment; personal exercise mats; stress relief balls for hand exercise; bar bells
`for athletic use; weight lifting belts; weight lifting benches and bench accessories; weight lifting gloves; elliptical machines; jump ropes; fixed-
`gear stationary bikes; protective pads for cycling; stationary bicycles for spinning; group exercise platforms; and hiking machines; martial arts
`equipment, namely, bag gloves, kicking shields, shin guards, head guards, female chest protectors, punch mitts, groin cups, pads, karate
`targets, body shields, thai pads, sparring vests, ankle and hand wraps, focus mitts, punching bags, heavy bags, jump ropes, mouth guards, free
`standing bags, knee pads, and elbow pads
`
`FILING BASIS
`
`Section 1(b)
`
`GOODS AND/OR SERVICES SECTION (028)(proposed)
`
`INTERNATIONAL CLASS
`
`DESCRIPTION
`
`028
`
`Exercise and fitness equipment and accessories, namely, ankle and wrist weights; exercise bars; exercise benches; exercise doorway gym bars;
`rowing machines; stair-stepping machines; stationary cycles; abdominal boards; chest expanders; chest pulls; exercise platforms; trampolines;
`treadmills; weight cuffs; weights; manually-operated exercise equipment; personal exercise mats; stress relief balls for hand exercise; bar bells
`for athletic use; weight lifting belts; weight lifting benches and bench accessories; weight lifting gloves; elliptical machines; jump ropes; fixed-
`gear stationary bikes; protective pads for cycling; stationary bicycles for indoor cycling; group exercise platforms; and hiking machines;
`martial arts equipment, namely, bag gloves, kicking shields, shin guards, head guards, female chest protectors, punch mitts, groin cups, pads,
`namely kick pads, target pads and shin pads; karate target pads, body shields, thai pads, namely, kick pads, pads and shin pads; sparring vests,
`ankle and hand wraps, focus mitts, punching bags, heavy bags, jump ropes, mouth guards, free standing bags, knee pads, and elbow pads
`
`FILING BASIS
`
`Section 1(b)
`
`GOODS AND/OR SERVICES SECTION (032)(no change)
`
`GOODS AND/OR SERVICES SECTION (041)(no change)
`
`GOODS AND/OR SERVICES SECTION (043)(no change)
`
`SIGNATURE SECTION
`
`DECLARATION SIGNATURE
`
`RESPONSE SIGNATURE
`
`SIGNATORY'S NAME
`
`SIGNATORY'S POSITION
`
`DATE SIGNED
`
`AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY
`
`FILING INFORMATION SECTION
`
`SUBMIT DATE
`
`TEAS STAMP
`
`The filing Attorney has elected not to submit the signed declaration, believing no
`supporting declaration is required under the Trademark Rules of Practice.
`
`/phb/
`
`Parker H. Bagley
`
`Attorney of record
`
`04/05/2007
`
`YES
`
`Fri Apr 06 12:49:15 EDT 2007
`
`USPTO/ROA-XX.XX.XXX.XXX-2
`0070406124915360493-78911
`506-3704bb09266f8ae2ecd31
`fecc84e5c4abfc-N/A-N/A-20
`
`

`
`070405165330635902
`
`PTO Form 1957 (Rev 9/2005)
`
`OMB No. 0651-0050 (Exp. 04/2009)
`
`To the Commissioner for Trademarks:
`
`Response to Office Action
`
`Application serial no. 78911506 has been amended as follows:
`Argument(s)
`In response to the substantive refusal(s), please note the following:
`
`(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)
`
`Applicant wishes to address the Examining Attorney’s potential bar to registration in class 32 based on likelihood of confusion with
`pending application serial no. 78806733 for the mark “UFC REFRESH (stylized).” (cid:160) Applicant does not believe there is a likelihood of confusion
`between the cited application and applicant’s UFC trademark.
`Not only are the overall appearances of the marks different, but applicant’s products are different and are provided to a distinctly different and
`unique customer base.
`(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)
`1.(cid:160) The Overall Appearances of the Marks are Different
`(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)
`A finding of confusion cannot be predicated on the sharing of a common element, but the marks must be viewed in their entireties.(cid:160) In re
`
`E.I. DuPont de Nemours, 476 F.2d 1357, 177 U.S.P.Q. 563 (CCPA 1973); In re National Data Corp., 224 U.S.P.Q. 749 (Fed. Cir. 1985).(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)
`
`The marks convey completely different overall impressions.(cid:160) A finding of confusion should not be made based on the fact that
`applicant’s mark is contained within the cited mark. (cid:160) See, e.g., Truescents LLC v. Ride Skin Care LLC, 81 U.S.P.Q. 2d 1334 (T.T.A.B. 2006)
`(no likelihood of confusion between GENUINE SKIN and GENUINE RIDE SKIN CARE, stressing the existence of the prominently displayed
`word RIDE in the latter mark and its absence in the former mark); Colgate-Palmolive Co. v. Carter-Wallace, Inc., 432 F.2d 1400, 167 U.S.P.Q.
`529 (C.C.P.A. 1970) (PEAK PERIOD not confusingly similar to PEAK); Lever Bros. Co. v. Barcoline Co., 463 F.2d 1107, 174 U.S.P.Q. 392
`(C.C.P.A. 1972) (ALL CLEAR not confusingly similar to ALL); In re Ferrero, 479 F.2d 1395, 178 U.S.P.Q. 167 (C.C.P.A. 1973) (TIC TAC not
`confusingly similar to TIC TAC TOE);(cid:160) Conde Nast Publictions, Inc. v. Miss Quality, Inc., 507 F.2d 1404, 184 U.S.P.Q. 422 (C.C.P.A. 1975)
`(COUNTRY VOGUES not confusingly similar to VOGUE); In re Merchandising Motivation, Inc., 184 U.S.P.Q. 364 (T.T.A.B. 1974) (there is
`no absolute rule that no one has the right to incorporate the total mark of another as part of one’s own mark; (cid:160) MMI MENSWEAR not
`confusingly similar to MEN’S WEAR); (cid:160) Plus Products v. General Mills, Inc., 188 U.S.P.Q. 520 (T.T.A.B. 1975) (PROTEIN PLUS and PLUS
`not confusingly similar).
`(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)
`Here, a prior application for UFC REFRESH (stylized) has been cited, but applicant’s proposed registration of UFC is not even close to
`being the same mark . Unlike the cited mark, applicant’s mark consists of a single word, UFC, while the prior mark consists of (cid:160) the letters
`“UFC” in relatively small letters centered above a much larger, bolder and stylized depiction of the word “REFRESH.” (cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)
`In addition, the letters
`UFC in the prior applicant’s mark stand for a completely different phrase and concept, namely the letters are apparently an acronym for the
`prior applicant’s company, “Universal Food Public Company Limited.” (cid:160) On the other hand, applicant’s UFC mark is the acronym for
`ULTIMATE FIGHTING CHAMPIONSHIP.(cid:160) Both the UFC and ULTIMATE FIGHTING CHAMPIONSHIP marks are applicant’s well-known
`and registered trademarks and service marks which are used in connection with applicant’s (cid:160) martial arts competitions and numerous related
`
`goods and services.(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)
`2.(cid:160) The Respective Products and Channels of Trade are Different(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)
`The goods covered in the cited application are “fruit juice products,” while applicant intends to use its mark on “energy sports drinks.” (cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160) Applicant’s product is not a “fruit juice.” (cid:160) Rather it is a sports nutrition product which is marketed to athletes who wish to boost their
`
`hydration and improve their performance by increasing their endurance and stimulating their metabolisms.(cid:160) Energy sports drinks are typically
`
`functional(cid:160) beverages which are specially scientifically formulated to help athletes achieve their desired results.(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)
`
`Moreover, applicant’s core business involves nothing more and nothing less than the production of combat-based mixed martial arts
`competitions.(cid:160) (cid:160) Applicant’s products are marketed to a highly sophisticated group of fans, namely martial arts enthusiasts, who generally tend to
`be adult males.(cid:160) It is difficult to imagine that a “reasonably prudent purchaser,” would confuse applicant’s energy sports drink with the prior
`applicant’s “fruit juice products.”
`(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)
`The differences between the overall appearances of the respective marks and products, and the channels of trade substantially mitigate
`any likelihood of confusion between Applicant’s mark and the mark in the cited application. (cid:160) Federated Foods, Inc. v. Fort Howard Paper Co.,
`544 F.2d 1098, 192 U.S.P.Q. 24, 29 (“The fundamental inquiry mandated by §2d goes to the cumulative effect of differences in the essential
`characteristics of the goods and differences in the marks.”); (cid:160)(cid:160) In re InOvate Communications, 2005 WL 1822535 (Trademark Tr. & App. Bd.))
`(reversed the Examining Attorney’s refusal to register KODIAK NETWORKS based on a prior registration for THE KODIAK GROUP
`ELECTRONIC COMMERCE PLANNING & IMPLEMENTATION & Design, stating that “applicant’s goods and services and registrant’s
`services, as well as the trade channels and classes of purchasers for those respective goods and services, appear to be too dissimilar and unrelated
`
`

`
`for any confusion to be likely, even if they are marketed under similar marks.”)
`(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)
`Applicant respectfully requests that the Examining Attorney remove the potential refusal to register applicant’s mark in class 32 based on
`the prior application.
`
`Classification and Listing of Goods/Services
`
`Applicant hereby amends the following class of goods/services in the application as follows:
`Current: Class 028 for Exercise and fitness equipment and accessories, namely, ankle and wrist weights; exercise bars; exercise benches; exercise
`doorway gym bars; rowing machines; stair-stepping machines; stationary cycles; abdominal boards; chest expanders; chest pulls; exercise
`platforms; trampolines; treadmills; weight cuffs; weights; manually-operated exercise equipment; personal exercise mats; stress relief balls for
`hand exercise; bar bells for athletic use; weight lifting belts; weight lifting benches and bench accessories; weight lifting gloves; elliptical
`machines; jump ropes; fixed-gear stationary bikes; protective pads for cycling; stationary bicycles for spinning; group exercise platforms; and
`hiking machines; martial arts equipment, namely, bag gloves, kicking shields, shin guards, head guards, female chest protectors, punch mitts,
`groin cups, pads, karate targets, body shields, thai pads, sparring vests, ankle and hand wraps, focus mitts, punching bags, heavy bags, jump
`ropes, mouth guards, free standing bags, knee pads, and elbow pads
`Original Filing Basis: 1(b).
`Proposed: Class 028 for Exercise and fitness equipment and accessories, namely, ankle and wrist weights; exercise bars; exercise benches;
`exercise doorway gym bars; rowing machines; stair-stepping machines; stationary cycles; abdominal boards; chest expanders; chest pulls;
`exercise platforms; trampolines; treadmills; weight cuffs; weights; manually-operated exercise equipment; personal exercise mats; stress relief
`balls for hand exercise; bar bells for athletic use; weight lifting belts; weight lifting benches and bench accessories; weight lifting gloves;
`elliptical machines; jump ropes; fixed-gear stationary bikes; protective pads for cycling; stationary bicycles for indoor cycling; group exercise
`platforms; and hiking machines; martial arts equipment, namely, bag gloves, kicking shields, shin guards, head guards, female chest protectors,
`punch mitts, groin cups, pads, namely kick pads, target pads and shin pads; karate target pads, body shields, thai pads, namely, kick pads, pads
`and shin pads; sparring vests, ankle and hand wraps, focus mitts, punching bags, heavy bags, jump ropes, mouth guards, free standing bags, knee
`pads, and elbow pads
`Filing Basis: 1(b).
`
`Declaration Signature
`I hereby elect to bypass the submission of a signed declaration, because I believe a declaration is not required by the rules of practice. I
`understand that the examining attorney could still, upon later review, require a signed declaration.
`Response Signature
`Signature: /phb/(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)Date: 04/05/2007
`Signatory's Name: Parker H. Bagley
`Signatory's Position: Attorney of record
`
`The signatory has confirmed that he/she is an attorney who is a member in good standing of the bar of the highest court of a U.S. state, which
`includes the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and other federal territories and possessions; and he/she is currently the applicant's attorney or an
`associate thereof; and to the best of his/her knowledge, if prior to his/her appointment another U.S. attorney or a Canadian attorney/agent not
`currently associated with his/her company/firm previously represented the applicant in this matter: (1) the applicant has filed or is concurrently
`filing a signed revocation of or substitute power of attorney with the USPTO; (2) the USPTO has granted the request of the prior representative to
`withdraw; (3) the applicant has filed a power of attorney appointing him/her in this matter; or (4) the applicant's appointed U.S. attorney or
`Canadian attorney/agent has filed a power of attorney appointing him/her as an associate attorney in this matter.
`
`Serial Number: 78911506
`Internet Transmission Date: Fri Apr 06 12:49:15 EDT 2007
`TEAS Stamp: USPTO/ROA-XX.XX.XXX.XXX-2007040612491536
`0493-78911506-3704bb09266f8ae2ecd31fecc8
`4e5c4abfc-N/A-N/A-20070405165330635902
`
`(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)