throbber
PTO Form 1957 (Rev 9/2005)
`
`OMB No. 0651-0050 (Exp. 07/31/2017)
`
`Response to Office Action
`
`The table below presents the data as entered.
`
`Entered
`
`86390952
`
`LAW OFFICE 105
`
`http://tsdr.uspto.gov/img/86390952/large
`
`BRIGHTSIDE APARTMENTS
`
`NO
`
`NO
`
`Color is not claimed as a feature of the mark.
`
`Input Field
`
`SERIAL NUMBER
`
`LAW OFFICE ASSIGNED
`
`MARK SECTION
`
`MARK FILE NAME
`
`LITERAL ELEMENT
`
`STANDARD CHARACTERS
`
`USPTO-GENERATED IMAGE
`
`COLOR(S) CLAIMED
`(If applicable)
`
`DESCRIPTION OF THE MARK
`(and Color Location, if applicable)
`
`EVIDENCE SECTION
`
`        EVIDENCE FILE NAME(S)
`
`       ORIGINAL PDF FILE
`
`       CONVERTED PDF FILE(S)
`       (6 pages)
`
`DESCRIPTION OF EVIDENCE FILE
`
`ADDITIONAL STATEMENTS SECTION
`
`DISCLAIMER
`
`DESCRIPTION OF THE MARK
`(and Color Location, if applicable)
`
`NEW ATTORNEY SECTION
`
`NAME
`
`FIRM NAME
`
`STREET
`
`The mark consists of a picture of 2 apartment buildings and a house to the left side of
`the buildings. There are 2 shrubs on a hill above the words "BRIGHTSIDE
`APARTMENTS".
`
`evi_73394320-20150308175518495989_._OAResponse-Brightside.pdf
`
`\\TICRS\EXPORT16\IMAGEOUT16\863\909\86390952\xml6\ROA0002.JPG
`
`\\TICRS\EXPORT16\IMAGEOUT16\863\909\86390952\xml6\ROA0003.JPG
`
`\\TICRS\EXPORT16\IMAGEOUT16\863\909\86390952\xml6\ROA0004.JPG
`
`\\TICRS\EXPORT16\IMAGEOUT16\863\909\86390952\xml6\ROA0005.JPG
`
`\\TICRS\EXPORT16\IMAGEOUT16\863\909\86390952\xml6\ROA0006.JPG
`
`\\TICRS\EXPORT16\IMAGEOUT16\863\909\86390952\xml6\ROA0007.JPG
`
`a .pdf document containing arguments in response to each refusal raised in the office
`action dated Dec. 23. 2014.
`
`No claim is made to the exclusive right to use APARTMENTS apart from the mark
`as shown.
`
`The mark consists of a stylized version of two apartment buildings with a stylized
`house and two shrubs to the left of the apartment buildings on a hill, above the
`wording "BRIGHTSIDE" with a horizontal bar to the left of the wording
`"APARTMENTS" below.
`
`Antonio Vann
`
`Dunlap Bennett & Ludwig PLLC
`
`211 Church St SE
`
`       
`       
`       
`       
`       
`

`

`CITY
`
`STATE
`
`ZIP/POSTAL CODE
`
`COUNTRY
`
`PHONE
`
`EMAIL
`
`Leesburg
`
`Virginia
`
`20175
`
`United States
`
`855.226.9661
`
`ip@dbllawyers.com
`
`AUTHORIZED EMAIL COMMUNICATION
`
`Yes
`
`CORRESPONDENCE SECTION
`
`ORIGINAL ADDRESS
`
`NEW CORRESPONDENCE SECTION
`
`NAME
`
`FIRM NAME
`
`STREET
`
`CITY
`
`STATE
`
`ZIP/POSTAL CODE
`
`COUNTRY
`
`PHONE
`
`EMAIL
`
`AUTHORIZED EMAIL COMMUNICATION
`
`SIGNATURE SECTION
`
`RESPONSE SIGNATURE
`
`SIGNATORY'S NAME
`
`SIGNATORY'S POSITION
`
`SIGNATORY'S PHONE NUMBER
`
`DATE SIGNED
`
`AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY
`
`FILING INFORMATION SECTION
`
`SUBMIT DATE
`
`TEAS STAMP
`
`BRIGHTSIDE APARTMENTS
`594 KENMORE AVE APT 3
`BUFFALO
`New York (NY)
`US
`14216-1609
`
`Antonio Vann
`
`Dunlap Bennett & Ludwig PLLC
`
`211 Church St SE
`
`Leesburg
`
`Virginia
`
`20175
`
`United States
`
`855.226.9661
`
`ip@dbllawyers.com
`
`Yes
`
`/avann/
`
`Antonio G. Vann
`
`Attorney of Record, VA Bar Member
`
`855.226.9661
`
`03/08/2015
`
`YES
`
`Sun Mar 08 17:59:11 EDT 2015
`
`USPTO/ROA-XX.XX.XX.XX-201
`50308175911021758-8639095
`2-53036eb37e159b173df8dce
`2f987ec555858f56eb6aa3a8c
`3b6746959eb1e98463-N/A-N/
`A-20150308175518495989
`
`

`

`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. 86390952 BRIGHTSIDE APARTMENTS (Stylized and/or with Design, see http://tsdr.uspto.gov/img/86390952/large) has
`been amended as follows:
`
`EVIDENCE
`Evidence in the nature of a .pdf document containing arguments in response to each refusal raised in the office action dated Dec. 23. 2014. has
`been attached.
`Original PDF file:
`evi_73394320-20150308175518495989_._OAResponse-Brightside.pdf
`Converted PDF file(s) ( 6 pages)
`Evidence-1
`Evidence-2
`Evidence-3
`Evidence-4
`Evidence-5
`Evidence-6
`
`ATTORNEY ADDRESS
`Applicant proposes to amend the following:
`Proposed:
`Antonio Vann of Dunlap Bennett & Ludwig PLLC, having an address of
`211 Church St SE Leesburg, Virginia 20175
`United States
`ip@dbllawyers.com
`855.226.9661
`
`CORRESPONDENCE ADDRESS CHANGE
`Applicant proposes to amend the following:
`Current:
`BRIGHTSIDE APARTMENTS
`594 KENMORE AVE APT 3
`BUFFALO
`New York (NY)
`US
`14216-1609
`
`Proposed:
`Antonio Vann of Dunlap Bennett & Ludwig PLLC, having an address of
`211 Church St SE Leesburg, Virginia 20175
`United States
`ip@dbllawyers.com
`855.226.9661
`
`ADDITIONAL STATEMENTS
`Disclaimer
`No claim is made to the exclusive right to use APARTMENTS apart from the mark as shown.
`
`Description of mark
`The mark consists of a stylized version of two apartment buildings with a stylized house and two shrubs to the left of the apartment buildings on
`a hill, above the wording "BRIGHTSIDE" with a horizontal bar to the left of the wording "APARTMENTS" below.
`
`

`

`SIGNATURE(S)
`Response Signature
`Signature: /avann/     Date: 03/08/2015
`Signatory's Name: Antonio G. Vann
`Signatory's Position: Attorney of Record, VA Bar Member
`
`Signatory's Phone Number: 855.226.9661
`
`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:    Antonio Vann
`   Dunlap Bennett & Ludwig PLLC
`   211 Church St SE
`   Leesburg, Virginia 20175
`
`Serial Number: 86390952
`Internet Transmission Date: Sun Mar 08 17:59:11 EDT 2015
`TEAS Stamp: USPTO/ROA-XX.XX.XX.XX-201503081759110217
`58-86390952-53036eb37e159b173df8dce2f987
`ec555858f56eb6aa3a8c3b6746959eb1e98463-N
`/A-N/A-20150308175518495989
`
`        
`

`

`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`Applicant:
`Serial N0.:
`
`Brightside Apartments
`863 90952
`
`September 10, 2014
`Filed:
`Shavell McPherson-Rayburn
`Trademark Atty:
`BRIGHTSIDE APARTMENTS
`Word Mark:
`
`
`RESPONSE TO DECEMBER 23, 2014 OFFICE ACTION
`
`
`This Response is filed in reply to the Office Action e-mailed on December 23, 2014. The Applicant
`
`respectfully submits the following response. Applicant submits that the above-identified trademark
`
`application for BRIGHTSIDE APARTMENTS is in condition for allowance to publication.
`
`Description Of The Mark Amendment
`
`Applicant requests to adopt the proposed description provided by the Examining attorney, and amend
`
`the description of the mark to the following:
`
`reserves all rights to provide a detailed and more descriptive response if Examining Attorney Shavell
`
`The mark consists of a stylized version of two apartment buildings with a stylized
`house and two shrubs to the left of the apartment buildings on a hill, above the wording
`"BRIGHTSIDE” with a horizontal bar to the left of the wording “APARTMENTS”
`below.
`
`Disclaimer Requirement
`
`Applicant adopts the suggested disclaimer, namely:
`
`No claim is made to the exclusive right to use “APARTMENTS” apart from the mark as
`shown.
`
`Potential Section 2(d) — Likelihood of Confusion
`
`Applicant submits a preliminary response to the potential section 2(d) refusal; however, Applicant
`
`

`

`McPherson-Rayburn raises a Section 2(d) refusal in a subsequent Office Action.
`
`Cited Registered Mark
`
`BRIGHTSIDE
`
`.7
`
`DIAP-u‘dl: BARILEH
`
`_ 5122662606
`
`
`Applicant’s Word & Design Mark
`
`
`
`
`
`—
`
`036: Real estate rental services, namely, rental of
`residential housing
`
`Preliminmy Response with Reservation ofRights
`
`(specimen on record)
`036: Real estate brokerage services
`
`The USPTO suggests that it will refuse registration of Applicant’s mark, BRIGHTSIDE
`
`APARTMENTS, because of a likelihood of confusion with the cited registered mark, BRIGHTSIDE.
`
`“[T]he question of confusion is related not to the nature of the mark but to its effect ‘when applied to
`
`the goods ofthe applicant’” In re E. I. du Pont de Nemours & Ca, 476 F.2d 1357, 1360, 177 USPQ
`
`563, 566 (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 and similarity of the goods and/or services weigh against the registration of Applicant’s mark.
`
`However, Applicant respectfully asserts that when majority of the factors are weighed, they weigh
`
`against the existence of a likelihood of confusion.
`
`Similarity of Conflicting Designations
`
`I.
`BRIGHTSIDE
`APARTMENTS
`
`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 & C0, 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 (BRIGHTSIDE APARTMENTS), and the cited registrations are compared; the
`
`marks give off different commercial expressions. Specifically, the design elements are dominant
`
`features of Applicant’s Mark, which result in a commercial impression that is distinctly different from
`
`the cited registration. Although, the cited registered mark is “BRIGHTSIDE,” the specimen on record
`
`reflects the actual mark is BRIGHTSIDE REALTY. The added “realty” element is significant and
`
`results in a different commercial impression. When comparing how the marks are used in commerce
`
`(based upon the specimen on record), the Applicant’s mark and the cited registrant’s mark do not
`
`appear similar.
`
`in an application or registration or in connection with a prior use of the mark. In re E. I. du Pont de
`
`Visually, the phrase BRIGHTSIDE APARTMENTS is easily distinguished from the cited registration.
`
`Applicant’s mark is a uniquely styled “word & design trademark.” The applied for mark (with its
`
`style and design elements) is significantly different from the cited registration. The two marks give
`
`distinctly different commercial impressions and visual representations. For at least these reasons,
`
`Applicant asserts that the mark BRIGHTSIDE APARTMENTS is significantly different than the cited
`
`registration. This factor weighs in Applicant’s favor.
`
`Similarity 0r Dissimilarity and the Nature ofthe Goods or Services
`
`The second factor is the similarity or dissimilarity and the nature of the goods or services as described
`
`

`

`Nemours & C0., 476 F.2d 1357, 1361, 177 USPQ 563, 567 (C.C.P.A. 1973). While the applicant and
`
`the registrant share the same class, the services are different. Applicant offers rental homes.
`
`further supports the difference in services, as the cited registrant facilitates the “sale” of property,
`
`whereas applicant is renting property.
`
`However, the cited registrant offers brokerage services. In fact the cited registrants specimen of record
`
`no evidence that the prior marks are famous, this factor weighs against a likelihood of confusion.
`
`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. du Pont de Nemours & C0,, 476 F.2d at 1361, 177 USPQ at 567. This factor heavily weighs
`
`against a finding of a likelihood of COIIfilSiOI]. The Applicant’s services, being rental properties, have a
`
`geographic limitation, restricting the services to the state of New York. The Cited Registrant’s
`
`services are also confined to the State of Texas. Therefore, the market interface for the two marks is
`
`low and they do not travel in the same channels of trade.
`
`Conditions Upon Sales Are Made
`
`The fourth factor is the conditions under which and buyers to whom sales are made (i.e. impulse v.
`
`carefiil). Id. There can be no dispute that consumers interested in Applicant’s and Registrant’s services
`
`will make careful and informed decisions. This factor weighs heavily against a likelihood of
`
`confusion between these two marks.
`
`Fame of the Prior Mark
`
`The fifth factor is the fame of the prior mark (e.g., sales, advertising, length of use, eta). Id. There is
`
`

`

`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 or will be confilsed by the use of these two marks. Consequently, Applicant
`
`asserts that this factor weighs in its favor or is at least neutral in the likelihood of confusion analysis.
`
`Whether There Are any Other Established Facts Probative 0f the Effect of Use
`
`The thirteenth factor looks to whether there are any other established facts probative of the effect of
`
`use. Applicant fiirther 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
`
`pipe tobacco not confusingly similar to DUTCH MASTERS for cigars).
`
`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 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. Pannill Knitting Co., 833 F. 2d 1560, 1564, 4 U.S.P.Q. 2d 1793, 1796 (Fed. Cir.
`
`1987) (SWEATS not confilsing 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 RAISTN
`
`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
`
`

`

`by cited registrations "[a] showing of mere possibility of confusion is not enough; a substantial
`
`likelihood that the public will be confused must be shown." Omaha Natl. Bank, 633 F. Supp. at 234,
`
`229 U.S.P.Q. at 52. Applying the factors set forth in Du Font, and absent “substantial doubt,” In re
`
`Mars, Inc., 741 F. 2d 395, 396 222 U.S.P.Q. 938 (Fed. Cir. 1984), registration oprplicant’s mark is
`
`appropriate. 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 BRIGHTSIDE
`
`APARTMENTS does not create a likelihood of confusion with the cited registration.
`
`When determining whether an Applicant’s mark creates a likelihood of confusion, with marks covered
`
`Attorney of Record for the Applicant
`
`CONCLUSION
`
`Applicant has fully responded to the December 23, 2014 Office Action. Majority of the ‘DuPont’
`
`factors weigh in the Applicant’s favor. Furthermore, for at least the above reasons, Applicant asserts
`
`that Applicant’s mark, BRIGHTSIDE APARTMENTS, is sufficiently distinct from the cited
`
`registration that it will not result in consumer confilsion. Applicant respectfully submits in good faith
`
`that all potential 2(d) refilsals, rejections, and/or objections have been overcome and that the applied
`
`for mark is in condition for publication.
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`/Antonio G. Vann/
`
`Antonio G. Vann (VSB # 79765)
`
`

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