To:
`
`Subject:
`
`Sent:
`
`Sent As:
`
`Attachments:
`
`Mammut Sports Group AG (fterranella@lawabel.com)
`
`U.S. TRADEMARK APPLICATION NO. 79043219 - MAMMUT - N/A
`
`4/27/2011 4:03:46 PM
`
`ECOM103@USPTO.GOV
`
`Attachment - 1
`Attachment - 2
`Attachment - 3
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE (USPTO)
`OFFICE ACTION (OFFICIAL LETTER) ABOUT APPLICANT’S TRADEMARK APPLICATION
`
`79043219
`
`(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160) CORRESPONDENT ADDRESS:
`(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)
`
`*79043219*
`
`CLICK HERE TO RESPOND TO THIS LETTER:
`http://www.uspto.gov/trademarks/teas/response_forms.jsp
`
`(cid:160) (cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160) APPLICATION SERIAL NO.(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) MARK: MAMMUT
`New York NY 10017(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160) (cid:160)
`(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160) APPLICANT:(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)
`(cid:160) Mammut Sports Group AG(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160) (cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160) CORRESPONDENT’S REFERENCE/DOCKET NO :(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)
`N/A(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160) CORRESPONDENT E-MAIL ADDRESS:(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)
`
`Lawrence E. Abelman(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)
`Abelman Frayne & Schwab(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)
`666 Third Avenue(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)
`
`10th Floor
`
`(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)
`
`fterranella@lawabel.com
`
`STRICT DEADLINE TO RESPOND TO THIS LETTER
`TO AVOID ABANDONMENT OF APPLICANT’S TRADEMARK APPLICATION, THE USPTO MUST RECEIVE APPLICANT’S COMPLETE
`RESPONSE TO THIS LETTER WITHIN 6 MONTHS OF THE ISSUE/MAILING DATE BELOW.
`
`OFFICE ACTION
`
`(cid:160)I
`
`(cid:160)I
`
`SSUE/MAILING DATE: 4/27/2011
`
`NTERNATIONAL REGISTRATION NO. 0646924
`
`(cid:160)I
`
`nasmuch as Application No. 777202 has matured to registration, the following refusal will now issue.
`
`(cid:160)T
`
`rademark Act Section 2(d) – Likelihood of Confusion
`
`(cid:160)T
`
`he following refusal is issued with respect to the goods in Class 25:
`
`(cid:160)R
`
`egistration of the applied-for mark is refused because of a likelihood of confusion with the mark in U.S. Registration No. 3,769,356.(cid:160)
`Trademark Act Section 2(d), 15 U.S.C. §1052(d); see TMEP §§1207.01 et seq.(cid:160) See the enclosed registration.
`
`(cid:160)T
`
`rademark Act Section 2(d) bars registration of an applied-for mark that so resembles a registered mark that it is likely that a potential consumer
`would be confused or mistaken or deceived as to the source of the goods and/or services of the applicant and registrant.(cid:160) See 15 U.S.C. §1052(d).(cid:160)
`The court in In re E. I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., 476 F.2d 1357, 177 USPQ 563 (C.C.P.A. 1973) listed the principal factors to be considered
`when determining whether there is a likelihood of confusion under Section 2(d).(cid:160) See TMEP §1207.01.(cid:160) However, not all of the factors are
`necessarily relevant or of equal weight, and any one factor may be dominant in a given case, depending upon the evidence of record.(cid:160) In re
`Majestic Distilling Co., 315 F.3d 1311, 1315, 65 USPQ2d 1201, 1204 (Fed. Cir. 2003); see In re E. I. du Pont, 476 F.2d at 1361-62, 177 USPQ at
`567.
`
`(cid:160)I
`
`n this case, the following factors are the most relevant:(cid:160) similarity of the marks, similarity of the goods and/or services, and similarity of trade
`
`(cid:160)
`

`
`channels of the goods and/or services.(cid:160) See In re Opus One, Inc., 60 USPQ2d 1812 (TTAB 2001); In re Dakin’s Miniatures Inc. , 59 USPQ2d
`1593 (TTAB 1999); In re Azteca Rest. Enters., Inc., 50 USPQ2d 1209 (TTAB 1999); TMEP §§1207.01 et seq.
`
`(cid:160)T
`
`aking into account the relevant du Pont factors, a likelihood of confusion determination in this case involves a two-part analysis.(cid:160) See In re E. I.
`du Pont de Nemours & Co., 476 F.2d 1357, 1361-62, 177 USPQ 563, 567 (C.C.P.A. 1973); In re 1st USA Realty Prof’ls Inc. , 84 USPQ2d 1581,
`1584 (TTAB 2007); see also In re Dixie Rests. Inc., 105 F.3d 1405, 1406-07, 41 USPQ2d 1531, 1533 (Fed. Cir. 1997).(cid:160) The marks are compared
`for similarities in their appearance, sound, connotation and commercial impression.(cid:160) TMEP §§1207.01, 1207.01(b).(cid:160) The goods and/or services
`are compared to determine whether they are similar or commercially related or travel in the same trade channels.(cid:160) See Herbko Int’l, Inc. v.
`Kappa Books, Inc., 308 F.3d 1156, 1164-65, 64 USPQ2d 1375, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2002); Han Beauty, Inc. v. Alberto-Culver Co., 236 F.3d 1333,
`1336, 57 USPQ2d 1557, 1559 (Fed. Cir. 2001); TMEP §§1207.01, 1207.01(a)(vi).
`
`(cid:160)T
`
`he goods and/or services of the parties need not be identical or directly competitive to find a likelihood of confusion.(cid:160) See Safety-Kleen Corp. v.
`Dresser Indus., Inc., 518 F.2d 1399, 1404, 186 USPQ 476, 480 (C.C.P.A. 1975); TMEP §1207.01(a)(i).(cid:160) Rather, it is sufficient that the goods
`and/or services are related in some manner and/or the conditions surrounding their marketing are such that they would be encountered by the
`same purchasers under circumstances that would give rise to the mistaken belief that the goods and/or services come from a common source.(cid:160) In
`re Total Quality Group, Inc., 51 USPQ2d 1474, 1476 (TTAB 1999); TMEP §1207.01(a)(i); see, e.g., On-line Careline Inc. v. Am. Online Inc.,
`229 F.3d 1080, 1086-87, 56 USPQ2d 1471, 1475-76 (Fed. Cir. 2000); In re Martin’s Famous Pastry Shoppe, Inc. , 748 F.2d 1565, 1566-68, 223
`USPQ 1289, 1290 (Fed. Cir. 1984).
`
`(cid:160)T
`
`he decisions in the clothing field have held many different types of apparel to be related under Trademark Act Section 2(d).(cid:160) Cambridge
`Rubber Co. v. Cluett, Peabody & Co., 286 F.2d 623, 128 USPQ 549 (C.C.P.A. 1961) (women’s boots related to men’s and boys’ underwear);
`Jockey Int’l, Inc. v. Mallory & Church Corp. , 25 USPQ2d 1233 (TTAB 1992) (underwear related to neckties); In re Melville Corp., 18 USPQ2d
`1386 (TTAB 1991) (women’s pants, blouses, shorts and jackets related to women’s shoes); In re Pix of Am., Inc., 225 USPQ 691 (TTAB 1985)
`(women’s shoes related to outer shirts); In re Mercedes Slacks, Ltd., 213 USPQ 397 (TTAB 1982) (hosiery related to trousers); In re Cook
`United, Inc., 185 USPQ 444 (TTAB 1975) (men’s suits, coats, and trousers related to ladies’ pantyhose and hosiery); Esquire Sportswear Mfg.
`Co. v. Genesco Inc., 141 USPQ 400 (TTAB 1964) (brassieres and girdles related to slacks for men and young men).
`
`(cid:160)A
`
`pplicant seeks registrant of the mark MAMMUT for, among other items, “clothing, namely, jackets, pullovers sweaters, trousers, pants, shorts,
`overalls, shirts, T-shirts, vests, underwear, tights, gaiters, gloves, headbands, belts; footwear namely, sports shoes, climbing shoes, trekking
`shoes, boots, climbing boots; headgear, namely, caps, hats, facemasks, hoods.” (cid:160) The mark MAMMOTH in Reg. No. 3,769,36 for goods
`identified as “coats; hats; jackets; shirts; sweat shirts; T-shirts; vests” has been cited as a bar to registration under Trademark Act Section 2(d),
`15 U.S.C. Section 1052(d).
`
`(cid:160)T
`
`he marks create similar commercial impressions because they have the same meaning.(cid:160) Under the doctrine of foreign equivalents, a mark in a
`foreign language and a mark that is its English equivalent may be held to be confusingly similar.(cid:160) TMEP §1207.01(b)(vi); see, e.g., In re Thomas,
`79 USPQ2d 1021, 1025 (TTAB 2006); In re Hub Distrib., Inc., 218 USPQ 284 (TTAB 1983).(cid:160) Therefore, marks comprised of foreign words are
`translated into English to determine similarity in meaning and connotation with English word marks.(cid:160) See Palm Bay Imps., Inc. v. Veuve
`Clicquot Ponsardin Maison Fondee en 1772, 396 F.3d 1369, 1377, 73 USPQ2d 1689, 1696 (Fed. Cir. 2005).(cid:160) Equivalence in meaning and
`connotation can be sufficient to find such marks confusingly similar.(cid:160) See In re Thomas, 79 USPQ2d at 1025.
`
`(cid:160)T
`
`he doctrine is applicable when it is likely that an ordinary American purchaser would “stop and translate” the foreign term into its English
`equivalent.(cid:160) Palm Bay, 396 F.3d at 1377, 73 USPQ2d at 1696; TMEP §1207.01(b)(vi)(A).(cid:160) The ordinary American purchaser refers to “all
`American purchasers, including those proficient in a non-English language who would ordinarily be expected to translate words into English.” (cid:160)
`In re Spirits Int’l, N.V. , 563 F.3d 1347, 1352, 90 USPQ2d 1489, 1492 (Fed. Cir. 2009); see In re Thomas, 79 USPQ2d at 1024 (citing J. Thomas
`McCarthy, McCarthy on Trademarks and Unfair Competition §23:26 (4th ed. 2006), which states “[t]he test is whether, to those American
`buyers familiar with the foreign language, the word would denote its English equivalent.”).
`
`(cid:160)G
`
`enerally, the doctrine is applied when the English translation is a literal and exact translation of the foreign wording.(cid:160) See In re Thomas, 79
`USPQ2d at 1021 (holding MARCHE NOIR for jewelry likely to be confused with the cited mark BLACK MARKET MINERALS for retail
`jewelry and mineral store services where evidence showed that MARCHE NOIR is the exact French equivalent of the English idiom “Black
`Market,” and the addition of MINERALS did not serve to distinguish the marks); In re Ithaca Indus., Inc., 230 USPQ 702 (TTAB 1986)
`(holding applicant’s mark LUPO for men’s and boys’ underwear likely to be confused with the cited registration for WOLF and design for
`various clothing items, where LUPO is the Italian equivalent of the English word “wolf”); In re Hub Distrib., Inc., 218 USPQ at 284 (holding
`the Spanish wording EL SOL for clothing likely to be confused with its English language equivalent SUN for footwear where it was determined
`that EL SOL was the “direct foreign language equivalent” of the term SUN).
`
`(cid:160)I
`
`n addition, the goods are related.(cid:160) The Applicant’s goods include, among other items, jackets, t-shirts, and vests and the Registrant’s goods
`also include jackets, t-shirts and vests, among other articles of clothing.(cid:160) Therefore, the Applicant’s and Registrant’s goods are identical.
`(cid:160)
`Where goods are identical, they are presumed to travel through the same channels of trade to the same classes of purchasers.(cid:160) Hewlett-Packard
`Co. v. Packard Press, Inc., 281 F.3rd 1261, 1268 (Fed.(cid:160) Cir. 2002).(cid:160) Because they are available through the same channels of trade to the same
`classes of purchasers, they are related.
`
`

`
`(cid:160)I
`
`nasmuch as the marks are similar and the goods are related, a likelihood of confusion exists.
`
`(cid:160)A
`
`ssistance
`
`(cid:160)I
`
`f applicant has questions regarding this Office action, please telephone or e-mail the assigned trademark examining attorney.(cid:160) All relevant e-
`mail communications will be placed in the official application record; however, an e-mail communication will not be accepted as a response to
`this Office action and will not extend the deadline for filing a proper response.(cid:160) See 37 C.F.R. §2.191; TMEP §§709.04-.05.(cid:160) Further, although
`the trademark examining attorney may provide additional explanation pertaining to the refusal(s) and/or requirement(s) in this Office action, the
`trademark examining attorney may not provide legal advice or statements about applicant’s rights. (cid:160) See TMEP §§705.02, 709.06.
`
`/Susan A. Richards/
`Trademark Attorney
`Law Office 103
`(571) 272-8266
`Susan.Richards@uspto.gov
`
`(cid:160)(cid:160)
`TO RESPOND TO THIS LETTER: (cid:160) Go to http://www.uspto.gov/trademarks/teas/response_forms.jsp. (cid:160) Please wait 48-72 hours from the
`issue/mailing date before using TEAS, to allow for necessary system updates of the application.(cid:160) For technical assistance with online forms, e-
`mail TEAS@uspto.gov.(cid:160) For(cid:160)questions about the Office action itself, please contact the assigned trademark examining attorney.(cid:160)(cid:160) E-mail
`communications will not be accepted as responses to Office actions; therefore, do not respond to this Office action by e-mail.
`
`(cid:160)A
`
`ll informal e-mail communications relevant to this application will be placed in the official application record.
`
`(cid:160)W
`
`HO MUST SIGN THE RESPONSE:(cid:160) It must be personally signed by(cid:160)an individual applicant or(cid:160)someone with legal authority to bind an
`applicant (i.e., a corporate officer, a general partner, all joint applicants).(cid:160)(cid:160)If an applicant is represented by an attorney, the attorney must sign the
`
`response.(cid:160)(cid:160)
`PERIODICALLY CHECK THE STATUS OF THE APPLICATION: (cid:160) To ensure that applicant does not miss crucial deadlines or official
`notices, check the status of the application every three to four months using Trademark Applications and Registrations Retrieval (TARR) at
`http://tarr.uspto.gov/. (cid:160) Please keep a copy of the complete TARR screen. (cid:160) If TARR shows no change for more than six months, call
`1-800-786-9199. (cid:160) For more information on checking status, see http://www.uspto.gov/trademarks/process/status/.
`
`(cid:160)T
`
`O UPDATE CORRESPONDENCE/E-MAIL ADDRESS:(cid:160) Use the TEAS form at http://www.uspto.gov/teas/eTEASpageE.htm.
`
`(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)
`(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)
`

`
`Print: Apr 2?, 201 1
`
`7B???2I‘J2
`
`DESIGN MARK
`
`Serial Number
`18111202
`
`Status
`REGISTERED
`
`Word Mark
`V MAMMOTH
`
`Standard Character Mark
`No
`
`Registration NI.II"I'IhBf
`3169356
`
`Date Registered
`20lOfO3f3O
`
`Type of Mark
`TRADEMARK
`
`Register
`PRINCIPAL
`
`Mark Drawing Code
`[3] DESIGN PLUS WORDS, LETTERS ANDJOR NUMBERS
`
`DBVHBT
`MAMMOTH MOUNTAIN SKI AREA, LLC LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY DELAWARE l
`MINARET ROAD MAMMOTH LAKES CALIFORNIA 93546
`
`Goodslservices
`G & S: Coats: hats:
`O22 039.
`US
`IC 025.
`Class Status —— ACTIVE.
`jackets: shirts; sweat shirts: T—shirts; vests. First Use:
`2004f10f31. First Use In Commerce: 2004flOf3l.
`
`Prior Registratioms]
`2120400;212308E;2959419
`
`Description of Mark
`The mark consists,
`mountain peak.
`
`in part, of an upside—down "V" representing a
`
`Colors Claimed
`Color is not olaimed as a feature of the mark.
`
`Filing Date
`2005!12!2O
`
`

`
`Print: Apr 27, 2011
`
`7B7??2I'J2
`
`Examining Attnmey
`KEHRNEY, COLLEEN
`
`Attorney of Record
`Nabil Hbu—Assal
`
`

`
`MaI<»’I§“4oTH
`
`

`
`To:
`
`Subject:
`
`Sent:
`
`Sent As:
`
`Attachments:
`
`Mammut Sports Group AG (fterranella@lawabel.com)
`
`U.S. TRADEMARK APPLICATION NO. 79043219 - MAMMUT - N/A
`
`4/27/2011 4:03:48 PM
`
`ECOM103@USPTO.GOV
`
`IMPORTANT NOTICE REGARDING YOUR TRADEMARK APPLICATION
`Your trademark application (Serial No. 79043219) has been reviewed.(cid:160)(cid:160) The examining attorney assigned by the
`United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) has written a letter (an “Office Action”) on 4/27/2011 to
`which you must respond.(cid:160) Please follow these steps:
`
`(cid:160)1
`
`. Read the Office letter by clicking on this link OR go to http://tmportal.uspto.gov/external/portal/tow and enter your serial number to
`
`access the Office letter.(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160) PLEASE NOTE: The(cid:160)Office letter may not be(cid:160)immediately available but will be(cid:160)viewable within(cid:160)24 hours of this e-mail notification.
`(cid:160)(cid:160)
`2. Respond within 6 months, calculated from 4/27/2011 (or sooner if specified in the Office letter), using the Trademark Electronic Application
`System Response to Office Action form. If you have difficulty using the USPTO website, contact TDR@uspto.gov.(cid:160)(cid:160)
`3. Contact the examining attorney who reviewed your application with any questions about the content of the office letter:
`
`(cid:160)/
`
`Susan A. Richards/
`Trademark Attorney
`Law Office 103
`(571) 272-8266
`Susan.Richards@uspto.gov
`
`WARNING
`Failure to file any required response by the applicable deadline will result in the ABANDONMENT of your application.
`Do NOT hit “Reply” to this e-mail notification, or otherwise attempt to e-mail your response, as the USPTO does NOT accept e-mailed
`responses.(cid:160) Instead, please use the Trademark Electronic Application System Response to Office Action form.
`
`(cid:160)
`(cid:160)(cid:160)