To:
`
`Subject:
`
`Sent:
`
`Sent As:
`
`Unikrn, Inc. (trademark@carneylaw.com)
`
`U.S. TRADEMARK APPLICATION NO. 87809459 - UNIKOIN - UNI053-0009
`
`12/17/2018 1:11:59 PM
`
`ECOM120@USPTO.GOV
`
`Attachments:
`
`Attachment - 1
`Attachment - 2
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE (USPTO)
`OFFICE ACTION (OFFICIAL LETTER) ABOUT APPLICANT’S TRADEMARK APPLICATION
`
`*87809459*
`
`CLICK HERE TO RESPOND TO THIS
`LETTER:
`http://www.uspto.gov/trademarks/teas/response_forms.jsp
`
`VIEW YOUR APPLICATION FILE
`
`U.S. APPLICATION
`SERIAL NO.   87809459
`
`           
`
`MARK: UNIKOIN
`
`CORRESPONDENT
`ADDRESS:
`  
`       ASHLEY K. LONG
`  
`       CARNEY BADLEY
`SPELLMAN PS
`         701 5TH AVENUE,
`SUITE 3600
`           SEATTLE, WA 98104
`    
`   
`APPLICANT: Unikrn,
`Inc.
`
`    
`
`CORRESPONDENT’S
`REFERENCE/DOCKET
`
`   
`
`NO:       
`
`  UNI053-0009
`CORRESPONDENT E-
`
`MAIL ADDRESS:       
`
`trademark@carneylaw.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.   A RESPONSE
`TRANSMITTED THROUGH THE TRADEMARK ELECTRONIC APPLICATION SYSTEM (TEAS) MUST BE RECEIVED BEFORE
`MIDNIGHT EASTERN TIME OF THE LAST DAY OF THE RESPONSE PERIOD.
`
`ISSUE/MAILING DATE: 12/17/2018
`
`This is a new non-final Office action following an Office action sent on JUNE 12, 2018.  In the previous Office action, applicant was notified of
`a prior pending application which may pose a potential likelihood of confusion, and also required to amend its identification of services.
`
`Applicant has satisfied the identification of services requirement.
`
`Additionally, the prior pending application has registered.  Accordingly, a new Section 2(d) refusal is issued below.
`
`SUMMARY OF ISSUES
`Section 2(d) Refusal – Likelihood of Confusion
`
` 
` 
` 
` 
` 
` 
`  
`  
` 
` 
` 
` 
`

`

`SECTION 2(d) REFUSAL – LIKELIHOOD OF CONFUSION
`
`Registration of the applied-for mark is refused because of a likelihood of confusion with the mark in U.S. Registration No. 5,571,778. 
`Trademark Act Section 2(d), 15 U.S.C. §1052(d); see TMEP §§1207.01 et seq.  See the attached registration.
`
`Trademark Act Section 2(d) bars registration of an applied-for mark that is so similar to a registered mark that it is likely consumers would be
`confused, mistaken, or deceived as to the commercial source of the services of the parties.  See 15 U.S.C. §1052(d).  Likelihood of confusion is
`determined on a case-by-case basis by applying the factors set forth in In re E. I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., 476 F.2d 1357, 1361, 177 USPQ
`563, 567 (C.C.P.A. 1973) (called the “ du Pont factors”).   In re i.am.symbolic, llc, 866 F.3d 1315, 1322, 123 USPQ2d 1744, 1747 (Fed. Cir.
`2017).  Only those factors that are “relevant and of record” need be considered.   M2 Software, Inc. v. M2 Commc’ns, Inc. , 450 F.3d 1378, 1382,
`78 USPQ2d 1944, 1947 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (citing Shen Mfg. Co. v. Ritz Hotel Ltd., 393 F.3d 1238, 1241, 73 USPQ2d 1350, 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2004));
`
`see In re Inn at St. John’s, LLC , 126 USPQ2d 1742, 1744 (TTAB 2018).  
`
`Although not all du Pont factors may be relevant, there are generally two key considerations in any likelihood of confusion analysis:  (1) the
`similarities between the compared marks and (2) the relatedness of the compared services.  See In re i.am.symbolic, llc, 866 F.3d at 1322, 123
`USPQ2d at 1747 (quoting Herbko Int’l, Inc. v. Kappa Books, Inc. , 308 F.3d 1156, 1164-65, 64 USPQ2d 1375, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2002));
`Federated Foods, Inc. v. Fort Howard Paper Co., 544 F.2d 1098, 1103, 192 USPQ 24, 29 (C.C.P.A. 1976) (“The fundamental inquiry mandated
`by [Section] 2(d) goes to the cumulative effect of differences in the essential characteristics of the goods [or services] and differences in the
`marks.”); TMEP §1207.01.
`
`SIMILARITIES BETWEEN THE MARKS
`
`Marks are compared in their entireties for similarities in appearance, sound, connotation, and commercial impression.  Stone Lion Capital
`Partners, LP v. Lion Capital LLP, 746 F.3d 1317, 1321, 110 USPQ2d 1157, 1160 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (quoting Palm Bay Imps., Inc. v. Veuve
`Clicquot Ponsardin Maison Fondee En 1772, 396 F.3d 1369, 1371, 73 USPQ2d 1689, 1691 (Fed. Cir. 2005)); TMEP §1207.01(b)-(b)(v). 
`“Similarity in any one of these elements may be sufficient to find the marks confusingly similar.”   In re Inn at St. John’s, LLC , 126 USPQ2d
`1742, 1746 (TTAB 2018) (citing In re Davia, 110 USPQ2d 1810, 1812 (TTAB 2014)); TMEP §1207.01(b).
`
`Applicant’s applied-for mark is “ UNIKOIN” for “Cryptocurrency trading and exchange services, namely, providing a digital currency or
`digital token for use by members of an on-line community via a global computer network; Cryptocurrency trading and exchange services,
`namely, a digital currency or digital token, incorporating cryptographic protocols, used to operate and build applications and blockchains on a
`decentralized computer platform and as a method of payment for goods and service” in International Class 36.
`
`Registrant’s mark is “ UNICOIN” for “Financial services, namely, providing a virtual currency for use by members of an on-line community
`via a global computer network” in International Class 36.
`
`When comparing marks, “[t]he proper test is not a side-by-side comparison of the marks, but instead whether the marks are sufficiently similar
`in terms of their commercial impression such that [consumers] who encounter the marks would be likely to assume a connection between the
`parties.”   Cai v. Diamond Hong, Inc., __ F.3d __, 127 USPQ2d 1797, 1801 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (quoting Coach Servs., Inc. v. Triumph Learning
`LLC, 668 F.3d 1356, 1368, 101 USPQ2d 1713, 1721 (Fed. Cir. 2012)); TMEP §1207.01(b).  The proper focus is on the recollection of the
`average purchaser, who retains a general rather than specific impression of trademarks.  In re Inn at St. John’s, LLC , 126 USPQ2d 1742, 1746
`(TTAB 2018) (citing In re St. Helena Hosp., 774 F.3d 747, 750-51, 113 USPQ2d 1082, 1085 (Fed. Cir. 2014); Geigy Chem. Corp. v. Atlas
`Chem. Indus., Inc., 438 F.2d 1005, 1007, 169 USPQ 39, 40 (CCPA 1971)); TMEP §1207.01(b).
`
`Marks may be confusingly similar in appearance where similar terms or phrases or similar parts of terms or phrases appear in the compared
`marks and create a similar overall commercial impression.  See Crocker Nat’l Bank v. Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce , 228 USPQ 689,
`690-91 (TTAB 1986), aff’d sub nom. Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce v. Wells Fargo Bank, Nat’l Ass’n , 811 F.2d 1490, 1495, 1
`USPQ2d 1813, 1817 (Fed. Cir. 1987) (finding COMMCASH and COMMUNICASH confusingly similar); In re Corning Glass Works, 229
`USPQ 65, 66 (TTAB 1985) (finding CONFIRM and CONFIRMCELLS confusingly similar); In re Pellerin Milnor Corp., 221 USPQ 558, 560
`(TTAB 1983) (finding MILTRON and MILLTRONICS confusingly similar); TMEP §1207.01(b)(ii)-(iii).  Here, applicant’s and
`registrant’s marks share the phonetically equivalent terms “ UNIKOIN” and “ UNICOIN”.
`
`Based on the foregoing, the applicant’s applied-for and registrant’s marks are sufficiently similar to find a likelihood of confusion.
`
`RELATEDNESS OF THE SERVICES
`
`The services are compared to determine whether they are similar, commercially related, or travel in the same trade channels.  See Coach Servs.,
`Inc. v. Triumph Learning LLC, 668 F.3d 1356, 1369-71, 101 USPQ2d 1713, 1722-23 (Fed. Cir. 2012); Herbko Int’l, Inc. v. Kappa Books, Inc. ,
`308 F.3d 1156, 1165, 64 USPQ2d 1375, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2002); TMEP §§1207.01, 1207.01(a)(vi).
`
` 
` 
` 
` 
` 
` 
` 
` 
` 
` 
` 
` 
` 
`

`

`The compared services need not be identical or even competitive to find a likelihood of confusion.  See On-line Careline Inc. v. Am. Online Inc.,
`229 F.3d 1080, 1086, 56 USPQ2d 1471, 1475 (Fed. Cir. 2000); Recot, Inc. v. Becton, 214 F.3d 1322, 1329, 54 USPQ2d 1894, 1898 (Fed. Cir.
`2000); TMEP §1207.01(a)(i).  They need only be “related in some manner and/or if the circumstances surrounding their marketing are such that
`they could give rise to the mistaken belief that [the services] emanate from the same source.”   Coach Servs., Inc. v. Triumph Learning LLC, 668
`F.3d 1356, 1369, 101 USPQ2d 1713, 1722 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (quoting 7-Eleven Inc. v. Wechsler, 83 USPQ2d 1715, 1724 (TTAB 2007)); TMEP
`§1207.01(a)(i).
`
`Determining likelihood of confusion is based on the description of the services stated in the application and registration at issue, not on extrinsic
`evidence of actual use.  See In re Detroit Athletic Co., 903 F.3d 1297, 1307, 128 USPQ2d 1047, 1052 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (citing In re
`
`i.am.symbolic, llc, 866 F.3d 1315, 1325, 123 USPQ2d 1744, 1749 (Fed. Cir. 2017)).   
`
`In this case, the registration uses the broad wording “ Financial services, namely, providing a virtual currency for use by members of an on-line
`community via a global computer network” to describe its services, which presumably encompasses all services of the type
`described, including applicant’s more narrow services, namely, “ Cryptocurrency trading and exchange services, namely, providing a digital
`currency or digital token for use by members of an on-line community via a global computer network; Cryptocurrency trading and exchange
`services, namely, a digital currency or digital token, incorporating cryptographic protocols, used to operate and build applications and
`blockchains on a decentralized computer platform and as a method of payment for goods and service”.   See, e.g., In re Solid State Design Inc.,
`125 USPQ2d 1409, 1412-15 (TTAB 2018); Sw. Mgmt., Inc. v. Ocinomled, Ltd., 115 USPQ2d 1007, 1025 (TTAB 2015).  Thus, applicant’s and
`registrant’s services are legally identical.   See, e.g., In re i.am.symbolic, llc, 127 USPQ2d 1627, 1629 (TTAB 2018) (citing Tuxedo Monopoly,
`Inc. v.Gen. Mills Fun Grp., Inc., 648 F.2d 1335, 1336, 209 USPQ 986, 988 (C.C.P.A. 1981); Inter IKEA Sys. B.V. v. Akea, LLC, 110 USPQ2d
`1734, 1745 (TTAB 2014); Baseball Am. Inc. v. Powerplay Sports Ltd., 71 USPQ2d 1844, 1847 n.9 (TTAB 2004)).
`
`Additionally, the services of the parties have no restrictions as to nature, type, channels of trade, or classes of purchasers and are “presumed to
`travel in the same channels of trade to the same class of purchasers.”   In re Viterra Inc., 671 F.3d 1358, 1362, 101 USPQ2d 1905, 1908 (Fed.
`Cir. 2012) (quoting Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Packard Press, Inc., 281 F.3d 1261, 1268, 62 USPQ2d 1001, 1005 (Fed. Cir. 2002)).  Thus,
`applicant’s and registrant’s services are related.
`
`Based on the analysis above, applicant’s and registrant’s services are related.
`
`Because applicant’s and registrant’s marks are similar and the services are related, there is a likelihood of confusion and applicant’s applied-for
`mark must be refused under Section 2(d) of the Lanham Act.
`
`Although applicant’s mark has been refused registration, applicant may respond to the refusal by submitting evidence and arguments in support
`of registration.
`
`ASSISTANCE
`
`Please call or email the assigned trademark examining attorney with questions about this Office action.  Although the trademark examining
`attorney cannot provide legal advice or statements about applicant’s rights, the trademark examining attorney can provide applicant with
`additional explanation about the refusals and requirements in this Office action.  See TMEP §§705.02, 709.06.  Although the USPTO does not
`accept emails as responses to Office actions, emails can be used for informal communications and will be included in the application record.  See
`
`37 C.F.R. §§2.62(c), 2.191; TMEP §§304.01-.02, 709.04-.05.   
`
`/John S. Miranda/
`Trademark Examining Attorney, Law Office 120
`United States Patent and Trademark Office
`571-272-4553
`John.Miranda@USPTO.GOV
`
`TO RESPOND TO THIS LETTER:   Go to http://www.uspto.gov/trademarks/teas/response_forms.jsp.   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. 
`For technical assistance with online forms, e-mail TEAS@uspto.gov.  For questions about the Office action itself, please contact the assigned
`trademark examining attorney.  E-mail communications will not be accepted as responses to Office actions; therefore, do not respond to
`this Office action by e-mail.
`
`All informal e-mail communications relevant to this application will be placed in the official application record.
`
`TEAS PLUS OR TEAS REDUCED FEE (TEAS RF) APPLICANTS – TO MAINTAIN LOWER FEE, ADDITIONAL
`REQUIREMENTS MUST BE MET, INCLUDING SUBMITTING DOCUMENTS ONLINE:  Applicants who filed their application
`online using the lower-fee TEAS Plus or TEAS RF application form must (1) file certain documents online using TEAS, including responses to
`
` 
` 
` 
` 
` 
` 
` 
` 
` 
` 
`

`

`Office actions (see TMEP §§819.02(b), 820.02(b) for a complete list of these documents); (2) maintain a valid e-mail correspondence address;
`and (3) agree to receive correspondence from the USPTO by e-mail throughout the prosecution of the application.  See 37 C.F.R. §§2.22(b),
`2.23(b); TMEP §§819, 820.  TEAS Plus or TEAS RF applicants who do not meet these requirements must submit an additional processing fee of
`$125 per class of goods and/or services.  37 C.F.R. §§2.6(a)(1)(v), 2.22(c), 2.23(c); TMEP §§819.04, 820.04.  However, in certain situations,
`TEAS Plus or TEAS RF applicants may respond to an Office action by authorizing an examiner’s amendment by telephone or e-mail without
`
`incurring this additional fee.   
`WHO MUST SIGN THE RESPONSE:  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).  If an applicant is represented by an attorney, the attorney must sign the
`
`response.  
`PERIODICALLY CHECK THE STATUS OF THE APPLICATION:   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/.   Please keep a copy of the TSDR status screen.   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.   For more information on checking
`status, see http://www.uspto.gov/trademarks/process/status/.
`
`TO UPDATE CORRESPONDENCE/E-MAIL ADDRESS:  Use the TEAS form at http://www.uspto.gov/trademarks/teas/correspondence.jsp.
`
` 
`  
`

`

`Print: Dec 17, 2013
`
`87540906
`
`DESIGN MARK
`
`serial Number
`81540905
`
`Status
`REGISTERED
`
`Word Mark
`UNICCIN
`
`Standard Character Mark
`Yes
`
`Registration Number
`5511118
`
`Date Registered
`ZOlBXOSXZE
`
`T‘ype at Mark
`SERVICE MARK
`
`Register
`PRINCIPAL
`
`Mark Drawing Code
`[4]
`STANDARD CHARACTER MARK
`
`Owner
`MoCullooh, Ryan INDIVIDUAL UNITED STATES 155 Flag St. Pittston
`PENNSYLVHNIA 1864 U
`
`GoodsfServiees
`Claee Statue —— ACTIVE.
`
`10 036.
`
`US
`
`100 101 102.
`
`G a 3: Financial
`
`services, namely, providing a virtual currency for use by members of
`an on—line community via a global computer network. First Use:
`ZOlTHOTHOS. First Use In Commerce: ZUlifUTfUB.
`
`Filing Date
`ZUlTI’OTr’Zé
`
`Examining Attorney
`SPARACINO. MARK
`
`

`

`Unicoin
`
`

`

`To:
`
`Subject:
`
`Sent:
`
`Sent As:
`
`Attachments:
`
`Unikrn, Inc. (trademark@carneylaw.com)
`
`U.S. TRADEMARK APPLICATION NO. 87809459 - UNIKOIN - UNI053-0009
`
`12/17/2018 1:12:01 PM
`
`ECOM120@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 12/17/2018 FOR U.S. APPLICATION SERIAL NO. 87809459
`
`Please follow the instructions below:
`
`(1)  TO READ THE LETTER:  Click on this link or go to http://tsdr.uspto.gov, enter the U.S. application serial number, and click on
`“Documents.”
`
`The 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.
`
`(2)  TIMELY RESPONSE IS REQUIRED:  Please 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 12/17/2018 (or sooner if specified in the Office action).  A response
`transmitted through the Trademark Electronic Application System (TEAS) must be received before midnight Eastern Time of the last day of the
`response period.   For information regarding response time periods, see http://www.uspto.gov/trademarks/process/status/responsetime.jsp.
`
`Do 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. 
`Instead,
`the USPTO recommends that you respond online using the TEAS response form located at
`http://www.uspto.gov/trademarks/teas/response_forms.jsp.
`
`(3)  QUESTIONS:  For questions about the contents of the Office action itself, please contact the assigned trademark examining attorney.  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
`
`Failure to file the required response by the applicable response deadline will result in the ABANDONMENT of your application.  For
`more information regarding abandonment, see http://www.uspto.gov/trademarks/basics/abandon.jsp.
`
`PRIVATE COMPANY SOLICITATIONS REGARDING YOUR APPLICATION:  Private companies not associated with the USPTO are
`using information provided in trademark applications to mail or e-mail trademark-related solicitations.  These companies often use names that
`closely resemble the USPTO and their solicitations may look like an official government document.  Many solicitations require that you pay
`
`“fees.”   
`
`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.  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.”   For more information on how to handle
`private company solicitations, see http://www.uspto.gov/trademarks/solicitation_warnings.jsp.
`
`  
` 
` 
` 
` 
` 
` 
` 
` 
` 
` 
`  
`