To:
`
`Subject:
`
`Sent:
`
`Sent As:
`
`Attachments:
`
`McCarthy, Nathan (mswyers@thetrademarkcompany.com)
`
`U.S. TRADEMARK APPLICATION NO. 86491495 - TAMALPAIS SURF CLUB THE TIME TUNNEL -
`N/A
`
`5/27/2015 7:38:10 PM
`
`ECOM117@USPTO.GOV
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE (USPTO)
`OFFICE ACTION (OFFICIAL LETTER) ABOUT APPLICANT’S TRADEMARK APPLICATION
`
`U.S. APPLICATION SERIAL NO. (cid:160) 86491495
`
`(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)M
`
`ARK: TAMALPAIS SURF CLUB THE TIME TUNNEL
`
`CORRESPONDENT ADDRESS:
`(cid:160)(cid:160)
`(cid:160) (cid:160)(cid:160) MATTHEW H SWYERS
`(cid:160)(cid:160)
`(cid:160) (cid:160)(cid:160) The Trademark Company
`(cid:160) (cid:160) (cid:160) (cid:160)(cid:160) 344 Maple Ave W # 151
`(cid:160) (cid:160) (cid:160) (cid:160)(cid:160) Vienna, VA 22180-5612
`(cid:160)(cid:160)
`
`*86491495*
`
`GENERAL TRADEMARK
`INFORMATION:
`http://www.uspto.gov/trademarks/index.jsp
`
`VIEW YOUR APPLICATION FILE
`
`APPLICANT: McCarthy, Nathan
`
`(cid:160) (cid:160)(cid:160)
`CORRESPONDENT’S REFERENCE/DOCKET NO :(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) mswyers@thetrademarkcompany.com
`
`(cid:160) (cid:160) N/A
`
`SUSPENSION NOTICE: NO RESPONSE NEEDED
`
`(cid:160)I
`
`SSUE/MAILING DATE: 5/27/2015
`
`This Office action concerns applicant’s response filed on May 20, 2015.
`
`(cid:160)A
`
`pplicant filed a request to change the owner name on January 2, 2015.(cid:160) This request was denied, and applicant required to clarify whether the
`proper party filed the original application.(cid:160) Applicant did not address this issue in its response.(cid:160) Therefore, this requirement is continued and
`MAINTAINED.
`
`(cid:160)A
`
`pplicant was also notified of the mark in prior-pending Application Serial No. 86458133, which, if registered, may be cited against the present
`application under Trademark Act Section 2(d), 15 U.S.C. §1052(d), on the ground that the marks are likely to be confused.
`
`(cid:160)A
`
`pplicant has submitted arguments against this potential refusal.(cid:160) These arguments have been considered and found unpersuasive.(cid:160)(cid:160)
`
`In this case, applicant offers “Belts; Hats; Jackets; Pants; Shoes; Socks; Sweatshirts; T-shirts” in International Class 25, and the prior applicant
`offers “Clothing, namely, t-shirts” in International Class 25.(cid:160) Thus, the applicants offer identical goods, namely, “T-shirts.” (cid:160) Moreover,
`applicant and the prior applicant offer clothing generally, and decisions regarding likelihood of confusion in the clothing field have found many
`different types of clothing items to be related goods.(cid:160) Cambridge Rubber Co. v. Cluett, Peabody & Co., 286 F.2d 623, 624, 128 USPQ
`549, 550 (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, 1236 (TTAB 1992) (underwear related to neckties); In re Melville Corp., 18 USPQ2d 1386, 1388 (TTAB 1991) (women’s pants, blouses,
`shorts and jackets related to women’s shoes); In re Pix of Am., Inc., 225 USPQ 691, 691-92 (TTAB 1985) (women’s shoes related to outer
`shirts); In re Mercedes Slacks, Ltd., 213 USPQ 397, 398-99 (TTAB 1982) (hosiery related to trousers); In re Cook United, Inc., 185 USPQ 444,
`445 (TTAB 1975) (men’s suits, coats, and trousers related to ladies’ pantyhose and hosiery); Esquire Sportswear Mfg. Co. v. Genesco Inc., 141
`USPQ 400, 404 (TTAB 1964) (brassieres and girdles related to slacks for men and young men).
`
`(cid:160)M
`
`oreover, neither application contains any limitations regarding trade channels for the goods, and therefore it is assumed that the applicants’
`goods are sold everywhere that is normal for such items, i.e., clothing and department stores.(cid:160) Thus, it can also be assumed that the same classes
`of purchasers shop for these items and that consumers are accustomed to seeing them sold under the same or similar marks.(cid:160) See Kangol Ltd. v.
`
`(cid:160)
`(cid:160)
`(cid:160)
`(cid:160)
`

`

`KangaROOS U.S.A., Inc., 974 F.2d 161, 23 USPQ2d 1945 (Fed. Cir. 1992); In re Smith & Mehaffey, 31 USPQ2d 1531 (TTAB 1994); TMEP
`§1207.01(a)(iii).
`
`(cid:160)B
`
`ecause the applicants offer closely related if not identical clothing goods, 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 goods.(cid:160) See United Global Media Grp., Inc. v. Tseng, 112 USPQ2d
`1039, 1049 (TTAB 2014) (quoting Century 21 Real Estate Corp. v. Century Life of Am., 970 F.2d 874, 877, 23 USPQ2d 1698, 1701 (Fed. Cir.
`1992)); TMEP §1207.01(b).
`
`(cid:160)I
`
`n this case, both the applied-for mark and the prior-pending mark begin with the word “TAMALPAIS”, and consumers are generally more
`inclined to focus on the first word in any trademark.(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) Indeed, the word “TAMALPAIS” in the applied-for mark is displayed in a much larger font than all of the other wording in the
`mark, making it stand out to consumers as the dominant word in the mark.
`
`(cid:160)T
`
`he fact that there has allegedly been no actual confusion between the marks, as applicant claims, is not relevant in this ex parte proceeding.(cid:160)
`The test under Trademark Act Section 2(d) is whether there is a likelihood of confusion.(cid:160) It is not necessary to show actual confusion to establish
`a likelihood of confusion.(cid:160) Herbko Int’l, Inc. v. Kappa Books, Inc., 308 F.3d 1156, 1165, 64 USPQ2d 1375, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (citing Giant
`Food, Inc. v. Nation’s Foodservice, Inc., 710 F.2d 1565, 1571, 218 USPQ 390, 396 (Fed. Cir. 1983)); TMEP §1207.01(d)(ii).(cid:160) The Trademark
`Trial and Appeal Board stated as follows:
`
`[A]pplicant’s assertion that it is unaware of any actual confusion occurring as a result of the contemporaneous use of the marks of
`applicant and registrant is of little probative value in an ex parte proceeding such as this where we have no evidence pertaining to the
`nature and extent of the use by applicant and registrant (and thus cannot ascertain whether there has been ample opportunity for confusion
`to arise, if it were going to); and the registrant has no chance to be heard from (at least in the absence of a consent agreement, which
`applicant has not submitted in this case).
`
`(cid:160)I
`
`n re Kangaroos U.S.A., 223 USPQ 1025, 1026-27 (TTAB 1984).
`
`(cid:160)I
`
`n any event, the prior-pending mark has been filed under Section 1(b), which indicates that the prior applicant has an intent to use the mark in
`commerce.(cid:160) Therefore, there is no evidence of record that the prior applicant has begun using the mark such that confusion could occur.
`
`(cid:160)C
`
`onsequently, applicant’s arguments are not persuasive , and action on this application is suspended until the earlier-filed referenced application
`
`is either registered or abandoned.(cid:160) 37 C.F.R. §2.83(c).(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)
`
`/Andrew Leaser/
`Trademark Examining Attorney
`Law Office 117
`(571) 272-1911
`andrew.leaser@uspto.gov
`
`SUSPENSION PROCEDURE: The trademark examining attorney is suspending action on the application for the reason stated herein.(cid:160) See 37
`C.F.R. §2.67; TMEP §§716 et seq.(cid:160) No response to this notice is necessary; however, if applicant wants to respond, applicant should use the
`“Response to Suspension Inquiry or Letter of Suspension” form online at http://teasroa.uspto.gov/rsi/rsi. The USPTO will periodically conduct
`a status check of the application to determine whether suspension remains appropriate.(cid:160) TMEP §§716.04, 716.05.(cid:160) Applicant will be notified
`when suspension is no longer appropriate.(cid:160) See TMEP §716.04.
`
`(cid:160)P
`
`ERIODICALLY 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 Trademark Electronic Application System (TEAS) form at
`http://www.uspto.gov/trademarks/teas/correspondence.jsp.
`
`(cid:160)
`(cid:160)(cid:160)
`(cid:160)(cid:160)
`

`

`To:
`
`Subject:
`
`Sent:
`
`Sent As:
`
`Attachments:
`
`McCarthy, Nathan (mswyers@thetrademarkcompany.com)
`
`U.S. TRADEMARK APPLICATION NO. 86491495 - TAMALPAIS SURF CLUB THE TIME TUNNEL -
`N/A
`
`5/27/2015 7:38:11 PM
`
`ECOM117@USPTO.GOV
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE (USPTO)
`
`IMPORTANT NOTICE REGARDING YOUR
`U.S. TRADEMARK APPLICATION
`
`USPTO OFFICE ACTION (OFFICIAL LETTER) HAS ISSUED
`ON 5/27/2015 FOR U.S. APPLICATION SERIAL NO.86491495
`
`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) 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)P
`
`RIVATE 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)(cid:160)
`(cid:160)
`(cid:160)
`(cid:160)
`