throbber
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`SERIAL N0: 78/138400
`
`APPLICANT: Ragged Edge Ent. Inc.
`
`CORRESPONDENT ADDRESS:
`
`Ragged Edge Ent 1nc_
`1st Ave.
`Tucson AZ 85719
`
`MARK:
`
`BERZERKENSTOX
`
`CORRESPONDENT’S REFERENCE/DOCKET NO: N/A
`
`N/A
`
`RETURN ADDRESS:
`
`Commissioner for Trademarks
`2990 Crystal Drive
`Arlington, VA 22202-3513
`ecom102@uspto.gov
`
`P132153 P‘°Vide in 3” °°”‘*SP°“d5"°‘*3
`
`1. Filing date, serial number, mark and
`applicant's name.
`. Date ofthis Office Action.
`. Examining Attorney's 11ai11e and
`Law Office number.
`. Your telephone number and e—mail
`address.
`
`OFFICE ACTION
`
`TO AVOID ABANDONMENT, WE MUST RECEIVE A PROPER RESPONSE TO THIS
`OFFICE ACTION WITHIN 6 MONTHS OF OUR MAILING OR E—MAILING DATE.
`
`RE: Serial Number 78/13 8400
`
`The assigned examining attorney has reviewed the referenced application and determined the
`following.
`
`Refusal Under Section 21d]: Likelihood of Confusion
`
`The examining attorney refuses registration under Trademark Act Section 2(d), l5 U.S.C. Section
`l052(d), because the applicant’s mark, when used on or in connection with the identified goods, so
`resembles the marks in U.S. Registration Nos. 1028014, 1037893, 1254845, and 2016743 as to be
`likely to cause confusion, to cause mistake, or to deceive. TMEP Section 1207. See the enclosed
`registrations.
`
`The examining attorney must analyze each case in two steps to determine whether there is a
`likelihood of confusion. First,
`the examining attorney must look at the marks themselves for
`similarities in appearance, sound, connotation and commercial impression.
`In re E. I. DuPont de
`Nemours & C0., 476 F.2d 1357, 177 USPQ 563 (CCPA 1973). Second, the examining attorney
`must compare the goods or services to determine if they are related or if the activities surrounding
`their marketing are such that confiision as to origin is likely.
`In re August Storck KG, 218 USPQ
`
`

`
`823 (TTAB 1983); In re International Telephone and Telegraph Corp, 197 USPQ 910 (TTAB
`1978); Guardian Products Co., v. Scott Paper Co., 200 USPQ 738 (TTAB 1978).
`
`1.
`
`Similarity of Marks
`
`The examining attorney must compare the marks for similarities of sound, appearance, meaning or
`connotation.
`In re I2‘. I. I)uPont de Nemours & Co., 476 F.2d 1357, 177 USPQ 563 (CCPA 1973).
`Similarity in any one of these elements is sufficient to find a likelihood of confusion. In re Mack,
`197 USPQ 755 (TTAB 1977).
`
`1n the present case, the applicant mark "BEZERKENSTOX“ is substantially similar in appearance,
`sound, commercial
`impression and connotation to the famous mark "BIRKENSTOCK" that
`appears in the noted registrations. Prospective customers would be likely to confuse the source of
`the goods believing that
`the registrant has expanded its product
`line playing off its famous
`trademark.
`Parody is not a defense to a likelihood of confusion refusal.
`TMEP section
`1207.01(b)(x). Cf Columbia Pictures Industries Inc., v. Miller, 211 USPQ 816 (TTAB 1981)
`(CLOTHES ENCOUNTERS held likely to be confused with CLOSE ENCOUNTERS OF THE
`THIRD KIND, for men’s and women’s clothing).
`
`2.
`
`Commercial Relationship of Goods/Services
`
`If the marks of the respective parties are identical or highly similar, the examining attorney must
`consider the commercial relationship between the goods or services of the respective parties
`carefully to determine whether there is a likelihood of confusion.
`In re Concordia International
`Forwarding Corp, 222 USPQ 355 (TTAB 1983).
`
`The goods of the parties need not be identical or directly competitive to find a likelihood of
`confusion. 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 goods come from a common source. In re Martin ’s
`Famous Pastry Shoppe, Inc, 748 F.2d 1565, 223 USPQ 1289 (Fed. Cir. 1984); In re Corning
`Glass Works, 229 USPQ 65 (TTAB 1985); In re Rexel Inc., 223 USPQ 830 (TTAB 1984);
`Guardian Products Co., Inc. v. Scott Paper Co, 200 USPQ 738 (TTAB 1978); In re International
`Telephone & Telegraph Corp, 197 USPQ 910 (TTAB 1978).
`
`The respective goods are essentially the same. Both parties market footwear. That the applicant's
`footwear is “obnoxiously dangerous“ and is ostensibly for use by "Nordic warrior[s]" is of no
`consequence. Prospective customers would encounter the goods in the same normal channels of
`trade. Even if they were used by Maori warriors.
`
`3.
`
`Conclusion
`
`For the reasons stated above, the examining attorney finds that the applicant’s mark is confusingly
`similar to the registered mark, and registration is properly refused under the Trademark Act 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.
`
`

`
`If the applicant chooses to respond to the refusal to register, the applicant must also respond to the
`following informalities.
`
`Identification of Goods is Unacceptable
`
`The identification of goods is unacceptable because the applicant should avoid using superlatives
`therein. Therefore, the applicant must amend the identification to delete the wording “obnoxiously
`dangerous." If there is no common commercial name, the applicant must describe the product and
`its intended uses. TMEP section 804.
`
`The applicant may adopt the following identification of goods, if accurate:
`
`"Nordic footwear," in International Class 25.
`
`TMEP Section 804.
`
`Please note that, while an application may be amended to clarify or limit the identification,
`additions to the identification are not permitted. 37 C.F.R. Section 2.7l(a); TMEP section 804.09.
`Therefore, the applicant may not amend to include any goods that are not within the scope of goods
`set forth in the present identification.
`
`Comments
`
`Current status and status date information is available, via push button telephone, for all federal
`trademark registration and application records maintained in the automated Trademark Reporting
`and Monitoring (TRAM) system. The information may be accessed by calling (703) 305-8747
`from 6:30 a.1n. until midnight, Eastern Time, Monday through Friday, and entering a seven—digit
`registration number or eight—digit application number, followed by the "#“ symbol, after the
`welcoming message and tone. Callers may request information for up to five registration number
`or application number records per call.
`
`No set form is required for response to this Office action. The applicant must respond to each
`point raised. The applicant should simply set forth the required changes or statements and request
`that the Office enter them. The applicant must sign the response.
`In addition to the identifying
`information required at the beginning of this letter,
`the applicant should provide a telephone
`number to speed up further processing.
`
`The applicant may wish to hire a trademark attorney because of the technicalities involved in the
`application. The Patent and Trademark Office cannot aid in the selection of an attorney.
`
`In all correspondence to the Patent and Trademark Office, the applicant should list the name and
`law office of the examining attorney, the serial number of this application, the mailing date of this
`Office action, and the applicant's telephone number.
`
`

`
`If the applicant has any questions or needs assistance in responding to this Office Action, please
`telephone the assigned examining attorney.
`
`I. Brett Golden
`
`Trademark Examining Attorney
`Law Office 102
`703-308-9102/ ext. 178
`
`ecoml O2@uspto. gov
`
`How to respond to this Office Action:
`
`To respond formally using the Office’s Trademark Electronic Application System (TEAS), Visit
`http://www.uspto.gov/teas/index.html and follow the instructions.
`
`To respond formally via E-mail, visit http://www.uspto.gov/web/trademarks/tmelecresQ.htm
`and follow the instructions.
`
`To respond formally via regular mail, your response should be sent to the mailing Return Address
`listed above and include the serial number, law office and examining attorney’s name on the upper
`right corner of each page of your response.
`
`To check the status of your application at any time, visit the Off1ce’s Trademark Applications and
`Registrations Retrieval (TARR) system at http://tarr.uspto.g0v/
`
`For general and other useful information about trademarks, you are encouraged to visit the Off1ce’s
`web site at http://www.uspto.gov/main/trademarks.htm
`
`FOR INQUIRIES OR QUESTIONS ABOUT THIS OFFICE ACTION, PLEASE CONTACT
`THE ASSIGNED EXAMINING ATTORNEY.

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

Still Working On It

This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.

Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.

throbber

A few More Minutes ... Still Working

It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.

Thank you for your continued patience.

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket