PTO Form 1957 (Rev 9/2005)
`
`OMB No. 0651-0050 (Exp. 07/31/2017)
`
`Response to Office Action
`
`Input Field
`
`SERIAL NUMBER
`
`LAW OFFICE ASSIGNED
`
`MARK SECTION
`
`MARK
`
`LITERAL ELEMENT
`
`STANDARD CHARACTERS
`
`USPTO-GENERATED IMAGE
`
`MARK STATEMENT
`
`EVIDENCE SECTION
`
`(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)EVIDENCE FILE NAME(S)
`
`(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)ORIGINAL PDF FILE
`
`(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)CONVERTED PDF FILE(S)
`(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(9 pages)
`
`The table below presents the data as entered.
`
`Entered
`
`86283892
`
`LAW OFFICE 107
`
`http://tsdr.uspto.gov/img/86283892/large
`
`BETTER SNOOZE
`
`YES
`
`YES
`
`The mark consists of standard characters, without claim to any particular font style,
`size or color.
`
`evi_701095314-135313163_._Better_Snooze__86283892__-_OA_Response.pdf
`
`\\TICRS\EXPORT16\IMAGEOUT16\862\838\86283892\xml4\ROA0002.JPG
`
`\\TICRS\EXPORT16\IMAGEOUT16\862\838\86283892\xml4\ROA0003.JPG
`
`\\TICRS\EXPORT16\IMAGEOUT16\862\838\86283892\xml4\ROA0004.JPG
`
`\\TICRS\EXPORT16\IMAGEOUT16\862\838\86283892\xml4\ROA0005.JPG
`
`\\TICRS\EXPORT16\IMAGEOUT16\862\838\86283892\xml4\ROA0006.JPG
`
`\\TICRS\EXPORT16\IMAGEOUT16\862\838\86283892\xml4\ROA0007.JPG
`
`\\TICRS\EXPORT16\IMAGEOUT16\862\838\86283892\xml4\ROA0008.JPG
`
`\\TICRS\EXPORT16\IMAGEOUT16\862\838\86283892\xml4\ROA0009.JPG
`
`\\TICRS\EXPORT16\IMAGEOUT16\862\838\86283892\xml4\ROA0010.JPG
`
`DESCRIPTION OF EVIDENCE FILE
`
`Office Action Response for Section 2(d)
`
`GOODS AND/OR SERVICES SECTION (current)
`
`INTERNATIONAL CLASS
`
`020
`
`DESCRIPTION
`
`FILING BASIS
`
`(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160) FIRST USE ANYWHERE DATE
`
`(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160) FIRST USE IN COMMERCE DATE
`
`Mattresses and pillows; Air mattresses
`
`Section 1(a)
`
`At least as early as 08/28/2011
`
`At least as early as 06/01/2012
`
`GOODS AND/OR SERVICES SECTION (proposed)
`
`INTERNATIONAL CLASS
`
`TRACKED TEXT DESCRIPTION
`
`020
`
`(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)
`

`

`Mattresses and pillows; Air mattresses; Air mattresses, namely, inflatable mattresses for indoor use, not for medical or recreational use
`
`FINAL(cid:160)DESCRIPTION
`
`Mattresses and pillows; Air mattresses, namely, inflatable mattresses for indoor use, not for medical or recreational use
`
`FILING BASIS
`
`(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)FIRST USE ANYWHERE DATE
`
`(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)FIRST USE IN COMMERCE DATE
`
`NEW ATTORNEY SECTION
`
`NAME
`
`FIRM NAME
`
`STREET
`
`CITY
`
`STATE
`
`ZIP/POSTAL CODE
`
`COUNTRY
`
`PHONE
`
`EMAIL
`
`Section 1(a)
`
`At least as early as 08/28/2011
`
`At least as early as 06/01/2012
`
`Tom Dunlap
`
`DunlapWeaver PLLC
`
`211 Church St., SE
`
`Leesburg
`
`Virginia
`
`20175
`
`United States
`
`7037777319
`
`ip@dunlapweaver.com
`
`AUTHORIZED EMAIL COMMUNICATION
`
`Yes
`
`NEW CORRESPONDENCE SECTION
`
`NAME
`
`FIRM NAME
`
`STREET
`
`CITY
`
`STATE
`
`ZIP/POSTAL CODE
`
`COUNTRY
`
`PHONE
`
`EMAIL
`
`Tom Dunlap
`
`DunlapWeaver PLLC
`
`211 Church St., SE
`
`Leesburg
`
`Virginia
`
`20175
`
`United States
`
`7037777319
`
`ip@dunlapweaver.com
`
`AUTHORIZED EMAIL COMMUNICATION
`
`Yes
`
`SIGNATURE SECTION
`
`RESPONSE SIGNATURE
`
`SIGNATORY'S NAME
`
`SIGNATORY'S POSITION
`
`SIGNATORY'S PHONE NUMBER
`
`DATE SIGNED
`
`AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY
`
`FILING INFORMATION SECTION
`
`SUBMIT DATE
`
`/Seth Willig Chadab/
`
`Seth Willig Chadab
`
`Associate Attorney, DunlapWeaver PLLC, Maryland Bar Member
`
`7037777319
`
`07/25/2014
`
`YES
`
`Fri Jul 25 14:00:11 EDT 2014
`
`USPTO/ROA-XX.XXX.XX.XX-20
`
`

`

`140725140011047394-862838
`92-5007a7b87a3a4eeb8238c4
`38de2368dc7734e6a9ef1ee83
`0cd9766a72516275bab-N/A-N
`/A-20140725135313163433
`
`TEAS STAMP
`
`PTO Form 1957 (Rev 9/2005)
`
`OMB No. 0651-0050 (Exp. 07/31/2017)
`
`To the Commissioner for Trademarks:
`
`Response to Office Action
`
`Application serial no. 86283892(cid:160)BETTER SNOOZE(Standard Characters, see http://tsdr.uspto.gov/img/86283892/large) has been amended as
`follows:
`
`EVIDENCE
`Evidence in the nature of Office Action Response for Section 2(d) has been attached.
`Original PDF file:
`evi_701095314-135313163_._Better_Snooze__86283892__-_OA_Response.pdf
`Converted PDF file(s) ( 9 pages)
`Evidence-1
`Evidence-2
`Evidence-3
`Evidence-4
`Evidence-5
`Evidence-6
`Evidence-7
`Evidence-8
`Evidence-9
`
`CLASSIFICATION AND LISTING OF GOODS/SERVICES
`Applicant proposes to amend the following class of goods/services in the application:
`Current: Class 020 for Mattresses and pillows; Air mattresses
`Original Filing Basis:
`Filing Basis: Section 1(a), Use in Commerce: The applicant is using the mark in commerce, or the applicant's related company or licensee is
`using the mark in commerce, on or in connection with the identified goods and/or services. 15 U.S.C. Section 1051(a), as amended. The mark
`was first used at least as early as 08/28/2011 and first used in commerce at least as early as 06/01/2012 , and is now in use in such commerce.
`
`Proposed:
`Tracked Text Description: Mattresses and pillows; Air mattresses; Air mattresses, namely, inflatable mattresses for indoor use, not for medical
`or recreational use
`
`Class 020 for Mattresses and pillows; Air mattresses, namely, inflatable mattresses for indoor use, not for medical or recreational use
`Filing Basis: Section 1(a), Use in Commerce: The applicant is using the mark in commerce, or the applicant's related company or licensee is
`using the mark in commerce, on or in connection with the identified goods and/or services. 15 U.S.C. Section 1051(a), as amended. The mark
`was first used at least as early as 08/28/2011 and first used in commerce at least as early as 06/01/2012 , and is now in use in such commerce.
`ATTORNEY ADDRESS
`Applicant proposes to amend the following:
`Proposed:
`Tom Dunlap of DunlapWeaver PLLC, having an address of
`211 Church St., SE Leesburg, Virginia 20175
`United States
`ip@dunlapweaver.com
`7037777319
`
`CORRESPONDENCE ADDRESS CHANGE
`
`

`

`Applicant proposes to amend the following:
`Proposed:
`Tom Dunlap of DunlapWeaver PLLC, having an address of
`211 Church St., SE Leesburg, Virginia 20175
`United States
`ip@dunlapweaver.com
`7037777319
`
`SIGNATURE(S)
`Response Signature
`Signature: /Seth Willig Chadab/(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)Date: 07/25/2014
`Signatory's Name: Seth Willig Chadab
`Signatory's Position: Associate Attorney, DunlapWeaver PLLC, Maryland Bar Member
`
`Signatory's Phone Number: 7037777319
`
`The signatory has confirmed that he/she is an attorney who is a member in good standing of the bar of the highest court of a U.S. state, which
`includes the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and other federal territories and possessions; and he/she is currently the applicant's attorney or an
`associate thereof; and to the best of his/her knowledge, if prior to his/her appointment another U.S. attorney or a Canadian attorney/agent not
`currently associated with his/her company/firm previously represented the applicant in this matter: (1) the applicant has filed or is concurrently
`filing a signed revocation of or substitute power of attorney with the USPTO; (2) the USPTO has granted the request of the prior representative to
`withdraw; (3) the applicant has filed a power of attorney appointing him/her in this matter; or (4) the applicant's appointed U.S. attorney or
`Canadian attorney/agent has filed a power of attorney appointing him/her as an associate attorney in this matter.
`
`Mailing Address: (cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)Tom Dunlap
`(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)DunlapWeaver PLLC
`(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)211 Church St., SE
`(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)Leesburg, Virginia 20175
`
`Serial Number: 86283892
`Internet Transmission Date: Fri Jul 25 14:00:11 EDT 2014
`TEAS Stamp: USPTO/ROA-XX.XXX.XX.XX-20140725140011047
`394-86283892-5007a7b87a3a4eeb8238c438de2
`368dc7734e6a9ef1ee830cd9766a72516275bab-
`N/A-N/A-20140725135313163433
`
`(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)
`

`

`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`Serial No.:
`Mark:
`
`86283892
`BETTER SNOOZE
`
`Applicant:
`Office Action Date:
`
`Global Bedding Solutions
`July 12, 2014
`
`RESPONSE TO July 12, 2014 OFFICE ACTION
`
`This Response is filed in reply to the Office Action e—mailed on July 12, 2014. The Applicant
`respectfully submits the following response. Applicant submits that the above—identified
`trademark application for BETTER SNOOZE is in condition for allowance to publication.
`
`Potential Section Zjdf Refusal: Likelihood of Confusion
`
`Applicant submits a preliminary response to the potential section 2(d) refusal; however,
`Applicant reserves all rights to provide a detailed and more descriptive response if Examining
`Attorney Ronald E. DelGizzi raises a Section 2(d) refusal in a subsequent Office Action.
`
`Preliminary Response with Reservation ofRights
`
`The USPTO suggests that it will refuse registration of the Applicant’s mark, BETTER SNOOZE,
`“because of a likelihood of confusion with the mark in U.S. Registration No. 3612545.” “[T]he
`question of confusion is related not to the nature of the mark but to its effect ‘when applied to the
`applicant.” In re EI. du Pom‘ de Nemous & Co., 476 F.2d 1357, 1360-61 (C.C.P.A. 1973). The
`United States Court of Customs and Patent Appeals listed thirteen factors to weigh in the
`likelihood of confusion analysis and stated that all of the factors must be considered “when of
`record.” Id. at 1361. The Examining Attorney has indicated that similarity of the marks,
`similarity of the goods and/or services, and similarity of the trade channels of the goods and/or
`services weigh against the Applicant’s mark. However, Applicant respectfully asserts that when
`all factors are weighed, the majority weighs against the existence of a likelihood of confusion.
`
`(I) Similarity of Conflicting Designations
`
`The first factor is the similarity of the conflicting designations, including in their appearance,
`sound, meaning or connotation, and commercial impression. In re E. I du Pont de Nemours &
`Ca, 476 F.2d 1357, 1361, 177 USPQ 563, 567 (C.C.P.A. 1973). A similar phrase found in two
`marks is not dispositive of a confusing similarity between the marks when the marks give off
`different commercial expressions. See Kellogg Co. v. Pack ’em Enterprises, Inc, 951 F.2d 330 (Fed.
`Cir. 1991). When Applicant’s mark BETTER SNOOZE, and Registrant’s mark SNOOZE are
`compared, the appearance is similar but not identical.
`
`Importantly, courts across the country have long held that the addition of different terms to a
`
`

`

`common element appreciably reduces the likelihood of confusion between two marks. See US
`Trust v. US. States Trust Co., 210 F. Supp. 2d 9, 27-28 (D. Mass 2002) (UNITED STATES
`TRUST COMPANY not confusingly similar to UNITED STATES TRUST COMPANY OF
`BOSTON, both for financial services); Colgate Palmolive Co. v. Carter-Wallace, Inc., 432 F.2d
`1400, 1402, 167 US. P. Q. 529, 530 (C.C.P.A. 1970) (PEAK PERIOD not confusing similar to
`PEAK); Servo Corp. Am. v. Servo-TekProd. C0,, 289 F. 2d 955, 981 129 U.S.P.Q. 352, 353
`(C.C.P.A. 1961) (SERVOSPEED not confusingly similar to SERVO); Sweats Fashions, Inc. v.
`Pannill Knitting C0., 833 F. 2d 1560, 1564, 4 U.S.P.Q. 2d 1793, 1796 (Fed. Cir. 1987)
`(SWEATS not confusing similar to ULTRA SWEATS, both for sportswear); Gen. Mills Inc. v.
`Kellog Ca, 824 F. 2d 622, 627, 3 U.S.P.Q. 2d 1442, 1446 (8th Cir. 1987) (OATMEAL RAISIN
`CRISP not confusingly similar to APPLE RASIN CRISP, both for breakfast cereal); Consol.
`Cigar v. RJR Tobacco Co., 491 F.2d 1265, 1267, 181 U.S.P.Q. 44, 45 (C.C.P.A. 1974) (DUTCH
`APPLE for pipe tobacco not confusingly similar to DUTCH MASTERS for cigars).
`
`Here, the USPTO suggests that it will refuse registration of Applicant’s mark, BETTER
`SNOOZE, because of an alleged likelihood of confilsion with the registered mark SNOOZE.
`
`Applicant’s Word Mark
`
`Cited Registered Mark
`
`BETTER SNOOZE
`
`S
`
`INTERNATIONAL CLASS 020
`
`INTERNATIONAL CLASS 011
`
`Mattresses and pillows; Air mattresses, namely,
`inflatable mattresses for indoor use, not for
`medical or recreational use (as amended)
`
`Furniture; beds, sofa beds and bedroom
`furniture; mattresses, cushions, pillows, sleeping
`bags; decorative bead curtains; curtain rails,
`rings, and rods; cots, bassinettes; furniture parts;
`mirrors; picture frames; furniture made of wood,
`cork, reed, cane, wicker, hair, bone, ivory,
`whalebone, shell, amber, motl1er—of—pearl,
`meerschaum and substitutes for all these
`
`materials, furniture of plastic
`Also, 1c022, 024, 035 and 042
`
`mark .
`
`It is well established that "likelihood of conf11sion cannot be predicated on dissection of a
`. the ultimate conclusion rests on consideration of the marks in their entireties." In re
`
`.
`
`National Data Corp., 224 U.S.P.Q. 749, 751 (Fed. Cir. 1985); TMEP §1207.01(b)(iv). When the
`marks are compared in their entireties, they are significantly different in visual and aural
`impression, in meaning, and in overall commercial impression. When compared in their
`entireties, the marks are not identical in use and the Applicant’s mark includes an additional
`term. Visually, BETTER SNOOZE is easily distinguished from cited Reg. No. 3612545. The
`cited registered mark consists of one stylized Word, Whereas the Applicant’s mark consists of
`two. Furthermore, the Applicant’s mark includes the additional term “BETTER.” The use of the
`term ‘better’ conveys information to consumers about the goods offered under the mark, namely,
`a comfortable alternative to the traditional mattress. The Applicant’s air mattresses are different
`
`

`

`from the furniture offered under the cited registration.. The additional term is largely responsible
`for creating a commercial impression that is different from that of the cited registration. Similar
`to Kellogg Ca, despite the shared terms, the marks have different commercial impressions.
`Therefore, the marks do not appear confusingly similar for purposes of a likelihood of confusion
`analysis. For at least these reasons, Applicants asserts that the mark BETTER SNOOZE is
`different than the mark SNOOZE.
`
`(2) Similarity or Dissimilarity and the Nature of the Goods or Services
`
`The second factor is the similarity or dissimilarity and the nature of the goods or services as
`described in an application or registration or in connection with a prior use of the mark. In re E.
`I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., 476 F.2d 1357, 1361, 177 USPQ 563, 567 (C.C.P.A. 1973).
`
`There is no likelihood of confusion because Applicant’s goods, as amended, are different and
`offered to entirely disparate marketplaces. Applicant’s goods are inflatable air mattresses while
`the Registrant’s mark is for furniture. The air mattress system sold by the Applicant is a highly
`specialized product in the mattress market. On the other hand, a review of the Registrant’s
`website does indicate that they do sell air mattresses, however, these mattresses are branded
`under aeroBed® and not the registrant’s own brand. See Exhibit A. The Applicant is the source
`of the product, while the Registrant sells other brands under their retail chain.
`
`The similarities between the Applicant’s and Registrant’s trademarks are insufficient to support a
`finding of likelihood of confusion. There is no evidence that the Applicant’ s and Registrant’s
`goods are used together or by the same purchasers. In fact, there is no evidence that the
`Registrant’s goods are even sold in the United States. This factor weighs strongly against
`finding likelihood of confusion.
`
`(3) Similarity or Dissimilarity ofEstablished Likely to Continue Trade Channels
`
`The third factor is the similarity or dissimilarity of established, likely-to-continue trade channels. In
`re E. I. da Pont de Nemours & C0., 476 F.2d at 1361, 177 USPQ at 567. This factor heavily weighs
`against a finding of a likelihood of confusion. Even where two marks are identical, courts and the
`TTAB routinely hold that there is no likelihood of confusion “if the goods or services in question
`are not related in such a way that they would be encountered by the same persons in situations
`that would create the incorrect assumption that they originate from the same source.” T.M.E.P. §
`1207.1(a)(1) (citing Local Trademarks, Inc. v. Handy Boys, Inc, 16 U.S.P.Q.2d 1156 (T.T.A.B.
`1990) (LITTLE PLUMBER for drain opener not confusingly similar to LITTLE PLUMBER and
`Design for advertising services).
`
`Here, the Registrant’s goods are sold in retail stores exclusively in Australia and online to
`Australian consumers. See Exhibit B. The trade channels for the Applicant are via third-party
`retail businesses, such as Sears and Overstock. The applicant’s products are sold in the United
`States from authorized retailers. Therefore, this factor weighs against the existence of a
`likelihood of confusion and in favor of the Applicant.
`
`

`

`(4) Conditions Upon Sales Are Made
`
`The fourth factor is the conditions under which and buyers to whom sales are made (i.e. impulse
`v. careful). Id. Consumers interested in Applicant’ s services will be sophisticated consumers
`searching the internet for quality indoor air mattresses. Therefore, consumers will carefillly
`identify BETTER SNOOZE when searching for the Applicant’s goods. Further, consumers
`interested in Applicant’s services are unlikely to encounter Registrant’s websites or retail stores
`due to their location in Australia. It is well-settled that the likelihood of confusion is reduced
`
`where purchasers and potential purchasers of the services at issue are sophisticated. See
`Electronic Design & Sales, Inc. v. Electronic Data Sys. Corp, 954 F.2d 713, 718 (Fed. Cir.
`1992) (no confusion between identical marks where, inter alia, both parties’ goods and services
`“are usually purchased after careful consideration by persons who are highly knowledgeable
`about the goods or services and their source”); see also T.M.E.P. § 1207.01(d)(vii) (care in
`purchasing tends to minimize likelihood of confusion). Applicant’s customers are likely to
`exercise a high level of care and are not likely to be confused into thinking Registrant’s product
`originates from, or is sponsored by, Applicant or vice versa. This factor weighs heavily against a
`likelihood of confusion between these two marks.
`
`(5) Fame ofthe Prior Mark
`
`The fifth factor is the fame of the prior mark (e.g., sales, advertising, length of use, etc). Id.
`There is no evidence that the prior mark is famous, in fact there is no evidence that the Registrant
`is even selling goods in the United States. This factor weighs against a likelihood of confusion.
`
`(6) Number and Nature ofSimilar Marks in Use on Similar Goods
`
`The sixth factor is the number and nature of similar marks in use in connection with similar
`
`services. Id. In this case, the USPTO has not made any assertions as to the number and nature of
`marks used in connection with mattresses.
`
`A search of the USPTO records for “SNOOZE” and furniture in Class 20 reveals an abandoned
`
`trademark for MODO SNOOZE (Serial Number 85223516) in Class 20 for mattresses. This
`mark is now abandoned because no Statement of Use was filed, but it was published and did not
`receive an Office Action based on Section 2(e)(1). See Exhibit C. Therefore, Applicant asserts
`that this factor weighs against finding a likelihood of confusion.
`
`(7) Nature and Extent ofAny Actual Confusion
`
`The seventh factor concerns the nature and extent of any actual confusion. Id. No evidence exists
`that any consumer has been confused by the use of these two marks. In fact, the Applicant and
`Registrant appear to be operating on separate continents. Consequently, Applicant asserts that
`this factor weighs against finding a likelihood of COIlfi1S10I1.
`
`

`

`(8) Length of Time During and Conditions under which There Has Been Concurrent Use
`Without Evidence ofA ctnal Confusion
`
`The eighth factor is the length of time during and conditions under which there has been
`concurrent use without evidence of actual COI1fi1Sl0I1. Id. Applicant’s mark has been in use since
`July 1, 2012. Registrant’s mark has been in use since November 24, 2009. Therefore, there has
`been concurrent use of the mark since 2012 without evidence of actual confusion. Therefore,
`this factor weighs in the Applicant’s favor.
`
`(9) Variety of Goods on which a Mark Is or Is Not Used
`
`The ninth factor is the variety of goods on which a mark is or is not used (house mark, “family”
`mark, product mark). In re E. I. du Pont de Nemours & C0,, 476 F.2d at 1361, 177 USPQ at 567.
`The Cited Registration is not a part of a family of marks. Consequently, this factor weighs
`against a likelihood of confusion.
`
`(I 0) Market Interface Between Applicant and the Owner ofa Prior Mark
`
`The tenth factor is the market interface between Applicant and the owner of a valid, prior mark.
`Id.
`In this case, there has been no interface between the Applicant and the Registrant, and
`therefore this factor is also in the Applicant’s favor.
`
`(1 I) Extent to which Applicant has a Right to Exclude Others from Use of its Mark on its
`Goods
`
`The eleventh factor is the extent to which Applicant has a right to exclude others from use of its
`mark on its goods. Id. The Applicant cannot claim rights to exclusive use apart from common
`law usage of the mark since 2012. This factor is also in the Applicant’s favor.
`
`(I2) Extent ofPotential Confusion
`
`The twelfth factor is the extent of potential confusion, i.e., whether de minimis or substantial. Id.
`Registrant’s use of the trademark does not involve substantial use of the mark in the United
`States. Since the Registrant’s mark is only used in Australia, the potential for confusion is not
`likely to extend across the United States through all economic classes. Therefore, the potential
`for COI1filSlOI1 is de minimis and weighs heavily against a likelihood of confusion.
`
`(13) Whether There Are any Other Established Facts Probative ofthe Eflect of Use
`
`The thirteenth factor looks to whether there are any other established facts probative of the effect
`of use. Applicant reserves all rights to provide a detailed and more descriptive response on this
`factor if the USPTO should raise a Section 2(d) refusal in a subsequent Office Action. Applicant
`further asserts that the USPTO has found a mark capable of registration, even in cases where the
`marks are nearly identical and are covered under the same classification. Furthermore, courts
`have long held that the addition of different terms to a common element appreciably reduces the
`
`

`

`likelihood of confusion between two marks. See US Trust 12. US States Trust Co., 210 F. Supp.
`2d 9, 27-28 (D. Mass 2002) (UNITED STATES TRUST COMPANY not confiisingly similar to
`UNITED STATES TRUST COMPANY OF BOSTON, both for financial services); Colgate
`Palmolive Co. v. Carter-Wallace, Inc, 432 F.2d 1400, 1402, 167 U.S. P. Q. 529, 530 (C.C.P.A.
`1970) (PEAK PERIOD not confiising similar to PEAK); Servo Corp. Am. V. Servo-Tek Prod.
`Co., 289 F. 2d 955, 981 129 U.S.P.Q. 352, 353 (C.C.P.A. 1961) (SERVOSPEED not confusingly
`similar to SERVO); Sweats Fashions, Inc. v. Parmill Knitting Co., 833 F. 2d 1560, 1564, 4
`U.S.P.Q. 2d 1793, 1796 (Fed. Cir. 1987) (SWEATS not confiising similar to ULTRA
`SWEATS), both for sportswear); Gen. Mills Inc. v. Kellog Co., 824 F. 2d 622, 627, 3 U.S.P.Q.
`2d 1442, 1446 (8th Cir. 1987) (OATMEAL RAISIN CRISP not confusingly similar to APPLE
`RASIN CRISP, both for breakfast cereal); Consol. Cigar v. RJR Tobacco C0,, 491 F.2d 1265,
`1267, 181 U.S.P.Q. 44, 45 (C.C.P.A. 1974) (DUTCH APPLE for pipe tobacco not confusingly
`similar to DUTCH MASTERS for cigars).
`
`When determining whether an Applicant’s mark creates a likelihood of confusion, with marks
`covered by cited registrations " [a] showing of mere possibility of confusion is not enough; a
`substantial likelihood that the public will be confiised must be shown." Omaha Natl. Bank, 633
`F. Supp. at 234, 229 U.S.P.Q. at 52. Applying the factors set forth in DuPont, and absent
`“substantial doubt,” In re Mars, Inc., 741 F. 2d 395, 396 222 U.S.P.Q. 938 (Fed. Cir. 1984),
`registration of Applicant’s mark is appropriate.
`
`Recitation of the Goods
`
`Applicant adopts the following identification:
`
`Mattresses and pillows; Air mattresses, namely, inflatable mattresses for indoor use, not
`for medical or recreational use in Class 20.
`
`Conclusion
`
`For these reasons and others, the majority of these factors weigh against a finding of a likelihood
`of confusion. Applicant respectfully submits that the mark for BETTER SNOOZE does not
`create a likelihood of confusion with Registration Number 3612545 for SNOOZE.
`
`

`

`Exhibit A
`
`ypoo-14;.
`
`,4: bedBUlLDER = be-dMATCH"‘ fig Siore Finder || Catalogue Q wishlisr
`
`Search
`
`Q
`
`Ai::ouiUs
`
`News
`
`Sleep Tns
`
`Franchisng
`
`Careers
`
`Cuniaci Us
`
`BEDS
`
`BEDROOM FURNITURE
`
`KIDS BEDROOM
`
`MATFRESSES 8- BASES
`
`LINEN 8: ACCESSORIES
`
`MANCHESTER
`
`Home > Matiresses B. Bases
`
`) Air Mattress
`
`Refine Usiings +
`
`NEED A HAND?
`
`Our Maiiress Buying Guide helps takes the
`guesswork out of buying a Mattress.
`
`Ail’ Marlress
`
`Tre aenoaecl brand, at Snooze, offers a great range oi airheih and air mattresses irum ensern ble style beds to quick set-up guesi needs. For more information or to see
`ihe range, visit your local Snooze store today.
`
`aerobed Extra Bed
`
`aerated Premier Comfort Pius Air
`Maiimss
`
`6 Enter postcode for price
`
`9 Enrer posrcode for price
`
`Available in Single, Queen
`
`Available in Single, Double. Queen
`
`

`

`Exhibit B
`
`Ahnm Us
`
`News
`
`Sleep Tps
`
`French‘: ng
`
`Careers
`
`Comaclus
`
`rboozc
`
`_: bedBUiLDER 5 bedMATCH"‘ Ag smrinuer In fiafaiogue
`
`vvnsmisi
`
`Search
`
`Q
`
`BEDROOM FURNITURE
`
`KIDS BEDROOM
`
`MA'|'|'RESSES & BASES
`
`LINEN & ACCESSORIES
`
`MANCHESTER
`
`Pleaseenferyourposicodeandseieci
`yoiulocalsioreioseeprioes
`
`Australian Capiial Tenitory
`
`New South Wales
`
`Queensland
`
`Soulh Australia
`
`Tasmania
`
`Victoria
`
`Western Australia
`
`Comact
`
`E Ernai ‘. Phune
`
`SHOOZQ
`
`SMQS
`
`Neuvslener
`
`Sign up iurthe laiest news and pmmuiions atsnuum,
`
`Brands
`
`Sealy
`Tem Dur
`Slurnnerland
`Myside
`Madison
`
`GIOUD Brands
`
`Freemn-r
`BavLea1ner
`Paco
`
`Ciiies
`
`Adelaide
`Brisbane
`Canberra
`Launcestm
`Meiiaaurne
`
`-_-A; _..._.-..........._..._....
`
`Snnnze Pmcess
`Finance Oniiens
`Terms &Cdnditians
`Care Iniurm aliun
`Fnvacy
`
`Beds
`Bedroom Furniture
`Kids Bedroom
`Mattresses B. Bases
`Linen 5 Accessories
`
`Bold 8. Beautiful
`Classic
`Contemporary
`Cuuniry and Coastal
`Shabby Chic
`
`_
`
`

`

`Exhibit C
`United Stakes Patent and Trademark Office
`An Ag-nuy uflI1cl3|:p.|lununlu[('AJnunL'flr
`
`.»..a—...-Ln:nann.a.-..-I.s..-d-
`ux Tmdanm-kshhn »&tDnn;menlme'h-in-wall n[TS9ll) 0
`2AM'_'lI
`lnllhszlllzl 6
`us Se-um
`V 55.13515
`
`SELIKB
`
`Iluu|I:III5 E
`G-nix‘: Tl-1'13-&a'T2EIlE'-lvCF‘-Z '2.'l.2$T
`it h'|G% HUG-IE
`
`Eldlmrelwlh rune
`
`MI: M-I-an
`
`MODO SNOOZE
`
`Aunmnearu-onn._mz'.a:-'
`uuuuqluasrnn nu
`
`llulncunclloval-wllm JJ ‘5 3!"
`
`Lissuunlununsu-.-a
`nu-ulusl-nu ‘—
`WU-1% WIT‘
`u-cup; n-u--ca
`Emu‘ lava:-=uu—r:§rxvu:iLnw§m¢-nI¢i\3.umv.'ru:nIru::1Alwpnu--an: 1=v.wwi:|=mvun
`H-rhcnclcmu-‘nu-2-r-knuur-1:‘:-mutuu-zq;:|'u-g-gm
`1:3: Ed: 2 xi}
`finkfin-X, l!I'3i 2"’
`I195-finfi: in 3: 3:52
`. uatlmnnmboun
`— Gomlsaml Sorlnlxs
`. nunalmmnuumwcasowuvup
`-Durto11tDuIIIIr{sjlrfluIIm11on
`- A mmmMn
`. Pmalouilon :1-Intel]
`1
`ta 2'. NH
`
`nttahun
`AB»|J‘%'l'.fi?<'P’ ‘oG‘T$CEFJH.I.§3-'fiJ§fl
`snl1':5.E7.'1' =55:
`AlAM:|6MEH'I'-HEI.Es'I'.lT:I.Eur=s|5n
`‘E-A Salk-|lA.SU-SE.‘ 3C»-lflfiflfltm‘
`IIHJEINT
`o==taLI:AErV:B.l.AcA1'IEu
`cn\'FIHM'rl|:N :n.w:L=:l
`DJILIE-El: =1:-F! GIFFESTNZ-E4
`LEM‘ CFFIIE H.EJ¢3'|'IC—N $‘i'IEV|' IlF|£1w'$
`AEEFEII TE US
`AEHI~YT=Cd9|.l-EHPEEAL $JElSl'§
`TEASUAIH . I..—...%Ea.‘:EU:= :I'.‘r
` $$*tmIN LAW DEEIEE
`Tins EIFDFE Y: CFFICE Acncu Eziltlin
`Pnn=IcArIGIII:= MIN-=VMN.AE1"lD|'dE-l\lI:|lE
`*4:-FKIMLJETICN E-l.W£:I
`PI?N¥|M\£.M:I'lCvMVlfi'|"|'E‘4
`$I.’E's‘E§ G£ PH Tia‘: EH5
`IE-SHED TE §A'!.II%
`F=w.Iin.IcA'l'+I:'I c\'5=II:::1.I=m1::I :IA1'A
`:I|n'==:a IN TEAM
`FIVE‘-IFFIJCP-1'l':4P‘4fl‘l|"T|NTW.Il
`
`Ed: H-‘Lula
`Ju. FI Z"
`
`In :1 min
`
`rJb,.- :4 ::!'
`-'9'. 2'. E"
`AV. E E"
`
`Ni’ 2',
`In :P.
`In 2'.
`I-i.1'.'.‘IH'
`.-Jun T. E"
`Pb RI"
`Uh Z 2:? '
`lb E. E‘ '
`.m 2 2"
`
`SIZE-'x'
`. T\M3mrandLcutmnIn1m1uunn
`- Asdglmlflflhihiotmflflolmmfllfinn-Cfifliotold
`-Pl'flI:iI|.'II'bQS-'CIflfiD\|.DIII
`‘-\»:.:¢ nae»: -'m.:::-
`
`lfruu arc ll: cpcllccnl ormc arplluznfn txEI:rr.\cy mm have qunlnnnu aflcual mun Illa, p|‘:nl: cunlacl 174.: :
`
`:=n.. "K xuu-ma: »::nc:~
`
`