To:
`
`Subject:
`
`Sent:
`
`David Chang, LLC (lap@kirschsteinlaw.com)
`
`U.S. TRADEMARK APPLICATION NO. 85692488 - KO - David Chang
`
`10/23/2013 10:02:20 PM
`
`Sent As:
`
`ECOM110@USPTO.GOV
`
`Attachments: Attachment - 1
`Attachment - 2
`Attachment - 3
`Attachment - 4
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE (USPTO)
`OFFICE ACTION (OFFICIAL LETTER) ABOUT APPLICANT’S TRADEMARK APPLICATION
`
`(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) LISA A. PIERONI
`(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) 425 5TH AVE FL 5
`(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)
`
`*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) U.S. APPLICATION SERIAL NO. 85692488
`(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)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160) APPLICANT: David Chang, LLC
`(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) CORRESPONDENT E-MAIL ADDRESS:(cid:160)(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: 10/23/2013
`
`On March 24, 2013, action on this application was suspended pending the disposition of U.S. Application
`Serial No. 85678635.(cid:160) The referenced prior-pending application has since registered (now U.S.
`Registration No. 4312271).(cid:160) Therefore, registration is refused as follows. (cid:160) At that time, the Section 2(d)
`refusal as to U.S. Registration No. 3419526 was continued and maintained.(cid:160) The Section 2(d) refusal as to
`both marks is referenced below.
`Registration Refused – Section 2(d) – Likelihood of Confusion
`
`(cid:160)
`(cid:160)
`

`
`Registration of the proposed mark is refused because of a likelihood of confusion with the marks in U.S.
`Registration No. 3419526 and 4312271. Trademark Act Section 2(d), 15 U.S.C. §1052(d); TMEP
`§§1207.01 et seq. See the enclosed registration.
`The 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.” The registered marks are KO PRIME for “restaurant
`and bar services” and KO JA KITCHEN for “Mobile restaurant services; Providing of food and drink;
`Providing of food and drink via a mobile truck; Restaurant services.” The applicant’s mark is confusingly
`similar to the registered marks in that they are highly similar in appearance, sound, connotation and
`commercial impression.
`A likelihood of confusion determination requires a two-part analysis. First, the marks are compared for
`similarities in appearance, sound, connotation and commercial impression. In re E. I. DuPont de Nemours
`& Co., 476 F.2d 1357, 177 USPQ 563 (C.C.P.A. 1973). 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. 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.
`Similarity of the Marks
`The marks are compared for similarities in sound, appearance, meaning or connotation. In re E .I. du Pont
`de Nemours & Co., 476 F.2d 1357, 177 USPQ 563 (C.C.P.A. 1973). Similarity in any one of these
`elements may be sufficient to find a likelihood of confusion. 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).
`The registrants’ marks 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); 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) .
`The only literal element of the applicant’s mark, KO, is identical to the dominant feature of the
`registrants’ mark, namely, the word KO. 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 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). Greater weight is often given
`to this dominant feature when determining whether marks are confusingly similar. 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.
`It is noted that applicant’s mark includes a design feature. 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. Therefore, the word portion is normally accorded greater weight in
`determining likelihood of confusion. 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).
`Where 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. 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.
`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. 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).
`Both the applicant and the registrants’ provide restaurant and/or bar services. Therefore, in addition to the
`nature of the marks, the parties’ services are highly related.
`Since the marks are confusingly similar, and the services are highly related, it is likely purchasers would
`confuse the source of the services. Any doubt regarding a likelihood of confusion is resolved in favor of
`the prior registrant. 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). Accordingly, the mark is refused registration under Section 2(d).
`Although the examining attorney has refused registration, the applicant may respond to the refusal to
`register by submitting evidence and arguments in support of registration.
`TEAS 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.
`
`(cid:160)R
`
`esponding to Office Action
`
`For this application to proceed toward registration, applicant must explicitly address each refusal and/or
`requirement raised in this Office action.(cid:160) If the action includes a refusal, applicant may provide arguments
`and/or evidence as to why the refusal should be withdrawn and the mark should register.(cid:160) Applicant may
`also have other options for responding to a refusal and should consider such options carefully.(cid:160) To respond
`to requirements and certain refusal response options, applicant should set forth in writing the required
`
`changes or statements.(cid:160)(cid:160)
`
`If applicant does not respond to this Office action within six months of the issue/mailing date, or responds
`by expressly abandoning the application, the application process will end, the trademark will fail to
`register, and the application fee will not be refunded.(cid:160) See 15 U.S.C. §1062(b); 37 C.F.R. §§2.65(a),
`
`2.68(a), 2.209(a); TMEP §§405.04, 718.01, 718.02.(cid:160)(cid:160)
`
`If applicant has a question or amendment that does not require the payment of a fee, submission of a
`specimen, response to a statutory refusal or declaration signature, applicant is encouraged to email or
`telephone the examining attorney to expedite the processing of the application.
`
`/Jessica Ellinger Fathy/
`Trademark Examining Attorney
`Law Office 110
`
`(cid:160)
`(cid:160)
`(cid:160)
`

`
`(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 the Trademark Electronic Application System
`(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 questions about the Office action itself, please contact the assigned
`trademark examining attorney.(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 an individual applicant or
`someone with legal authority to bind an applicant (i.e., a corporate officer, a general partner, all joint
`
`applicants).(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 the Trademark Status and Document Retrieval (TSDR) system at http://tsdr.uspto.gov/. (cid:160) Please keep
`a copy of the TSDR status screen. (cid:160) If the status shows no change for more than six months, contact the
`Trademark Assistance Center by e-mail at TrademarkAssistanceCenter@uspto.gov or 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/trademarks/teas/correspondence.jsp.
`
`(cid:160)(cid:160)
`

`
`Print: Oct 23, 2013
`
`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
`
`

`
`Pfint:Dmfl23,2fl13
`
`85878635
`
`DESIGN MARK
`
`Serial Number
`856T8635
`
`Status
`REGISTERED
`
`Word Mark
`KC JA KITCHEN
`
`Standard Character Mark
`Yes
`
`Registration Number
`4312271
`
`Date Registered
`2DI3xD4xD2
`
`Type of Marin
`SERVICE MARK
`
`Register
`PRINCIPAL
`
`Mark Drawing Code
`[4]
`STANDARD CHARACTER MARK
`
`Owner
`KCJS Kitchen LLC LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY CALIECRNIA 5S55 Horton
`
`Street APT 514 Emeryville CALIFORNIA 94608
`
`Goodsfserviees
`Claee Statue —— ACTIVE.
`
`IC 043.
`
`Us
`
`100 101.
`
`G 6: 8: Mobile
`
`restaurant Services: Providing of food and drink: Providing of food
`and drink via a mobile truck; Restaurant services. First Use:
`ZOIIHUEHZ5. First Use In Commerce: 2UllfU6f25.
`
`Disclaimer Statement
`NO CLAIM IS MADE TO THE EXCLUSIVE RIGHT TO USE "KITCHEN" APART FROM
`THE MARK As SHOWN.
`
`Filing Date
`20I2HD7H1T
`
`Examining Attorney
`KELLY,
`JCHN
`
`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
`
`10/23/2013 10:02:21 PM
`
`Sent As:
`
`ECOM110@USPTO.GOV
`
`Attachments:
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE (USPTO)
`
`IMPORTANT NOTICE REGARDING YOUR
`U.S. TRADEMARK APPLICATION
`
`USPTO OFFICE ACTION (OFFICIAL LETTER) HAS ISSUED
`ON 10/23/2013 FOR U.S. APPLICATION SERIAL NO. 85692488
`
`Please follow the instructions below:
`
`(cid:160)(
`
`1)(cid:160) TO READ THE LETTER:(cid:160) Click on this link or go to http://tsdr.uspto.gov, enter the U.S.
`application serial number, and click on “Documents.”
`
`(cid:160)T
`
`he Office action may not be immediately viewable, to allow for necessary system updates of the
`application, but will be available within 24 hours of this e-mail notification.
`
`(cid:160)(
`
`2)(cid:160) TIMELY RESPONSE IS REQUIRED:(cid:160) Please carefully review the Office action to determine (1)
`how to respond, and (2) the applicable response time period.(cid:160) Your response deadline will be calculated
`from 10/23/2013 (or sooner if specified in the Office action).(cid:160) For information regarding response time
`periods, see http://www.uspto.gov/trademarks/process/status/responsetime.jsp.
`
`(cid:160)D
`
`o NOT hit “Reply” to this e-mail notification, or otherwise e-mail your response because the
`USPTO does NOT accept e-mails as responses to Office actions.(cid:160) Instead, the USPTO recommends that
`you respond online using the Trademark Electronic Application System (TEAS) response form located at
`http://www.uspto.gov/trademarks/teas/response_forms.jsp.
`
`(cid:160)(
`
`3)(cid:160) QUESTIONS:(cid:160) For questions about the contents of the Office action itself, please contact the
`assigned trademark examining attorney.(cid:160) For technical assistance in accessing or viewing the Office action
`in the Trademark Status and Document Retrieval (TSDR) system, please e-mail TSDR@uspto.gov.
`
`WARNING
`
`(cid:160)F
`
`ailure to file the required response by the applicable response deadline will result in the
`ABANDONMENT of your application.(cid:160)
`For more information regarding abandonment,
`see
`
`(cid:160)(cid:160)
`(cid:160)
`(cid:160)
`(cid:160)
`

`
`http://www.uspto.gov/trademarks/basics/abandon.jsp.
`
`PRIVATE COMPANY SOLICITATIONS REGARDING YOUR APPLICATION:(cid:160)
`Private
`companies not associated with the USPTO are using information provided in trademark applications to
`mail or e-mail trademark-related solicitations.(cid:160) These companies often use names that closely resemble the
`USPTO and their solicitations may look like an official government document.(cid:160) Many solicitations require
`
`that you pay “fees.” (cid:160)(cid:160)
`
`Please carefully review all correspondence you receive regarding this application to make sure that you are
`responding to an official document from the USPTO rather than a private company solicitation.(cid:160) All
`official USPTO correspondence will be mailed only from the “United States Patent and Trademark
`Office” in Alexandria, VA; or sent by e-mail from the domain “@uspto.gov.” (cid:160) For more information on
`how
`to
`handle
`private
`company
`solicitations,
`see
`http://www.uspto.gov/trademarks/solicitation_warnings.jsp.
`
`(cid:160)
`(cid:160)(cid:160)