To:
`
`Subject:
`
`Sent:
`
`David Chang, LLC (lap@kirschsteinlaw.com)
`
`U.S. TRADEMARK APPLICATION NO. 85692488 - KO - David Chang
`
`8/28/2012 9:27:56 PM
`
`Sent As:
`
`ECOM110@USPTO.GOV
`
`Attachments: Attachment - 1
`Attachment - 2
`Attachment - 3
`Attachment - 4
`Attachment - 5
`Attachment - 6
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE (USPTO)
`OFFICE ACTION (OFFICIAL LETTER) ABOUT APPLICANT’S TRADEMARK APPLICATION
`
`85692488
`
`(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)
`
`*85692488*
`
`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: KO
`(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)
`David Chang, LLC(cid:160)(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)
`David Chang(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)
`
`LISA A. PIERONI(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)
`KIRSCHSTEIN, ISRAEL, SCHIFFMILLER & PIER(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)
`NEW YORK, NY 10016-2223(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)
`
`425 5TH AVE FL 5
`
`(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)
`
`lap@kirschsteinlaw.com
`
`OFFICE ACTION
`
`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.
`
`(cid:160)I
`
`SSUE/MAILING DATE: 8/28/2012
`The assigned examining attorney has reviewed the referenced application and determined the following.
`SUMMARY OF ISSUES that applicant must address:
`
`Earlier Filed Pending Applications
`
`(cid:160)
`(cid:160)
`

`
`Section 2(d) Refusal
`Claim of Ownership of Prior Registration Not Pertinent – Advisory
`
`(cid:160)A
`
`pplication Not Entitled to Register – Earlier Filed Pending Applications – Applicant May Present
`Arguments
`
`(cid:160)T
`
`he filing dates of pending U.S. Application Serial Nos. 85311626 (KO BURGER) and 85678635 (KO JA
`KITCHEN) precede applicant’s filing date.(cid:160) See attached referenced applications.(cid:160) 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).(cid:160) See 15
`U.S.C. §1052(d); 37 C.F.R. §2.83; TMEP §§1208 et seq.(cid:160) 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.
`
`(cid:160)I
`
`n 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.(cid:160)
`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.
`
`(cid:160)A
`
`pplicant should note the additional ground for refusal.(cid:160)(cid:160)
`Registration Refused – Section 2(d) – Likelihood of Confusion
`
`(cid:160)R
`
`egistration of the proposed mark is refused because of a likelihood of confusion with the mark in U.S.
`Registration No. 3419526.(cid:160) Trademark Act Section 2(d), 15 U.S.C. §1052(d); TMEP §§1207.01 et seq.(cid:160)
`See the enclosed registration.
`
`(cid:160)T
`
`he applicant’s mark is KO and a design feature for “bar services; restaurant services, including sit-down
`service of food and take-out restaurant services.”(cid:160) The registered mark is KO PRIME for “restaurant and
`bar services.”(cid:160) The applicant’s mark is confusingly similar to the registered mark in that they are highly
`
`similar in appearance, sound, connotation and commercial impression.(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)
`
`A likelihood of confusion determination requires a two-part analysis.(cid:160) First, the marks are compared for
`similarities in appearance, sound, connotation and commercial impression.(cid:160) In re E. I. DuPont de Nemours
`& Co., 476 F.2d 1357, 177 USPQ 563 (C.C.P.A. 1973).(cid:160) Second, the goods or services are compared to
`determine whether they are similar or related or whether the activities surrounding their marketing are
`such that confusion as to origin is likely.(cid:160) In re August Storck KG, 218 USPQ 823 (TTAB 1983); In re
`Int’l Tel. and Tel. Corp ., 197 USPQ 910 (TTAB 1978); Guardian Prods. Co., v. Scott Paper Co., 200
`USPQ 738 (TTAB 1978); TMEP §§1207.01 et seq.
`
`(cid:160)S
`
`imilarity of the Marks
`
`(cid:160)T
`
`he marks are compared for similarities in sound, appearance, meaning or connotation.(cid:160) In re E .I. du Pont
`de Nemours & Co., 476 F.2d 1357, 177 USPQ 563 (C.C.P.A. 1973).(cid:160) Similarity in any one of these
`elements may be sufficient to find a likelihood of confusion.(cid:160) In re White Swan Ltd., 8 USPQ2d 1534,
`1536 (TTAB 1988); In re Lamson Oil Co., 6 USPQ2d 1041, 1043 (TTAB 1987); In re Mack, 197 USPQ
`
`755 (TTAB 1977); TMEP §1207.01(b).(cid:160)(cid:160)
`
`The registrant’s mark begins with KO and KO is the only literal element featured in the applicant’s
`
`

`
`mark.(cid:160) Consumers are generally more inclined to focus on the first word, prefix or syllable in any
`trademark or service mark.(cid:160) See Palm Bay Imps., Inc. v. Veuve Clicquot Ponsardin Maison Fondee En
`1772, 396 F. 3d 1369, 1372, 73 USPQ2d 1689, 1692 (Fed. Cir. 2005); see also Mattel Inc. v. Funline
`Merch. Co., 81 USPQ2d 1372, 1374-75 (TTAB 2006); Presto Prods., Inc. v. Nice-Pak Prods., Inc., 9
`USPQ2d 1895, 1897 (TTAB 1988) (“it is often the first part of a mark which is most likely to be
`impressed upon the mind of a purchaser and remembered” when making purchasing decisions).
`
`(cid:160)T
`
`he only literal element of the applicant’s mark, KO, is identical to the dominant feature of the
`registrant’s mark, namely, the word KO.(cid:160) Although marks are compared in their entireties, one feature of
`a mark may be more significant or dominant in creating a commercial impression.(cid:160) See In re Viterra Inc.,
`671 F.3d 1358, 1362, 101 USPQ2d 1905, 1908 (Fed. Cir. 2012); In re Nat’l Data Corp. , 753 F.2d 1056,
`1058, 224 USPQ 749, 751 (Fed. Cir. 1985); TMEP §1207.01(b)(viii), (c)(ii).(cid:160) Greater weight is often
`given to this dominant feature when determining whether marks are confusingly similar.(cid:160) See In re Nat’l
`Data Corp., 753 F.2d at 1058, 224 USPQ at 751. Since the term KO is very significant in creating a
`
`commercial impression, the marks are highly similar in sound, appearance, meaning and connotation.(cid:160)(cid:160)
`
`The registrant’s mark also includes the word PRIME.(cid:160) However, this wording is descriptive of the
`registrant’s services and therefore disclaimed.(cid:160) Disclaimed matter is typically less significant or less
`dominant when comparing marks.(cid:160) See In re Dixie Rests., Inc., 105 F.3d 1405, 1407, 41 USPQ2d 1531,
`1533-34 (Fed. Cir. 1997); In re Nat’l Data Corp. , 753 F.2d 1056, 1060, 224 USPQ 749, 752 (Fed. Cir.
`1985); TMEP §1207.01(b)(viii), (c)(ii).
`
`(cid:160)I
`
`t is noted that applicant’s mark includes a design feature.(cid:160) When a mark consists of a word portion and a
`design portion, the word portion is more likely to be impressed upon a purchaser’s memory and to be
`used in calling for the services.(cid:160) Therefore, the word portion is normally accorded greater weight in
`determining likelihood of confusion.(cid:160) In re Dakin’s Miniatures, Inc. , 59 USPQ2d 1593, 1596 (TTAB
`1999); In re Appetito Provisions Co., 3 USPQ2d 1553, 1554 (TTAB 1987); Amoco Oil Co. v. Amerco,
`Inc., 192 USPQ 729, 735 (TTAB 1976); TMEP §1207.01(c)(ii).
`
`(cid:160)W
`
`here the services of an applicant and registrant are identical or virtually identical, as in the present case,
`the degree of similarity between the marks required to support a finding of likelihood of confusion is not
`as great as in the case of diverse services.(cid:160) See In re Viterra Inc., 671 F.3d 1358, 1363, 101 USPQ2d 1905,
`1908 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (citing Century 21 Real Estate Corp. v. Century Life of Am., 970 F.2d 874, 877, 23
`USPQ2d 1698, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 1992)); In re Mighty Leaf Tea, 601 F.3d 1342, 1348, 94 USPQ2d 1257,
`1260 (Fed. Cir. 2010); TMEP §1207.01(b).
`
`Relatedness of the Services
`
`The services of the parties need not be identical or directly competitive to find a likelihood of confusion.(cid:160)
`Instead, they need only be related in some manner, or the conditions surrounding their marketing be such
`that they could be encountered by the same purchasers under circumstances that could give rise to the
`mistaken belief that the services come from a common source.(cid:160) On-line Careline Inc. v. America Online
`Inc., 229 F.3d 1080, 56 USPQ2d 1471 (Fed. Cir. 2000); In re Martin’s Famous Pastry Shoppe , Inc., 748
`F.2d 1565, 223 USPQ 1289 (Fed. Cir. 1984); In re Melville Corp., 18 USPQ2d 1386, 1388 (TTAB 1991).
`
`(cid:160)B
`
`oth the applicant and the registrant provide restaurant and bar services.(cid:160) Therefore, in addition to the
`
`nature of the marks, the parties’ services are highly related.(cid:160)(cid:160)
`
`Since the marks are confusingly similar, and the services are highly related, it is likely purchasers would
`confuse the source of the services.(cid:160) Any doubt regarding a likelihood of confusion is resolved in favor of
`
`(cid:160)
`(cid:160)
`

`
`the prior registrant.(cid:160) Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Packard Press Inc., 281 F.3d 1261, 62 USPQ2d 1001, 1004
`(Fed. Cir. 2002); In re Hyper Shoppes (Ohio), Inc., 837 F.2d 463, 6 USPQ2d 1025 (Fed. Cir. 1988);
`TMEP §§1207.01(d)(i).(cid:160) Accordingly, the mark is refused registration under Section 2(d).
`
`(cid:160)A
`
`lthough the examining attorney has refused registration, the applicant may respond to the refusal to
`register by submitting evidence and arguments in support of registration.
`
`(cid:160)C
`
`laim of Ownership of U.S. Registration No. 4098985 Not Pertinent – Advisory
`
`(cid:160)A
`
`pplicant’s claim of ownership of U.S. Registration No. 4098985 (LUCKY PEACH) will not be printed
`on any registration that may issue from this application because the marks are different.(cid:160) Only prior
`registrations of the same or similar marks are considered related registrations for purposes of an ownership
`claim.(cid:160) See 37 C.F.R. §2.36; TMEP §812.
`
`(cid:160)T
`
`EAS PLUS Response Guidelines
`
`TEAS PLUS APPLICANTS MUST SUBMIT DOCUMENTS ELECTRONICALLY OR SUBMIT
`FEE:(cid:160) Applicants who filed their application online using the reduced-fee TEAS Plus application must
`continue to submit certain documents online using TEAS, including responses to Office actions.(cid:160) See 37
`C.F.R. §2.23(a)(1).(cid:160) For a complete list of these documents, see TMEP §819.02(b).(cid:160) In addition, such
`applicants must accept correspondence from the Office via e-mail throughout the examination process and
`must maintain a valid e-mail address.(cid:160) 37 C.F.R. §2.23(a)(2); TMEP §§819, 819.02(a).(cid:160) TEAS Plus
`applicants who do not meet these requirements must submit an additional fee of $50 per international class
`of goods and/or services.(cid:160) 37 C.F.R. §2.6(a)(1)(iv); TMEP §819.04.(cid:160) In appropriate situations and where
`all issues can be resolved by amendment, responding by telephone to authorize an examiner’s amendment
`will not incur this additional fee.
`
`/Jessica Ellinger Fathy/
`Trademark Examining Attorney
`Law Office 110
`(571) 272-6582
`Jessica.fathy@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
`
`(cid:160)
`(cid:160)
`

`
`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)
`

`
`Print: Aug 28, 2012
`
`77153962
`
`DESIGN MARK
`
`Serial Number
`TTl53962
`
`Status
`REGISTERED
`
`Word Mark
`KO PRIME
`
`Standard Character Mark
`Yes
`
`Registration Number
`3419525
`
`Date Registered
`2DDSxD4x2S
`
`Type ef Marl:
`SERVICE MARK
`
`Register
`PRINCIPAL
`
`Mark Drawing Code
`[4]
`STANDARD CHARACTER MARK
`
`Owner
`KHRG Boston Hotel, LLC LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY DELAWARE Suite 2DD
`222 Kearny Street San Francisco CALIFORNIA 94108
`
`Goodsfserviees
`G & S: Restaurant and
`100 101.
`US
`IC 043.
`Class Status -- ACTIVE.
`bar Services. First Use: ZOOTHOEKOS. First Use In Commerce:
`2007/OEHOB.
`
`Disclaimer Statement
`NO CLAIM IS MADE TC THE EXCLUSIVE RIGHT TC USE "PRIME" APART ERCM THE
`MARK AS SHOWN.
`
`Filing Date
`2OUTfO4f11
`
`Examining Attorney
`TANNER, MICHAEL
`
`

`
`KO PRIME
`
`

`
`Print: Aug 28, 2012
`
`85311825
`
`DESIGN MARK
`
`Serial Number
`85311626
`
`Status
`NCTICE OF ALLOWANCE — ISSUED
`
`Word Mark
`KO BURGER
`
`Standard Character Mark
`Yes
`
`Type «if Marl:
`SERVICE MARK
`
`Register
`PRINCIPAL
`
`Mark Drawing Code
`[4]
`STANDARD CHARACTER MARK
`
`Owner
`Palermo, Alexander INDIVIDUAL UNITED STATES 550 Ceres Ave LCS Angeles
`CALIFORNIA 90013
`
`Goodsfservices
`Class Status —— ACTIVE.
`restaurants.
`
`IC 043.
`
`US
`
`100 101.
`
`G & S: FaSt—fCCd
`
`Disclaimer Statement
`NC CLAIM Is MADE TC THE EXCLUSIVE RIGHT TC USE "BURGER" APART ERCM THE
`MARK AS SHOWN.
`
`Filing Date
`2011/05/04
`
`Examining Attorney
`PARKER,
`JUSTINE D.
`
`

`
`KO BURGER
`
`

`
`Print: Aug 28, 2012
`
`85878635
`
`DESIGN MARK
`
`Serial Number
`856T8635
`
`Status
`NEW APPLICATION — RECCRD INITIALIEED NCT ASSIGNED To EXAMINER
`
`Word Mark
`KC JA KITCHEN
`
`Standard Character Mark
`Yes
`
`Type of Merit
`SERVICE MARK
`
`Register
`PRINCIPAL
`
`Mark Drawing Code
`[4]
`STANDARD CHARACTER MARK
`
`Ovmer
`KoJa Kitchen LLC LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY CALIECRNIA 5355 Horton
`
`Street APT 514 Emeryville CALIFORNIA 94608
`
`Goodsfservices
`Class Status -- ACTIVE.
`
`IC 043.
`
`US
`
`100 lUl.
`
`G & S: Mobile
`
`restaurant services: Providing of food and drink: Providing of food
`and drink via a mobile truck; Restaurant services. First Use:
`20llfO6f25. First Use In Commerce: 20llfO6f25.
`
`Filing Date
`ZOIZHDTHIT
`
`Examining Attorney
`UNKNOWN
`
`Attorney of Record
`XAVIER MORALES
`
`

`
`KO JA KITCHEN
`
`

`
`To:
`
`Subject:
`
`Sent:
`
`David Chang, LLC (lap@kirschsteinlaw.com)
`
`U.S. TRADEMARK APPLICATION NO. 85692488 - KO - David Chang
`
`8/28/2012 9:27:57 PM
`
`Sent As:
`
`ECOM110@USPTO.GOV
`
`Attachments:
`
`IMPORTANT NOTICE REGARDING YOUR
`U.S. TRADEMARK APPLICATION
`
`USPTO OFFICE ACTION HAS ISSUED ON 8/28/2012 FOR
`SERIAL NO. 85692488
`
`(cid:160)P
`
`lease follow the instructions below to continue the prosecution of your application:
`
`or
`link
`ACTION:
`OFFICE
`READ
`TO
`to
`go
`this
`on
`Click
`http://portal.uspto.gov/external/portal/tow and enter the application serial number to access the
`Office action.
`
`(cid:160)P
`
`LEASE NOTE: The Office action may not be immediately available but will be viewable within 24
`hours of this e-mail notification.
`
`(cid:160)R
`
`ESPONSE(cid:160)IS REQUIRED: You should carefully review the Office action to determine (1) how to
`respond; and (2) the applicable response time period. Your response deadline will be calculated from
`8/28/2012 (or sooner if specified in the office action).
`
`(cid:160)D
`
`o 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, the USPTO recommends that you respond
`online using the Trademark Electronic Application System Response Form.
`
`(cid:160)H
`
`ELP: For technical assistance in accessing the Office action, please e-mail
`TDR@uspto.gov.(cid:160) Please contact the assigned examining attorney with questions about the Office
`
`action.(cid:160) (cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160) WARNING
`
`(cid:160)F
`
`ailure to file the required response by the applicable deadline will result in the
`ABANDONMENT of your application.
`
`(cid:160)
`(cid:160)(cid:160)
`(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)