To:
`
`Subject:
`
`Sent:
`
`Sent As:
`
`Attachments:
`
`Chastain, Robert H (robert.chastain@gmail.com)
`
`U.S. TRADEMARK APPLICATION NO. 86630461 - XPLODING HOUSEWIVES - Parody Trade
`
`9/15/2015 10:06:48 AM
`
`ECOM104@USPTO.GOV
`
`Attachment - 1
`Attachment - 2
`Attachment - 3
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE (USPTO)
`OFFICE ACTION (OFFICIAL LETTER) ABOUT APPLICANT’S TRADEMARK APPLICATION
`
`*86630461*
`
`CLICK HERE TO RESPOND TO THIS LETTER:
`http://www.uspto.gov/trademarks/teas/response_forms.jsp
`
`VIEW YOUR APPLICATION FILE
`
`U.S. APPLICATION SERIAL NO. (cid:160) 86630461
`
`(cid:160)M
`
`ARK: XPLODING HOUSEWIVES
`
`CORRESPONDENT ADDRESS:
`(cid:160)(cid:160)
`(cid:160)(cid:160) (cid:160) (cid:160) CHASTAIN, ROBERT H
`(cid:160)(cid:160)
`(cid:160)(cid:160) (cid:160) (cid:160) 3011 Prestwyck Haven Dr
`(cid:160) (cid:160) (cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160) Duluth, GA 30097-6208
`
`APPLICANT: Chastain, Robert H
`
`(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)
`CORRESPONDENT’S REFERENCE/DOCKET NO :(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) Parody Trade
`
`robert.chastain@gmail.com
`
`OFFICE ACTION
`
`STRICT DEADLINE TO RESPOND TO THIS LETTER
`TO AVOID ABANDONMENT OF APPLICANT’S TRADEMARK APPLICATION, THE USPTO MUST RECEIVE APPLICANT’S
`COMPLETE RESPONSE TO THIS LETTER WITHIN 6 MONTHS OF THE ISSUE/MAILING DATE BELOW.
`
`(cid:160)I
`
`SSUE/MAILING DATE: 9/15/2015
`
`This letter responds to the applicant’s incoming communication filed on 8/27/15 in which the applicant submitted a substitute specimen. (cid:160) The
`substitute specimen is acceptable.
`
`(cid:160)H
`
`owever, the request for significance regarding the proposed mark is continued and maintained.
`
`(cid:160)M
`
`oreover, upon further review, the proposed mark was found to be confusingly similar to the mark in U.S. Registration No. 3854601. (cid:160)(cid:160)
`
`This Office action supersedes the previous Office action issued on 8/27/15 in connection with this application.
`
`(cid:160)A
`
`pplicant must address all issue(s) raised in this Office action, in addition to the issues raised in the Office action dated 8/27/15.(cid:160)(cid:160)
`
`Applicant must respond to all issues raised in this Office action and the previous 8/27/15 Office action, within six (6) months of the date of
`issuance of this Office action.(cid:160) 37 C.F.R. §2.62(a).(cid:160) If applicant does not respond within this time limit, the application will be abandoned.(cid:160) 37
`C.F.R. §2.65(a).
`
`(cid:160)S
`
`ection 2(d) Refusal – Likelihood of Confusion
`
`(cid:160)R
`
`egistration of the applied-for mark is refused because of a likelihood of confusion with the mark in U.S. Registration No. 3854601.(cid:160) Trademark
`Act Section 2(d), 15 U.S.C. §1052(d); see TMEP §§1207.01 et seq.(cid:160) See the enclosed registration.
`
`(cid:160)
`(cid:160)
`(cid:160)
`(cid:160)
`(cid:160)
`(cid:160)
`

`

`Trademark Act Section 2(d) bars registration of an applied-for mark that so resembles a registered mark that it is likely a potential consumer
`would be confused, 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)
`A determination of likelihood of confusion under Section 2(d) is made on a case-by case basis and the factors set forth in In re E. I. du Pont de
`Nemours & Co., 476 F.2d 1357, 1361, 177 USPQ 563, 567 (C.C.P.A. 1973) aid in this determination.(cid:160) Citigroup Inc. v. Capital City Bank Grp.,
`Inc., 637 F.3d 1344, 1349, 98 USPQ2d 1253, 1256 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (citing On-Line Careline, Inc. v. Am. Online, Inc., 229 F.3d 1080, 1085, 56
`USPQ2d 1471, 1474 (Fed. Cir. 2000)).(cid:160) Not all the du Pont factors, however, are necessarily relevant or of equal weight, and any one of the
`factors may control in a given case, depending upon the evidence of record.(cid:160) Citigroup Inc. v. Capital City Bank Grp., Inc., 637 F.3d at 1355, 98
`USPQ2d at 1260; In re Majestic Distilling Co., 315 F.3d 1311, 1315, 65 USPQ2d 1201, 1204 (Fed. Cir. 2003); see In re E. I. du Pont de
`Nemours & Co., 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 and nature of the goods and/or services, and
`similarity of the trade channels of the goods and/or services.(cid:160) See In re Viterra Inc., 671 F.3d 1358, 1361-62, 101 USPQ2d 1905, 1908 (Fed. Cir.
`2012); In re Dakin’s Miniatures Inc. , 59 USPQ2d 1593, 1595-96 (TTAB 1999); TMEP §§1207.01 et seq.
`
`(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, 1026 (Fed. Cir. 1988).
`
`(cid:160)C
`
`omparison of Marks
`
`(cid:160)T
`
`(cid:160)T
`
`he applicant’s mark is “XPLODING HOUSEWIVES”.
`
`he registrant’s mark is “THE REAL HOUSEWIVES”.
`
`(cid:160)M
`
`arks are compared in their entireties for similarities in appearance, sound, connotation, and commercial impression.(cid:160) Stone Lion Capital
`Partners, LP v. Lion Capital LLP, 746 F.3d 1317, 1321, 110 USPQ2d 1157, 1160 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (quoting Palm Bay Imps., Inc. v. Veuve
`Clicquot Ponsardin Maison Fondee En 1772, 396 F. 3d 1369, 1371, 73 USPQ2d 1689, 1691 (Fed. Cir. 2005)); TMEP §1207.01(b)-(b)(v).(cid:160)
`“Similarity in any one of these elements may be sufficient to find the marks confusingly similar.” (cid:160) In re Davia, 110 USPQ2d 1810, 1812 (TTAB
`2014) (citing In re 1st USA Realty Prof’ls, Inc., 84 USPQ2d 1581, 1586 (TTAB 2007)); In re White Swan Ltd., 8 USPQ2d 1534, 1535 (TTAB
`1988)); TMEP §1207.01(b).
`
`(cid:160)T
`
`he applicant’s mark and the registrant’s mark are closely similar in appearance and commercial impression due to the mutual use of the
`wording “HOUSEWIVES”. (cid:160) Marks may be confusingly similar in appearance where similar terms or phrases or similar parts of terms or
`phrases appear in the compared marks and create a similar overall commercial impression.(cid:160) See Crocker Nat’l Bank v. Canadian Imperial Bank
`of Commerce, 228 USPQ 689, 690-91 (TTAB 1986), aff’d sub nom. Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce v. Wells Fargo Bank, Nat’l Ass’n ,
`811 F.2d 1490, 1495, 1 USPQ2d 1813, 1817 (Fed. Cir. 1987) (finding COMMCASH and COMMUNICASH confusingly similar); In re Corning
`Glass Works, 229 USPQ 65, 66 (TTAB 1985) (finding CONFIRM and CONFIRMCELLS confusingly similar); In re Pellerin Milnor Corp., 221
`USPQ 558, 560 (TTAB 1983) (finding MILTRON and MILLTRONICS confusingly similar); TMEP §1207.01(b)(ii)-(iii).
`
`(cid:160)C
`
`omparison of Goods
`
`(cid:160)T
`
`he applicant’s goods are “computer game software.”
`
`(cid:160)T
`
`he registrant’s goods are “PRE-RECORDED DVDS FEATURING TELEVISION PROGRAMMING OR OTHER ENTERTAINMENT
`PROGRAMMING RELATING TO A REALITY TELEVISION SERIES ABOUT WEALTHY WIVES; DOWNLOADABLE RING TONES;
`INTERACTIVE VIDEO AND COMPUTER GAME PROGRAMS; AND SUNGLASSES.”
`
`(cid:160)W
`
`hen analyzing an applicant’s and registrant’s goods and/or services for similarity and relatedness, that determination is based on the
`description of the goods and/or services stated in the application and registration at issue, not on extrinsic evidence of actual use.(cid:160) See Octocom
`Sys. Inc. v. Hous. Computers Servs. Inc., 918 F.2d 937, 942, 16 USPQ2d 1783, 1787 (Fed. Cir. 1990); see also Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Packard
`
`Press Inc., 281 F.3d 1261, 1267, 62 USPQ2d 1001, 1004 (Fed. Cir. 2002).(cid:160)(cid:160)
`
`Absent restrictions in an application and/or registration, the identified goods and/or services are presumed to travel in the same channels of trade
`to the same class of purchasers.(cid:160) Citigroup Inc. v. Capital City Bank Grp., Inc., 637 F.3d 1344, 1356, 98 USPQ2d 1253, 1261 (Fed. Cir. 2011);
`Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Packard Press Inc., 281 F.3d at 1268, 62 USPQ2d at 1005.(cid:160) Additionally, unrestricted and broad identifications are
`presumed to encompass all goods and/or services of the type described.(cid:160) See In re Jump Designs, 80 USPQ2d 1370, 1374 (TTAB 2006); In re
`
`Linkvest S.A., 24 USPQ2d 1716, 1716 (TTAB 1992).(cid:160)(cid:160)
`
`In this case, the identifications set forth in the application and registration(s) are identical and have no restrictions as to nature, type, channels of
`
`

`

`trade, or classes of purchasers.(cid:160) Therefore, it is presumed that these goods and/or services travel in all normal channels of trade, and are available
`to the same class of purchasers.(cid:160) See Midwestern Pet Foods, Inc. v. Societe des Produits Nestle S.A., 685 F.3d 1046, 1053, 103 USPQ2d 1435,
`1440 (Fed. Cir. 2012).(cid:160) Accordingly, the goods and/or services of applicant and the registrant(s) are considered related for purposes of the
`likelihood of confusion analysis.
`
`(cid:160)B
`
`ecause the goods are identical and the marks closely similar, a Section 2(d) refusal is issued in the present case.
`
`(cid:160)A
`
`lthough applicant’s mark has been refused registration, applicant may respond to the refusal(s) by submitting evidence and arguments in
`support of registration.
`
`(cid:160)I
`
`f applicant responds to the refusal(s), applicant must also respond to the requirement(s) set forth below.
`
`(cid:160)S
`
`ignificance of Wording
`
`(cid:160)A
`
`pplicant must specify whether the wording “XPLODING” and “HOUSEWIVES” has any significance in the computer game trade or
`industry or as applied to the goods and/or services described in the application, or if such wording is a “term of art” within applicant’s industry.(cid:160)
`See 37 C.F.R. §2.61(b); TMEP §814.
`
`(cid:160)F
`
`ailure to respond to a request for information is an additional ground for refusing registration.(cid:160) See In re Cheezwhse.com, Inc., 85 USPQ2d 1917,
`1919 (TTAB 2008); In re DTI P’ship LLP , 67 USPQ2d 1699, 1701 (TTAB 2003); TMEP §814.
`
`(cid:160)R
`
`esponse
`
`(cid:160)F
`
`or this application to proceed toward registration, applicant must explicitly address each refusal and/or requirement raised in this Office action.(cid:160)
`If the action includes a refusal, applicant may provide arguments and/or evidence as to why the refusal should be withdrawn and the mark should
`register.(cid:160) Applicant may also have other options for responding to a refusal and should consider such options carefully.(cid:160) To respond to
`requirements and certain refusal response options, applicant should set forth in writing the required changes or statements.
`
`(cid:160)I
`
`f applicant does not respond to this Office action within six months of the issue/mailing date, or responds by expressly abandoning the
`application, the application process will end, the trademark will fail to register, and the application fee will not be refunded.(cid:160) See 15 U.S.C.
`§1062(b); 37 C.F.R. §§2.65(a), 2.68(a), 2.209(a); TMEP §§405.04, 718.01, 718.02.(cid:160) Where the application has been abandoned for failure to
`respond to an Office action, applicant’s only option would be to file a timely petition to revive the application, which, if granted, would allow
`the application to return to active status.(cid:160) See 37 C.F.R. §2.66; TMEP §1714.(cid:160) There is a $100 fee for such petitions.(cid:160) See 37 C.F.R. §§2.6,
`2.66(b)(1).
`
`TEAS PLUS OR TEAS REDUCED FEE (TEAS RF) APPLICANTS – TO MAINTAIN LOWER FEE, ADDITIONAL
`REQUIREMENTS MUST BE MET, INCLUDING SUBMITTING DOCUMENTS ONLINE:(cid:160) Applicants who filed their application
`online using the lower-fee TEAS Plus or TEAS RF application form must (1) file certain documents online using TEAS, including responses to
`Office actions (see TMEP §§819.02(b), 820.02(b) for a complete list of these documents); (2) maintain a valid e-mail correspondence address;
`and (3) agree to receive correspondence from the USPTO by e-mail throughout the prosecution of the application.(cid:160) See 37 C.F.R. §§2.22(b),
`2.23(b); TMEP §§819, 820.(cid:160) TEAS Plus or TEAS RF applicants who do not meet these requirements must submit an additional processing fee of
`$50 per international class of goods and/or services.(cid:160) 37 C.F.R. §§2.6(a)(1)(v), 2.22(c), 2.23(c); TMEP §§819.04, 820.04.(cid:160) However, in certain
`situations, TEAS Plus or TEAS RF applicants may respond to an Office action by authorizing an examiner’s amendment by telephone without
`incurring this additional fee.(cid:160)
`Because of the legal technicalities and strict deadlines involved in the USPTO application process, applicant may wish to hire a private
`attorney specializing in trademark matters to represent applicant in this process and provide legal advice.(cid:160) Although the undersigned trademark
`examining attorney is permitted to help an applicant understand the contents of an Office action as well as the application process in general, no
`
`USPTO attorney or staff is permitted to give an applicant legal advice or statements about an applicant’s legal rights. (cid:160) TMEP §§705.02, 709.06.(cid:160)(cid:160)
`
`the American Bar Association’s Consumers’ Guide to Legal Help at
`information, applicant may consult
`For attorney referral
`http://www.abanet.org/legalservices/findlegalhelp/home.cfm, an attorney referral service of a state or local bar association, or a local telephone
`directory.(cid:160) The USPTO may not assist an applicant in the selection of a private attorney.(cid:160) 37 C.F.R. §2.11.
`
`/Angela Duong/
`Angela G. Duong
`Examining Attorney
`Law Office 104
`O: (571) 272-1347
`F:(cid:160) (571) 272-9104
`angela.duong@uspto.gov
`
`(cid:160)
`(cid:160)(cid:160)
`

`

`(cid:160)T
`
`O RESPOND TO THIS LETTER: (cid:160) Go to http://www.uspto.gov/trademarks/teas/response_forms.jsp. (cid:160) Please wait 48-72 hours from the
`issue/mailing date before using the Trademark Electronic Application System (TEAS), to allow for necessary system updates of the application.(cid:160)
`For technical assistance with online forms, e-mail TEAS@uspto.gov.(cid:160) For questions about the Office action itself, please contact the assigned
`trademark examining attorney.(cid:160) E-mail communications will not be accepted as responses to Office actions; therefore, do not respond to
`this Office action by e-mail.
`
`(cid:160)A
`
`ll informal e-mail communications relevant to this application will be placed in the official application record.
`
`(cid:160)W
`
`HO MUST SIGN THE RESPONSE:(cid:160) It must be personally signed by an individual applicant or someone with legal authority to bind an
`applicant (i.e., a corporate officer, a general partner, all joint applicants).(cid:160) If an applicant is represented by an attorney, the attorney must sign the
`
`response.(cid:160)(cid:160)
`PERIODICALLY CHECK THE STATUS OF THE APPLICATION: (cid:160) To ensure that applicant does not miss crucial deadlines or official
`notices, check the status of the application every three to four months using the Trademark Status and Document Retrieval (TSDR) system at
`http://tsdr.uspto.gov/. (cid:160) Please keep a copy of the TSDR status screen. (cid:160) If the status shows no change for more than six months, contact the
`Trademark Assistance Center by e-mail at TrademarkAssistanceCenter@uspto.gov or call 1-800-786-9199. (cid:160) For more information on checking
`status, see http://www.uspto.gov/trademarks/process/status/.
`
`(cid:160)T
`
`O UPDATE CORRESPONDENCE/E-MAIL ADDRESS:(cid:160) Use the TEAS form at http://www.uspto.gov/trademarks/teas/correspondence.jsp.
`
`(cid:160)(cid:160)
`

`

`Print: Sep 14, 2015
`
`7711-6689
`
`DESIGN MARK
`
`Serial Number
`11146689
`
`Status
`REGISTERED
`
`Word Mark
`THE REAL HCDSEWINES
`
`Standard Character Mark
`Yes
`
`Registration Number
`3054501
`
`Date Registered
`2010109120
`
`Type ef Marl:
`TRADEMARK
`
`Register
`PRINCIPAL
`
`Mark Drawing Code
`[4]
`STANDARD CHARACTER MARK
`
`Owner
`Bravo Media LLC LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY NEW YORK 30 Rockefeller
`Plaza New York NEW YORK 10112
`
`Goodsfserviees
`U21 U23 U25 U35 U33.
`US
`IO U09.
`Class Status -- ACTIVE:
`PRE-RECORDED DVDS FEATURING TELEVISION PROGRAMMING OR OTHER
`ENTERTRINMENT PROGRAMMING RELHTING TO H_REfiLITY TELEVISION SERIES
`
`G S: S:
`
`INTERHCTIVE VIDEO J-‘IND
`HBOUT WEALTHY WIVES; DOWNLOHDHBLE RING TUNES;
`COMPUTER GHME PROGRHMS: END SUNGLHSSES. First USE: EOOTKOQKO4. First
`Use In Commerce: 2007/OQXO4.
`
`Disclaimer Statement
`N0 CLAIM IS MADE T0 THE EXCLUSIVE RIGHT T0 USE "HOUSEWIVES" ASART ERCM
`THE MRRK AS SHOWN.
`
`Filing Date
`200Sx05/28
`
`Examining Attorney
`JACKSCN, STEVEN
`
`

`

`Print: Sep 14, 2015
`
`7711-6689
`
`Attorney of Record
`Monique Chang Joe
`
`

`

`THE REAL HOUSEWIVES
`
`

`

`To:
`
`Subject:
`
`Sent:
`
`Sent As:
`
`Attachments:
`
`Chastain, Robert H (robert.chastain@gmail.com)
`
`U.S. TRADEMARK APPLICATION NO. 86630461 - XPLODING HOUSEWIVES - Parody Trade
`
`9/15/2015 10:06:49 AM
`
`ECOM104@USPTO.GOV
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE (USPTO)
`
`IMPORTANT NOTICE REGARDING YOUR
`U.S. TRADEMARK APPLICATION
`
`USPTO OFFICE ACTION (OFFICIAL LETTER) HAS ISSUED
`ON 9/15/2015 FOR U.S. APPLICATION SERIAL NO. 86630461
`
`Your trademark application has been reviewed.(cid:160) The trademark examining attorney assigned by the USPTO to your application has written an
`official letter to which you must respond.(cid:160) Please follow these steps:
`
`(cid:160)(
`
`1)(cid:160) READ THE LETTER by clicking on this link or going to http://tsdr.uspto.gov/, entering your U.S. application serial number, and clicking
`on “Documents.”
`
`(cid:160)T
`
`he Office action may not be immediately viewable, to allow for necessary system updates of the application, but will be available within 24
`
`hours of this e-mail notification.(cid:160)(cid:160)
`(2)(cid:160) RESPOND WITHIN 6 MONTHS (or sooner if specified in the Office action), calculated from 9/15/2015, using the Trademark Electronic
`Application System (TEAS) response form located at http://www.uspto.gov/trademarks/teas/response_forms.jsp.(cid:160)(cid:160)
`Do NOT hit “Reply” to this e-mail notification, or otherwise e-mail your response because the USPTO does NOT accept e-mails as
`responses to Office actions.(cid:160)(cid:160)
`(3)(cid:160) QUESTIONS about the contents of the Office action itself should be directed to the trademark examining attorney who reviewed your
`application, identified below.(cid:160)(cid:160)
`
`/Angela Duong/
`Angela G. Duong
`Examining Attorney
`Law Office 104
`O: (571) 272-1347
`F:(cid:160) (571) 272-9104
`angela.duong@uspto.gov
`
`WARNING
`
`Failure to file the required response by the applicable response deadline will result in the ABANDONMENT of your application.(cid:160) For
`
`more information regarding abandonment, see http://www.uspto.gov/trademarks/basics/abandon.jsp.(cid:160)(cid:160)
`
`PRIVATE COMPANY SOLICITATIONS REGARDING YOUR APPLICATION:(cid:160) Private companies not associated with the USPTO are
`using information provided in trademark applications to mail or e-mail trademark-related solicitations.(cid:160) These companies often use names that
`closely resemble the USPTO and their solicitations may look like an official government document.(cid:160) Many solicitations require that you pay
`
`“fees.” (cid:160)(cid:160)
`
`Please carefully review all correspondence you receive regarding this application to make sure that you are responding to an official document
`from the USPTO rather than a private company solicitation.(cid:160) All official USPTO correspondence will be mailed only from the “United States
`
`(cid:160)(cid:160)
`(cid:160)
`(cid:160)
`(cid:160)
`(cid:160)
`

`

`Patent and Trademark Office” in Alexandria, VA; or sent by e-mail from the domain “@uspto.gov.” (cid:160) For more information on how to handle
`private company solicitations, see http://www.uspto.gov/trademarks/solicitation_warnings.jsp.
`
`(cid:160)(cid:160)
`