To:
`
`Subject:
`
`Sent:
`
`Sent As:
`
`Attachments:
`
`SOBEL, WILLIAM ALAN (wasobel@earthlink.net)
`
`TRADEMARK APPLICATION NO. 78884448 - MICKEY DORA DA CAT - N/A
`
`8/24/2007 5:04:43 PM
`
`ECOM107@USPTO.GOV
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`78/884448
`
`LAW CORP. OF WILLIAM A. SOBEL
`23901 CALABASAS RD STE 2005
`
`(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) 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)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)
`(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160) MARK: MICKEY DORA DA CAT
`(cid:160) (cid:160)
`CALABASAS, CA 91302-3391(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) SOBEL, WILLIAM ALAN(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)
`
`*78884448*
`
`RESPOND TO THIS ACTION:
`http://www.uspto.gov/teas/eTEASpageD.htm
`
`(cid:160)G
`
`ENERAL TRADEMARK INFORMATION:
`http://www.uspto.gov/main/trademarks.htm
`
`(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)
`
`WILLIAM ALAN SOBEL, ESQ.(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)
`
`wasobel@earthlink.net
`
`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: 8/24/2007
`
`(cid:160)T
`
`HIS IS A FINAL ACTION.
`
`(cid:160)T
`
`his letter responds to applicant’s communication filed on 07/19/07. (cid:160) The refusal under Trademark Act Section 2(a) is now made FINAL for
`the reasons set forth below.(cid:160) 15 U.S.C. §1052(a); 37 C.F.R. §2.64(a).
`
`(cid:160)R
`
`efusal—False Connection
`
`(cid:160) R
`
`egistration was refused under Section 2(a) of the Trademark Act because the proposed mark consists of or comprises matter, which may falsely
`suggest a connection with the famous surfer Mickey Dora.(cid:160) The examiner determined that although not connected with the goods or services
`applicant provides under the proposed mark, the individual Mickey Dora is so famous that consumers would presume a connection with
`applicant.(cid:160) Trademark Act Section 2(a), 15 U.S.C. §1052(a); TMEP §§1203.03, 1203.03(e) and 1203.03(f); See generally University of Notre
`Dame du Lac v. J.C. Gourmet Food Imports Co., 703 F.2d 1372, 217 USPQ 505 (Fed. Cir. 1983); In re Nuclear Research Corp., 16 USPQ2d
`1316 (TTAB 1990); University of Alabama v. BAMA-Werke Curt Baumann, 231 USPQ 408 (TTAB 1986); In re Cotter & Co., 228 USPQ 202
`(TTAB 1985); Buffett v. Chi-Chi’s, Inc. , 226 USPQ 428 (TTAB 1985).
`
`(cid:160)T
`
`he following is required for a showing of false connection under Section 2(a):
`
`(cid:160)·(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)
`
`the mark sought to be registered is the same as or a close approximation of the name or identity of a person or institution;
`the mark would be recognized as such;
`·(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)
`the person or institution identified in the mark is not connected with the goods sold or services performed by applicant under the mark; and
`·(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)
`the fame or reputation of the named person or institution is of such a nature that a connection with such person or institution would be
`·(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)
`presumed when applicant’s mark is used on its goods or services.
`
`

`
`(cid:160)I
`
`n re Nuclear Research Corp., 16 USPQ2d 1316 (TTAB 1990); In re Cotter & Co., 228 USPQ 202, 204 (TTAB 1985); Buffett v. Chi‑Chi’s,
`Inc., 226 USPQ 428, 429 (TTAB 1985).
`
`(cid:160)I
`
`n the Office Action dated 03/23/07, the examiner attached evidence from various e-commerce websites showing that Mickey Dora, or Mikolos
`
`“Mickey” Szandor Dora II (1934-2002), was a very well known surfer who went by the nickname “Da Cat.” (cid:160)(cid:160)
`
`Here, applicant seeks to register the mark “MICKEY DORA DA CAT.” (cid:160) As explained, the term at issue need not be the actual, legal name of
`the party falsely associated with applicant’s mark. (cid:160) See, e.g., Buffett v. Chi‑Chi’s, Inc., 226 USPQ 428, 429 (TTAB 1985)
`(MARGARITAVILLE held to be the persona of singer Jimmy Buffet).(cid:160) The term must, however, be so uniquely and unmistakably associated
`with the named party as to constitute that party’s name or identity. (cid:160) Id.; See also In re Cotter & Co., 228 USPQ 202, 204 (TTAB 1985).
`
`(cid:160)T
`
`he examining attorney noted the amount of information readily available about Mr. Dora via online articles and web logs suggested that his
`fame or reputation is of such a nature that a connection with him or his estate would be presumed when applicant’s mark is used on its goods. (cid:160)
`Therefore, unless applicant is connected with Mr. Dora or his estate, the examining attorney must refuse registration of applicant’s mark under
`Section 2(a) of the Trademark Act.
`
`(cid:160)T
`
`he applicant responded to the examiners refusal arguing that applicant’s comic strip is a parody of the real person and any reasonable person
`would view the mark as such.(cid:160) However, the examiner is unaware of any parody defense to the false connection refusal.(cid:160) In fact, parody is a
`defense to Copyright Infringement under the Fair Use Doctrine, but these principles do not apply to Trademark Law.(cid:160) Accordingly, applicant’s
`
`arguments remain irrelevant to the case.(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)
`
`Even assuming parody was a defense to the false connection refusal, applicant’s mark would not be considered a parody whatsoever because the
`mark is identical to the name of the individual for whom the false connection refusal was issued.(cid:160) Applicant’s focus on the characters in the
`comic strip is irrelevant because the comic strips are not the mark that is applied for.(cid:160) The mark applied for is MICKEY DORA “DA CAT,”
`
`which has not been altered in any way that pokes fun at the real person.(cid:160)(cid:160)
`
`The applicant further argues that the third and fourth elements of the 2(a) analysis could not be met and the refusal should be withdrawn.(cid:160)
`However, the applicant has misinterpreted the third element of the analysis, bringing about an incorrect conclusion.
`
`(cid:160)S
`
`pecifically, the test requires a determination of whether the person or institution identified in the mark is “connected” with the goods sold or
`services performed by applicant under the mark.” Applicant makes the argument that MICKEY DORA is “connected” to the applicant’s comic
`strips, simply because the comic strips are a representation of the famous surfer.(cid:160) However, applicant’s understanding of “connection,” as
`
`mentioned above, is misconstrued.(cid:160)(cid:160)
`
`In In re Sloppy Joe's International Inc., 43 USPQ2d 1350, 1353-34 (TTAB 1997), the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board held that Ernest
`Hemingway's friendship with the original owner of applicant's bar, his frequenting the bar and his use of the back room as an office is not the
`kind of "connection" contemplated by §2(a). Rather, a commercial connection, such as an ownership interest or commercial endorsement
`or sponsorship of applicant's services would be necessary to entitle the applicant to registration. [Emphasis added]
`
`(cid:160)H
`
`ere, the applicant has failed to show any “commercial connection” to Mickey Dora, or his estate, as requested in the Office Action and as
`required to overcome this refusal.(cid:160) Indeed, applicant’s admission that its mark is a “parody” of the actual person makes clear that “the mark
`sought to be registered is the same as or a close approximation of the name or identity of a person or institution.”
`
`(cid:160)I
`
`n view of the foregoing, the refusal under Section 2(a) of the Trademark Act is continued, maintained and made final.
`
`(cid:160)R
`
`esponse to a Final Action
`
`(cid:160)I
`
`f applicant fails to respond to this final action within six months of the mailing date, 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 action by:(cid:160)(cid:160)
`
`(1)(cid:160)(cid:160) submitting a response that fully satisfies all outstanding requirements, if feasible (37 C.F.R. §2.64(a)); and/or
`
`(2)(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) 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).
`
`(cid:160)
`(cid:160)(cid:160)
`

`
`/David A. Hoffman/
`Examining Attorney
`Law Office 107
`(Ph) 571-272-8805
`(Fx) 571-273-8805
`
`(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 Office’s Response to Office action form available at
`http://www.uspto.gov/teas/eTEASpageD.htm.(cid:160) 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.(cid:160) 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)
`

`
`To:
`
`Subject:
`
`Sent:
`
`Sent As:
`
`Attachments:
`
`SOBEL, WILLIAM ALAN (wasobel@earthlink.net)
`
`TRADEMARK APPLICATION NO. 78884448 - MICKEY DORA DA CAT - N/A
`
`8/24/2007 5:04:44 PM
`
`ECOM107@USPTO.GOV
`
`(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)(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)P
`
`IMPORTANT NOTICE
`USPTO OFFICE ACTION HAS ISSUED ON 8/24/2007 FOR
`APPLICATION SERIAL NO. 78884448
`
`lease follow the instructions below to continue the prosecution of your application:
`
`ACTION:
`OFFICE
`VIEW
`link
`this
`on
`Click
`http://portal.uspto.gov/external/portal/tow?DDA=Y&serial_number=78884448&doc_type=OOA&mail_date=20070824 (or
`copy and
`paste this URL into the address field of your browser), or visit http://portal.uspto.gov/external/portal/tow and enter the application serial
`number to access the Office action.
`
`(cid:160)P
`
`LEASE NOTE: The(cid:160)Office action may not be(cid:160)immediately available but will be(cid:160)viewable within(cid:160)24 hours of this notification.
`
`(cid:160)R
`
`ESPONSE(cid:160)MAY BE REQUIRED: You should carefully review the Office action to determine (1) if a response is required; (2) how to
`respond; and (3) the applicable response time period. Your response deadline will be calculated from 8/24/2007.
`
`(cid:160)D
`
`o NOT hit “Reply” to this e-mail notification, or otherwise attempt to e-mail your response, as the USPTO does NOT accept e-mailed
`responses.(cid:160) Instead, the USPTO recommends that you respond online using the Trademark Electronic Application System response form
`at http://www.uspto.gov/teas/eTEASpageD.htm.
`
`(cid:160)H
`
`ELP: For technical assistance in accessing the Office action, please e-mail
`
`TDR@uspto.gov.(cid:160) Please contact the assigned examining attorney with questions about the Office action.(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160) WARNING
`
`1. The USPTO will NOT send a separate e-mail with the Office action attached.
`
`(cid:160)2
`
`. Failure to file any required response by the applicable deadline will result in the ABANDONMENT of your
`application.
`
`(cid:160)(cid:160)
`(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)