UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`(cid:160) (cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160) SERIAL 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) MARK: DESPERADO HOUSEWIVES(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)
`(cid:160) (cid:160)
`Wayne Carroll(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)
`4500 North 32nd Street, ST. 201A(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)(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)(cid:160)
`(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160) APPLICANT:(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)
`(cid:160) Bischoff, Loree, E(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(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)
`N/A(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(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)(cid:160)(cid:160)
`
`*78756907*
`
`RESPOND TO THIS ACTION:
`http://www.uspto.gov/teas/eTEASpageD.htm
`
`(cid:160)G
`
`ENERAL TRADEMARK INFORMATION:
`http://www.uspto.gov/main/trademarks.htm
`
`78/756907
`
`(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)
`
`Phoenix AZ 85018
`
`(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)
`
`OFFICE ACTION
`
`(cid:160)T
`
`O AVOID ABANDONMENT, THE OFFICE MUST RECEIVE A PROPER RESPONSE TO THIS OFFICE ACTION WITHIN 6 MONTHS
`OF THE ISSUE/MAILING DATE.
`
`(cid:160)I
`
`SSUE/MAILING DATE:
`
`(cid:160)T
`
`HIS IS A FINAL ACTION.
`
`The assigned examining attorney has reviewed the referenced application and has determined the following.
`
`(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(s).
`3249971.(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 Refusal
`
`(cid:160)R
`
`egistration is refused because Applicant’s mark “DESPERADO HOUSEWIVES” for “Clothing, namely, aprons, hats, slippers, shirts,
`jackets, jeans, sleepwear, swimwear, tank tops, t-shirts, and sweatshirts” so resembles the mark “DESPERATE HOUSEWIVES” for “T-shirts”
`in U.S. Registration No. 3249971 as to be likely to cause confusion, to cause mistake, or to deceive.(cid:160) Trademark Act Section 2(d), 15 U.S.C.
`§1052(d); TMEP §§1207.01 et seq.(cid:160) See the registration attached to the first office action.
`
`(cid:160)T
`
`rademark Act Section 2(d) bars registration of an applied-for mark that so resembles a registered mark that it is likely that a potential consumer
`would be confused or mistaken or deceived as to the source of the goods and/or services of the applicant and registrant.(cid:160) See 15 U.S.C. §1052(d).(cid:160)
`The court in In re E. I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., 476 F.2d 1357, 177 USPQ 563 (C.C.P.A. 1973) listed the principal factors to be considered
`when determining whether there is a likelihood of confusion under Section 2(d).(cid:160) See TMEP §1207.01.(cid:160) However, not all of the factors are
`necessarily relevant or of equal weight, and any one factor may be dominant in a given case, depending upon the evidence of record.(cid:160) In re
`Majestic Distilling Co., 315 F.3d 1311, 1315, 65 USPQ2d 1201, 1204 (Fed. Cir. 2003); see In re E. I. du Pont, 476 F.2d at 1361-62, 177 USPQ at
`567.
`
`(cid:160)I
`
`n this case, the following factors are the most relevant:(cid:160) similarity of the marks, similarity of the goods and/or services, and similarity of trade
`channels of the goods and/or services.(cid:160) See In re Opus One, Inc., 60 USPQ2d 1812 (TTAB 2001); In re Dakin’s Miniatures Inc. , 59 USPQ2d
`1593 (TTAB 1999); In re Azteca Rest. Enters., Inc., 50 USPQ2d 1209 (TTAB 1999); TMEP §§1207.01 et seq.
`
`(cid:160)C
`
`omparison of the Marks
`
`(cid:160)I
`
`n a likelihood of confusion determination, the marks are compared for similarities in their appearance, sound, meaning or connotation and
`commercial impression.(cid:160) In re E. I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., 476 F.2d 1357, 1361, 177 USPQ 563, 567 (C.C.P.A. 1973); TMEP §1207.01(b).(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, 1535 (TTAB
`
`(cid:160)
`

`
`1988); In re Lamson Oil Co., 6 USPQ2d 1041, 1043 (TTAB 1987); see TMEP §1207.01(b).
`
`(cid:160)W
`
`hen the applicant’s mark is compared to a registered mark, “the points of similarity are of greater importance than the points of difference.” (cid:160)
`Esso Standard Oil Co. v. Sun Oil Co., 229 F.2d 37, 108 USPQ 161 (D.C. Cir.), cert. denied, 351 U.S. 973, 109 USPQ 517 (1956).(cid:160) TMEP
`§1207.01(b).
`
`(cid:160)T
`
`he applicant’s mark is DESPERADO HOUSEWIVES. (cid:160) The registered mark is DESPERATE HOUSEWIVES.
`
`(cid:160)T
`
`he marks are highly similar.(cid:160) In fact, the only difference between the marks is the last two letters of the words DESPERADO and
`DESPERATE.(cid:160) HOUSEWIVES is identical and DESPERADO and DESPERATE sound and appear similar.(cid:160) Similarity in sound alone may be
`sufficient to support a finding of likelihood of confusion.(cid:160) RE/MAX of America, Inc. v. Realty Mart, Inc., 207 USPQ 960, 964 (TTAB 1980);
`Molenaar, Inc. v. Happy Toys Inc., 188 USPQ 469 (TTAB 1975); In re Cresco Mfg. Co., 138 USPQ 401 (TTAB 1963); TMEP §1207.01(b)(iv).(cid:160)
`Slight differences in the sound of similar marks will not avoid a likelihood of confusion. (cid:160) In re Energy Telecomm. & Electrical Ass’n, 222 USPQ
`350 (TTAB 1983).
`
`(cid:160)A
`
`lso, if the goods and/or services of the respective parties are “similar in kind and/or closely related,” the degree of similarity between the
`marks required to support a finding of likelihood of confusion is not as great as would be required with diverse goods and/or services.(cid:160) In re J.M.
`Originals Inc., 6 USPQ2d 1393, 1394 (TTAB 1987); see Shen Mfg. Co. v. Ritz Hotel Ltd., 393 F.3d 1238, 1242, 73 USPQ2d 1350, 1354 (Fed.
`
`Cir. 2004); TMEP §1207.01(b).(cid:160)(cid:160)
`Comparison of the Goods and/or Services
`
`(cid:160)T
`
`he goods and/or 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 goods and/or 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)T
`
`he applicant’s goods are “Clothing, namely, aprons, hats, slippers, shirts, jackets, jeans, sleepwear, swimwear, tank tops, t-shirts, and
`sweatshirts”. (cid:160) The registrant’s goods are “T-shirts”.
`(cid:160) The t-shirts are identical and the applicant’s remaining clothing items certainly are related
`to t-shirts.(cid:160) The decisions in the clothing field have held many different types of apparel to be related under Trademark Act Section 2(d).(cid:160)
`Cambridge Rubber Co. v. Cluett, Peabody & Co., 286 F.2d 623, 128 USPQ 549 (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 (TTAB 1992) (underwear related to neckties); In re Melville Corp.,
`18 USPQ2d 1386 (TTAB 1991) (women’s pants, blouses, shorts and jackets related to women’s shoes); In re Pix of Am., Inc., 225 USPQ 691
`(TTAB 1985) (women’s shoes related to outer shirts); In re Mercedes Slacks, Ltd., 213 USPQ 397 (TTAB 1982) (hosiery related to trousers); In
`re Cook United, Inc., 185 USPQ 444 (TTAB 1975) (men’s suits, coats, and trousers related to ladies’ pantyhose and hosiery); Esquire
`Sportswear Mfg. Co. v. Genesco Inc., 141 USPQ 400 (TTAB 1964) (brassieres and girdles related to slacks for men and young men).
`
`(cid:160)L
`
`ikelihood of confusion is determined on the basis of the goods or services as they are identified in the application and the registration.(cid:160)
`Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce v. Wells Fargo Bank, 811 F.2d 1490, 1 USPQ2d 1813 (Fed. Cir. 1987); Paula Payne Products Co. v.
`
`Johnson Publishing Co., Inc., 473 F.2d 901, 177 USPQ 76 (C.C.P.A. 1973).(cid:160)(cid:160)
`Applicant’s Arguments
`
`(cid:160)I
`
`(cid:160) Parody is not a defense
`n response to this refusal Applicant primarily argued that its mark is a parody of registrant’s “well known trademark”.
`to a likelihood of confusion refusal. TMEP 1207.01(b)(x).(cid:160) There are confusing parodies and non-confusing parodies. See J. Thomas McCarthy,
`McCarthy on Trademarks and Unfair Competition, §31.153 (4th ed. 2006).(cid:160) See 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); see also Starbucks U.S. Brands, LLC v. Ruben, 78 USPQ2d 1741 (TTAB 2006) (LESSBUCKS COFFEE held not likely to
`be perceived as a parody of the mark STARBUCKS and, therefore, likely to be confused with STARBUCKS COFFEE for coffee and retail store
`
`services featuring coffee).(cid:160)(cid:160)
`
`Another of Applicant’s arguments is that while intending to invoke the image of registrant’s trademark, applicant’s mark also brings “to mind
`an opposite image of a bold woman who is NOT desperate.”
`
`(cid:160)T
`
`he examiner believes that Applicant has indeed succeeded in invoking the image of registrant’s well known registered trademark. (cid:160) This can be
`attributed to the fact that the marks are nearly identical in sound, appearance and commercial impression and applicant’s goods are identical to
`
`those on which the registrant applies its well known trademark.(cid:160)(cid:160)
`
`

`
`Applicant finally argues that registrant’s mark is used ornamentally on its t-shirts rather than as a designation of a source for the clothing. (cid:160) As
`noted above, likelihood of confusion is determined on the basis of the goods as they are identified in the application and the registration.(cid:160)
`Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce v. Wells Fargo Bank, 811 F.2d 1490, 1 USPQ2d 1813 (Fed. Cir. 1987); Paula Payne Products Co. v.
`Johnson Publishing Co., Inc., 473 F.2d 901, 177 USPQ 76 (C.C.P.A. 1973).(cid:160) Here, the applicant’s goods and registrant’s goods are t-shirts and
`applicant’s remaining clothing items are similar and would travel in the identical channels of trade as registrant’s t-shirts.
`
`(cid:160)T
`
`he presumption under Trademark Act Section 7(b), 15 U.S.C. §1057(b), is that the registrant is the owner of the mark and that use of the mark
`extends to all goods and/or services identified in the registration.(cid:160) The presumption also implies that the registrant operates in all normal
`channels of trade and reaches all classes of purchasers of the identified goods and/or services.(cid:160) In re Melville Corp., 18 USPQ2d 1386, 1389
`(TTAB 1991); McDonald’s Corp. v. McKinley , 13 USPQ2d 1895, 1899 (TTAB 1989); RE/MAX of Am., Inc. v. Realty Mart, Inc., 207 USPQ
`960, 964-65 (TTAB 1980); see TMEP §1207.01(a)(iii).
`
`(cid:160)C
`
`onclusion
`
`(cid:160)T
`
`he overriding concern is not only to prevent buyer confusion as to the source of the goods and/or services, but to protect the registrant from
`adverse commercial impact due to use of a similar mark by a newcomer.(cid:160) See In re Shell Oil Co., 992 F.2d 1204, 1208, 26 USPQ2d 1687, 1690
`(Fed. Cir. 1993).(cid:160) Therefore, any doubt regarding a likelihood of confusion determination is resolved in favor of the registrant.(cid:160) TMEP
`§1207.01(d)(i); see Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Packard Press, Inc., 281 F.3d 1261, 1265, 62 USPQ2d 1001, 1003 (Fed. Cir. 2002); In re Hyper
`Shoppes (Ohio), Inc., 837 F.2d 463, 464-65, 6 USPQ2d 1025, 1025 (Fed. Cir. 1988).
`
`Finally, the Examining Attorney is not bound by past decisions of the Trademark Examining Operation.(cid:160) In re Shapely, Inc., 231 USPQ 72, 75
`(TTAB 1986).
`
`(cid:160)A
`
`ccordingly, registration is refused.
`
`(cid:160)A
`
`lthough the Examining Attorney has refused registration, applicant may respond to the refusal to register by submitting evidence and arguments
`in support of registration.
`
`(cid:160)F
`
`inal Action Response Guidelines
`
`(cid:160)I
`
`f applicant does not respond within six months of the mailing date of this final Office action, the application will be abandoned.(cid:160) 15 U.S.C.
`
`§1062(b); 37 C.F.R. §2.65(a).(cid:160) Applicant may respond to this final Office action by:(cid:160)(cid:160)
`
`(1)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160) Submitting a response that fully satisfies all outstanding requirements, if feasible; and/or
`
`(2)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160) Filing an appeal to the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board, with an appeal fee of $100 per class.
`
`37 C.F.R. §§2.6(a)(18), 2.64(a); TBMP ch. 1200; TMEP §714.04.
`
`(cid:160)I
`
`n certain rare circumstances, a petition to the Director may be filed pursuant to 37 C.F.R. §2.63(b)(2) to review a final Office action that is
`limited to procedural issues.(cid:160) 37 C.F.R. §2.64(a); TMEP §714.04; see 37 C.F.R. §2.146(b); TBMP §1201.05; TMEP §1704 (explaining
`petitionable matters).(cid:160) The petition fee is $100.(cid:160) 37 C.F.R. §2.6(a)(15).
`
`(cid:160)G
`
`eneral Response Guidelines
`
`(cid:160)T
`
`here is no required format or form for responding to an Office action.(cid:160) The Office recommends applicants use the Trademark Electronic
`Application System (TEAS) to respond to Office actions online at http://www.uspto.gov/teas/index.html.(cid:160) However, if applicant responds on
`paper via regular mail, the response should include the title “Response to Office Action” and the following information: (cid:160) (1) the name and law
`office number of the examining attorney, (2) the serial number and filing date of the application, (3) the mailing date of this Office action, (4)
`applicant’s name, address, telephone number and e-mail address (if applicable), and (5) the mark. (cid:160) 37 C.F.R. §2.194(b)(1); TMEP §302.03(a).
`
`(cid:160)T
`
`he response should address each refusal and/or requirement raised in the Office action.(cid:160) If a refusal has issued, applicant can argue against the
`refusal; i.e., applicant can submit arguments and evidence as to why the refusal should be withdrawn and the mark should register.(cid:160) To respond to
`requirements, applicant should set forth in writing the required changes or statements and request that the Office enter them into the application
`
`record.(cid:160)(cid:160)
`
`The response must be personally signed or the electronic signature manually entered by applicant or someone with legal authority to bind
`applicant (i.e., a corporate officer of a corporate applicant, the equivalent of an officer for unincorporated organizations or limited liability
`company applicants, a general partner of a partnership applicant, each applicant for applications with multiple individual applicants).(cid:160) TMEP
`§§605.02, 712.
`
`(cid:160)
`(cid:160)
`(cid:160)
`(cid:160)
`

`
`Applicant should include the following information on all correspondence with the Office:(cid:160) (1) the name and law office number of the trademark
`examining attorney, (2) the serial number and filing date of the application, (3) the mailing date of this Office action, (4) applicant’s name,
`address, telephone number and e-mail address (if applicable), and (5) the mark.(cid:160) 37 C.F.R. §2.194(b)(1); TMEP §302.03(a).
`
`(cid:160)A
`
`pplicant should provide a current telephone number with its response to expedite processing.(cid:160) TMEP §302.03(a).
`
`(cid:160)T
`
`o expedite prosecution of this application, applicant is encouraged to file its response to this Office action online via the Trademark Electronic
`Application System (TEAS), which is available at http://www.uspto.gov/teas/index.html.
`
`(cid:160)I
`
`f applicant has questions about its application or needs assistance in responding to this Office action, please telephone the assigned trademark
`examining attorney directly at the number below.
`
`/Kevin M. Dinallo/
`Trademark Examining Attorney
`United States Patent & Trademark Office
`Law Office 107
`571-272-9731
`
`(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)
`
`RESPOND TO THIS ACTION: If there are any questions about the Office action, please contact the assigned examining attorney. A response
`to this Office action should be filed using the form available at http://www.uspto.gov/teas/eTEASpageD.htm. If notification of this Office action
`was received via e-mail, no response using this form may be filed for 72 hours after receipt of the notification. Do not attempt to respond by e-
`mail as the USPTO does not accept e-mailed responses.
`
`(cid:160)I
`
`f responding by paper mail, please include the following information: the application serial number, the mark, the filing date and the name,
`title/position, telephone number and e-mail address of the person signing the response.(cid:160) Please use the following address: Commissioner for
`Trademarks, P.O. Box 1451, Alexandria, VA 22313-1451.
`
`(cid:160)S
`
`TATUS CHECK: Check the status of the application at least once every six months from the initial filing date using the USPTO Trademark
`Applications and Registrations Retrieval (TARR) online system at http://tarr.uspto.gov.(cid:160) When conducting an online status check, print and
`maintain a copy of the complete TARR screen.(cid:160) If the status of your application has not changed for more than six months, please contact the
`assigned examining attorney.
`
`(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)
`(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)