To:
`
`Subject:
`
`Sent:
`
`MOMOIP LLC (lap@kirschsteinlaw.com)
`
`U.S. TRADEMARK APPLICATION NO. 85692488 - KO - David Chang
`
`5/20/2014 3:25:15 AM
`
`Sent As:
`
`ECOM110@USPTO.GOV
`
`Attachments: Attachment - 1
`Attachment - 2
`
`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
`
`*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)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160) APPLICANT: MOMOIP 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: 5/20/2014
`
`THIS IS A FINAL ACTION.
`
`(cid:160)T
`
`he examining attorney has received and reviewed the applicant’s response to Office action dated April
`23, 2014.
`
`(cid:160)I
`
`n the Office action dated October 23, 2013, registration was refused under Trademark Act Section 2(d)
`based upon a likelihood of confusion with the marks in U.S. Registration Nos. 3419526 and 4312271.(cid:160)
`
`(cid:160)
`(cid:160)(cid:160)
`

`
`The refusal as to U.S. Registration No. 4312271 is withdrawn.
`
`(cid:160)F
`
`or the reasons set forth below, the refusal under Trademark Act Section 2(d) is now made FINAL with
`respect to U.S. Registration No. 3419526.(cid:160) See 15 U.S.C. §1052(d); 37 C.F.R. §2.64(a).
`
`(cid:160)S
`
`ection 2(d) Likelihood of Confusion – FINAL REFUSAL
`
`(cid:160)R
`
`egistration was refused under Trademark Act Section 2(d), 15 U.S.C. Section 1052(d), because the mark
`for which registration is sought so resembles the marks shown in U.S. Registration No. 3419526 as to be
`likely, when used with the identified services, to cause confusion, or to cause mistake, or to deceive.(cid:160) See
`attached registration.
`
`(cid:160)T
`
`he applicant’s mark is KO and design 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)(cid:160)
`Similarity 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 applicant’s mark is KO and design. (cid:160) The registered mark is KO PRIME.
`
`(cid:160)T
`
`he literal element of the applicant’s mark is identical to the first word and dominant feature of the
`registered mark, namely, KO.(cid:160) Although marks must be compared in their entireties, the word portion
`generally may be the dominant and most significant feature of a mark because consumers will request the
`services using the wording.(cid:160) See In re Viterra Inc., 671 F.3d 1358, 1362, 101 USPQ2d 1905, 1908 (Fed.
`Cir. 2012); In re Max Capital Grp. Ltd., 93 USPQ2d 1243, 1247 (TTAB 2010).(cid:160) For this reason, greater
`weight is often given to the word portion of marks when determining whether marks are confusingly
`similar.(cid:160) Joel Gott Wines, LLC v. Rehoboth Von Gott, Inc., 107 USPQ2d 1424, 1431 (TTAB 2013) (citing
`In re Dakin’s Miniatures, Inc. , 59 USPQ2d 1593, 1596 (TTAB 1999)); TMEP §1207.01(c)(ii).(cid:160) In the
`present case, consumers will reference the term KO, and not the applicant’s peach design, when calling
`
`for the applicant’s restaurant and bar services. (cid:160)(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.
`
`(cid:160)W
`
`hile the registered mark consists of two words, it begins with the word KO.(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).
`
`(cid:160)M
`
`oreover, the second word in the registered mark is descriptive of the registrant’s services and thus
`disclaimed.(cid:160) Disclaimed matter that is descriptive of or generic for an applicant’s services 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 at 1060, 224 USPQ at 752 ;
`TMEP §1207.01(b)(viii), (c)(ii).
`
`(cid:160)T
`
`he applicant argues that “the scope of protection afforded to the term KO is limited and carries little
`trademark significance.” (cid:160) While the examining attorney disagrees that the term KO is weak, the Court of
`Appeals for the Federal Circuit and the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board have recognized that marks
`deemed “weak” or merely descriptive are still entitled to protection against the registration by a
`subsequent user of a similar mark for closely related services.(cid:160) In re Colonial Stores, Inc., 216 USPQ 793,
`795 (TTAB 1982); TMEP §1207.01(b)(ix); see King Candy Co. v. Eunice King’s Kitchen, Inc. , 496 F.2d
`1400, 1401, 182 USPQ 108, 109 (C.C.P.A. 1974).(cid:160) This protection extends to marks registered on the
`Supplemental Register.(cid:160) TMEP §1207.01(b)(ix); see, e.g., In re Clorox Co., 578 F.2d 305, 307-08, 198
`USPQ 337, 340 (C.C.P.A. 1978); In re Hunke & Jochheim, 185 USPQ 188 (TTAB 1975).
`
`(cid:160)I
`
`n support of its argument that the term KO is weak, the applicant refers to various marks, all of which
`feature the word KO plus additional wording.(cid:160) The applicant’s mark, however, is distinguishable from the
`marks cited by the applicant because KO is the only literal element of the applicant’s mark.(cid:160) Thus, while
`the marks cited by the applicant each feature the word KO plus additional, arbitrary wording, the sole
`literal element, and thus dominant feature, of the applicant’s mark is KO.(cid:160) As such, it is identical to the
`
`dominant feature of the registered mark.(cid:160)(cid:160)
`
`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.(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).
`
`(cid:160)R
`
`elatedness of the Services
`
`(cid:160)T
`
`he 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, they need only be related in some manner, 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 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)I
`
`n its response the applicant did not address the relatedness of the services.(cid:160) The examining attorney
`maintains that the services are identical as both the applicant and the registrant provide restaurant and bar
`services.
`
`(cid:160)O
`
`verall, the similarities among the marks and the services of the parties are so great as to create a
`likelihood of confusion.(cid:160) Accordingly, the refusal to register the mark under Section 2(d) is continued and
`
`

`
`made FINAL.
`
`(cid:160)O
`
`ptions for Response to Final Refusal
`
`(cid:160)(
`
`submitting a response that fully satisfies all outstanding requirements, if feasible (37 C.F.R.
`1)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)
`§2.64(a)); and/or
`
`(cid:160)(
`
`filing an appeal to the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board, with an appeal fee of $100 per class (37
`2)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)
`C.F.R. §§2.6(a)(18) and 2.64(a); TMEP §§715.01 and 1501 et seq.; TBMP Chapter 1200).
`
`(cid:160)I
`
`n certain circumstances, a petition to the Director may be filed to review a final action that is limited to
`procedural issues, pursuant to 37 C.F.R. §2.63(b)(2).(cid:160) 37 C.F.R. §2.64(a).(cid:160) See 37 C.F.R. §2.146(b),
`TMEP §1704, and TBMP Chapter 1201.05 for an explanation of petitionable matters.(cid:160) The petition fee is
`$100.(cid:160) 37 C.F.R. §2.6(a)(15).
`
`TEAS PLUS APPLICANTS – TO MAINTAIN REDUCED FEE, ADDITIONAL
`REQUIREMENTS MUST BE MET, INCLUDING SUBMITTING DOCUMENTS ONLINE:(cid:160)
`Applicants who filed their application online using the lower-fee TEAS Plus application form must (1)
`continue to submit certain documents online using TEAS, including responses to Office actions (see
`TMEP §819.02(b) for a complete list of these documents); (2) accept correspondence from the USPTO via
`e-mail throughout the examination process; and (3) maintain a valid e-mail address.(cid:160) See 37 C.F.R.
`§2.23(a)(1), (a)(2); TMEP §§819, 819.02(a).(cid:160) TEAS Plus applicants who do not meet these three
`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) However, in certain situations, authorizing an examiner’s
`
`amendment by telephone will not incur this additional fee.(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)
`
`/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 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
`
`(cid:160)
`

`
`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: May 20, 2014
`
`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
`
`

`
`To:
`
`Subject:
`
`Sent:
`
`MOMOIP LLC (lap@kirschsteinlaw.com)
`
`U.S. TRADEMARK APPLICATION NO. 85692488 - KO - David Chang
`
`5/20/2014 3:25:16 AM
`
`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 5/20/2014 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 5/20/2014 (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)