throbber
To:
`
`Subject:
`
`Sent:
`
`Sent As:
`
`Attachments:
`
`Mouseprint Media, LLC (eric@behindthemouse.com)
`
`U.S. TRADEMARK APPLICATION NO. 88312616 - DISGEAR EST. 2014 LIVE THE MAGIC - N/A
`
`5/14/2019 8:50:03 PM
`
`ECOM124@USPTO.GOV
`
`Attachment - 1
`Attachment - 2
`Attachment - 3
`Attachment - 4
`Attachment - 5
`Attachment - 6
`Attachment - 7
`Attachment - 8
`Attachment - 9
`Attachment - 10
`Attachment - 11
`Attachment - 12
`Attachment - 13
`Attachment - 14
`Attachment - 15
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE (USPTO)
`OFFICE ACTION (OFFICIAL LETTER) ABOUT APPLICANT’S TRADEMARK APPLICATION
`
`U.S. APPLICATION SERIAL NO.  
`88312616
`
`           
`
`MARK: DISGEAR EST. 2014 LIVE
`THE MAGIC
`
`CORRESPONDENT ADDRESS:
`  
`       MOUSEPRINT MEDIA, LLC
`  
`       MOUSEPRINT MEDIA, LLC
`         7046 SPRING PARK DRIVE
`
`         
`
`HTTP://MYFAVORITEDISGEAR.COM
`    
`    WINTER GARDEN, FL 34787
`APPLICANT: Mouseprint Media, LLC
`
`    
`
`*88312616*
`
`CLICK HERE TO RESPOND TO THIS
`LETTER:
`http://www.uspto.gov/trademarks/teas/response_forms.jsp
`
`VIEW YOUR APPLICATION FILE
`
`CORRESPONDENT’S
`
`REFERENCE/DOCKET NO:       
`
`  N/A
`CORRESPONDENT E-MAIL
`
`   
`
`ADDRESS:       
`
`eric@behindthemouse.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.   A RESPONSE
`TRANSMITTED THROUGH THE TRADEMARK ELECTRONIC APPLICATION SYSTEM (TEAS) MUST BE RECEIVED BEFORE
`MIDNIGHT EASTERN TIME OF THE LAST DAY OF THE RESPONSE PERIOD.
`








`

`

`ISSUE/MAILING DATE: 5/14/2019
`The referenced application has been reviewed by the assigned trademark examining attorney.  Applicant must respond timely and completely to
`the issue(s) below.  15 U.S.C. §1062(b); 37 C.F.R. §§2.62(a), 2.65(a); TMEP §§711, 718.03.
`Summary Of Issues:
`Section 2(a) Refusal – False Connection
`Inquiry About Relationship Between Applicant and Disney 
`Section 2(d) Refusal- Likelihood of Confusion
`Disclaimer
`Mark Description Amendment Required   
`Advisory – Applicant May Wish to Seek US Trademark Counsel
`
`(4)      
`
`(2)      
`(3)      
`
`Section 2(a) Refusal – False Connection
`Registration is refused because the applied-for mark consists of or includes matter which may falsely suggest a connection with Disney
`Enterprises, Inc. (“Disney”).   Trademark Act Section 2(a), 15 U.S.C. §1052(a).  Although Disney Enterprises, Inc. is not connected with the
`goods provided by applicant under the applied-for mark, Disney is so well-known that consumers would presume a connection.  See id.
`Under Trademark Act Section 2(a), the registration of a mark that “consists of or comprises matter that may falsely suggest a connection with
`persons, institutions, beliefs, or national symbols” is prohibited.   In re Pedersen, 109 USPQ2d 1185, 1188 (TTAB 2013).  To establish that an
`applied-for mark falsely suggests a connection with a person or an institution, the following is required:
`(1)      
`The mark sought to be registered is the same as, or a close approximation of, the name or identity previously used by another
`person or institution.
`The mark would be recognized as such, in that it points uniquely and unmistakably to that person or institution.
`The person or institution identified in the mark is not connected with the goods sold or services performed by applicant under the
`mark.
`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 presumed when applicant’s mark is used on its goods and/or services.
`In re Pedersen, 109 USPQ2d at 1188-89; In re Jackson Int’l Trading Co. , 103 USPQ2d 1417, 1419 (TTAB 2012); TMEP §1203.03(c)(i); see
`also Univ. of Notre Dame du Lac v. J.C. Gourmet Food Imps. Co., 703 F.2d 1372, 1375-77, 217 USPQ 505, 508-10 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (providing
`foundational principles for the current four-part test used to determine the existence of a false connection).
`First, the mark sought to be registered is the same as, or a close approximation of, the iconic Disney mouse head.  Specifically, the silhouette
`design of three circles which form a silhouette design of a mouse's head.  See attached evidence from https://disneyworld.disney.go.com/,
`https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Walt_Disney_Company, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mickey_Mouse.
`Typically, the fact that an applicant did not intend to adopt the name of, or trade upon the goodwill of, the named person or institution does not
`obviate a false connection refusal.  Trademark Act Section 2(a) does not require such intent.  TMEP §1203.03(c)(i); see, e.g., S & L Acquisition
`Co. v. Helene Arpels, Inc., 9 USPQ2d 1221, 1224 (TTAB 1987); Consol. Natural Gas v. CNG Fuel Sys., Ltd., 228 USPQ 752, 754 (TTAB
`1985).  However, evidence of such intent is highly probative that the public will make the intended false connection.  Univ. of Notre Dame du
`Lac v. J.C. Gourmet Food Imps. Co., 703 F.2d 1372, 1377, 217 USPQ 505, 509 (Fed. Cir. 1983); TMEP §1203.03(c)(i).
`In the present case, applicant provides Disney fan made apparel.  See attached evidence from https://myfavoritedisgear.com/pages/about-us. 
`Specifically, applicant references Disney in its description of several of its apparel which shows that applicant intends to trade upon the goodwill
`of Disney.  See attached evidence from Amazon and DisGear.
`Second, the mark would be recognized as such, in that it points uniquely and unmistakably to that person or institution because the silhouette of
`Mickey Mouse’s head is a cultural icon and instantaneously recognizable by the general public.   See
`https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mickey_Mouse.
`Third, the person or institution identified in the mark is not connected with the goods provided by the applicant under the mark as shown by
`applicant’s webpage disclaimer stating that “Mouseprint Media, LLC, and Behind The Mouse are not affiliated with The Walt Disney Company
`or any of its affiliates.”   See attached evidence from https://myfavoritedisgear.com/pages/about-us.
`Lastly, 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
`presumed when applicant’s mark is used on its services.
`If applicant’s goods and/or services are of a type that the named person or institution sells or uses, and the named party is sufficiently famous,
`then it may be inferred that purchasers of the goods and/or services would be misled into making a false connection of sponsorship, approval,
`support or the like with the named party.  See, e.g., In re Nieves & Nieves LLC, 113 USPQ2d 1639, 1647-48 (TTAB 2015) (holding ROYAL
`KATE used with applicant’s consumer products, including fashion products, suggested a connection with Kate Middleton would be inferred
`because evidence showed that Kate Middleton, by virtue of being the wife of Prince William of the British Royal family, has become a celebrity
`and fashion trend-setter the media reports on, including the clothes she wears, what she does, and what she buys); In re Cotter & Co., 228 USPQ
`202, 204-05 (TTAB 1985) (holding WESTPOINT used with applicant’s firearms suggested sponsorship, approval, support or the like from West
`Point because evidence showed that West Point is a well-known U.S. Military Academy).
`Thus, the applied-for mark creates a false suggestion of a connection with a famous institution and registration is properly refused under Section
`2(a) of the Trademark Act.
`

`  
`

`

`Although applicant’s mark has been refused registration, applicant may respond to the refusal(s) by submitting evidence and arguments in
`support of registration.
`
`Inquiry About Relationship Between Applicant and Disney 
`Due to the renown of the institution or person named in the mark, and the fact that there is no information in the application record regarding a
`connection with applicant, applicant must specify whether the person or institution named in the mark has any connection with applicant’s goods
`and/or services, and if so, must describe the nature and extent of that connection.  See 37 C.F.R. §2.61(b); TMEP §1203.03(c)(i). 
`Applicant should note the following additional grounds for refusal.
`Section 2(d) Refusal- Likelihood of Confusion
`
`Registration of the applied-for mark is refused because of a likelihood of confusion with the mark in U.S. Registration No. 2784058.  Trademark
`Act Section 2(d), 15 U.S.C. §1052(d); see TMEP §§1207.01 et seq.  See the attached registration.
`
`Applicant’s mark is the wording DISGEAR EST. 2014 LIVE THE MAGIC within three circles with a gear design outline which form a
`silhouette design of a mouse's head for “Hats; Hoodies; Jackets; Pants; Sweatshirts; T-shirts; Tank tops” in International Class 025.
`
`Registrant’s mark is a design mark of three circles which form a silhouette design of a mouse's head for “T-shirts, [shorts, swim trunks],
`baseball caps, [ visors, polar fleece caps, ] mittens, underwear, jackets, sweatshirts,[ infant sleepers], infant pants, infant shirts, swimsuits” in
`International Class 025.
`
`Trademark Act Section 2(d) bars registration of an applied-for mark that is so similar to a registered mark that it is likely consumers would be
`confused, mistaken, or deceived as to the commercial source of the goods and/or services of the parties.  See 15 U.S.C. §1052(d).  Likelihood of
`confusion is determined on a case-by-case basis by applying 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) (called the “ du Pont factors”).   In re i.am.symbolic, llc, 866 F.3d 1315, 1322, 123 USPQ2d 1744, 1747
`(Fed. Cir. 2017).  Only those factors that are “relevant and of record” need be considered.   M2 Software, Inc. v. M2 Commc’ns, Inc. , 450
`F.3d 1378, 1382, 78 USPQ2d 1944, 1947 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (citing Shen Mfg. Co. v. Ritz Hotel Ltd., 393 F.3d 1238, 1241, 73 USPQ2d
`
`1350, 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2004)); see In re Inn at St. John’s, LLC , 126 USPQ2d 1742, 1744 (TTAB 2018).  
`
`Although not all du Pont factors may be relevant, there are generally two key considerations in any likelihood of confusion analysis:  (1) the
`similarities between the compared marks and (2) the relatedness of the compared goods and/or services.  See In re i.am.symbolic, llc, 866 F.3d at
`1322, 123 USPQ2d at 1747 (quoting Herbko Int’l, Inc. v. Kappa Books, Inc. , 308 F.3d 1156, 1164-65, 64 USPQ2d 1375, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2002));
`Federated Foods, Inc. v. Fort Howard Paper Co., 544 F.2d 1098, 1103, 192 USPQ 24, 29 (C.C.P.A. 1976) (“The fundamental inquiry mandated
`by [Section] 2(d) goes to the cumulative effect of differences in the essential characteristics of the goods [or services] and differences in the
`marks.”); TMEP §1207.01.
`
`Similarity of Marks
`
`Marks are compared in their entireties for similarities in appearance, sound, connotation, and commercial impression.  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). 
`“Similarity in any one of these elements may be sufficient to find the marks confusingly similar.”   In re Inn at St. John’s, LLC, 126 USPQ2d
`1742, 1746 (TTAB 2018) (citing In re Davia, 110 USPQ2d 1810, 1812 (TTAB 2014)); TMEP §1207.01(b).
`
`Applicant’s mark is the wording DISGEAR EST. 2014 LIVE THE MAGIC within three circles with a gear design outline which form a
`silhouette design of a mouse's head.
`
`Registrant’s mark is a design mark of three circles which form a silhouette design of a mouse's head.
`When the marks at issue are both contain design marks, similarity of the marks is determined primarily on the basis of visual similarity.  See, e.g.,
`Volkswagenwerk Aktiengesellschaft v. Rose ‘Vear Enters. , 592 F.2d 1180, 1183, 201 USPQ 7, 9 (C.C.P.A. 1979) (quoting In re ATV Network
`Ltd., 552 F.2d 925, 929, 193 USPQ 331, 332 (C.C.P.A. 1977)); Ft. James Operating Co. v. Royal Paper Converting Inc., 83 USPQ2d 1624, 1628
`(TTAB 2007); TMEP §1207.01(c).  However, a side-by-side comparison is not the test.  See Grandpa Pidgeon’s of Mo., Inc. v. Borgsmiller , 477
`F.2d 586, 587, 177 USPQ 573, 574 (C.C.P.A. 1973).  When comparing design marks, the focus is on the overall commercial impression
`conveyed by such marks, not on specific differences.  See Grandpa Pidgeon’s of Mo., Inc. v. Borgsmiller , 477 F.2d at 587, 177 USPQ at 574; In
`re Triple R Mfg. Corp., 168 USPQ 447, 448 (TTAB 1970); TMEP §1207.01(c).  In this case, both marks contain three circles or bisected circles
`which form a silhouette design of a mouse's head.
`When the marks at issue are both contain design marks, similarity of the marks is determined primarily on the basis of visual similarity.  See, e.g.,
`Volkswagenwerk Aktiengesellschaft v. Rose ‘Vear Enters. , 592 F.2d 1180, 1183, 201 USPQ 7, 9 (C.C.P.A. 1979) (quoting In re ATV Network
`Ltd., 552 F.2d 925, 929, 193 USPQ 331, 332 (C.C.P.A. 1977)); Ft. James Operating Co. v. Royal Paper Converting Inc., 83 USPQ2d 1624, 1628
`(TTAB 2007); TMEP §1207.01(c).  However, a side-by-side comparison is not the test.  See Grandpa Pidgeon’s of Mo., Inc. v. Borgsmiller , 477
`









`

`

`F.2d 586, 587, 177 USPQ 573, 574 (C.C.P.A. 1973).  When comparing design marks, the focus is on the overall commercial impression
`conveyed by such marks, not on specific differences.  See Grandpa Pidgeon’s of Mo., Inc. v. Borgsmiller , 477 F.2d at 587, 177 USPQ at 574; In
`re Triple R Mfg. Corp., 168 USPQ 447, 448 (TTAB 1970); TMEP §1207.01(c).
`Furthermore, where the goods of an applicant and registrant are identical or virtually identical, the degree of similarity between the marks
`required to support a finding that confusion is likely declines.  See Cai v. Diamond Hong, Inc., __ F.3d __, 127 USPQ2d 1797, 1801 (Fed. Cir.
`2018) (quoting In re Viterra Inc., 671 F.3d 1358, 1363, 101 USPQ2d 1905, 1908 (Fed. Cir. 2012)); TMEP §1207.01(b).
`Thus, the marks are considered similar for likelihood of confusion purposes.
`Similarity of the Goods
`The compared goods and/or services need not be identical or even competitive to find a likelihood of confusion.  See On-line Careline Inc. v. Am.
`Online Inc., 229 F.3d 1080, 1086, 56 USPQ2d 1471, 1475 (Fed. Cir. 2000); Recot, Inc. v. Becton, 214 F.3d 1322, 1329, 54 USPQ2d 1894, 1898
`(Fed. Cir. 2000); TMEP §1207.01(a)(i).  They need only be “related in some manner and/or if the circumstances surrounding their marketing are
`such that they could give rise to the mistaken belief that [the goods and/or services] emanate from the same source.”   Coach Servs., Inc. v.
`Triumph Learning LLC, 668 F.3d 1356, 1369, 101 USPQ2d 1713, 1722 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (quoting 7-Eleven Inc. v. Wechsler, 83 USPQ2d 1715,
`1724 (TTAB 2007)); TMEP §1207.01(a)(i).
`Applicant’s goods are “Hats; Hoodies; Jackets; Pants; Sweatshirts; T-shirts; Tank tops” in International Class 025.
`
`Registrant’s goods are “T-shirts, [shorts, swim trunks], baseball caps, [ visors, polar fleece caps, ] mittens, underwear, jackets, sweatshirts,[
`infant sleepers], infant pants, infant shirts, swimsuits” in International Class 025.
`
`Determining likelihood of confusion 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.  See In re Detroit Athletic Co., 903 F.3d 1297, 1307, 128 USPQ2d 1047, 1052 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (citing In re
`
`i.am.symbolic, llc, 866 F.3d 1315, 1325, 123 USPQ2d 1744, 1749 (Fed. Cir. 2017)).   
`
`In this case, the application use(s) broad wording to describe “ Hats; Hoodies; Jackets; Pants; Sweatshirts; T-shirts; Tank tops,” which
`presumably encompasses all goods and/or services of the type described, including registrant(s)’s more narrow “ T-shirts, [shorts, swim trunks],
`baseball caps, [ visors, polar fleece caps, ] mittens, underwear, jackets, sweatshirts,[ infant sleepers], infant pants, infant shirts.”   See, e.g., In re
`Solid State Design Inc., 125 USPQ2d 1409, 1412-15 (TTAB 2018); Sw. Mgmt., Inc. v. Ocinomled, Ltd., 115 USPQ2d 1007, 1025 (TTAB 2015). 
`Thus, applicant’s and registrant’s goods are legally identical.  See, e.g., In re i.am.symbolic, llc, 127 USPQ2d 1627, 1629 (TTAB 2018) (citing
`Tuxedo Monopoly, Inc. v.Gen. Mills Fun Grp., Inc., 648 F.2d 1335, 1336, 209 USPQ 986, 988 (C.C.P.A. 1981); Inter IKEA Sys. B.V. v. Akea,
`LLC, 110 USPQ2d 1734, 1745 (TTAB 2014); Baseball Am. Inc. v. Powerplay Sports Ltd., 71 USPQ2d 1844, 1847 n.9 (TTAB 2004)).
`
`Additionally, the goods and/or services of the parties have no restrictions as to nature, type, channels of trade, or classes of purchasers and are
`“presumed to travel in the same channels of trade to the same class of purchasers.”   In re Viterra Inc., 671 F.3d 1358, 1362, 101 USPQ2d 1905,
`1908 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (quoting Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Packard Press, Inc., 281 F.3d 1261, 1268, 62 USPQ2d 1001, 1005 (Fed. Cir. 2002)). 
`Thus, applicant’s and registrant’s goods and/or services are related.
`
`Decisions regarding likelihood of confusion in the clothing field have found many different types of apparel to be related goods.  Cambridge
`Rubber Co. v. Cluett, Peabody & Co., 286 F.2d 623, 624, 128 USPQ 549, 550 (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, 1236 (TTAB 1992) (underwear related to neckties); In re Melville
`Corp., 18 USPQ2d 1386, 1388 (TTAB 1991) (women’s pants, blouses, shorts and jackets related to women’s shoes); In re Pix of Am., Inc., 225
`USPQ 691, 691-92 (TTAB 1985) (women’s shoes related to outer shirts); In re Mercedes Slacks, Ltd., 213 USPQ 397, 398-99 (TTAB 1982)
`(hosiery related to trousers); In re Cook United, Inc., 185 USPQ 444, 445 (TTAB 1975) (men’s suits, coats, and trousers related to ladies’
`pantyhose and hosiery); Esquire Sportswear Mfg. Co. v. Genesco Inc., 141 USPQ 400, 404 (TTAB 1964) (brassieres and girdles related to slacks
`for men and young men).
`In conclusion, upon encountering applicant’s and registrant’s marks used on the identified goods, consumers are likely to be confused and
`mistakenly believe that the respective goods emanate from a common source.  Accordingly, registration of the applied-for mark is refused
`because of a likelihood of confusion with the mark in U.S. Registration No. 2784058. Trademark Act Section 2(d), 15 U.S.C. §1052(d); see
`TMEP §§1207.01 et seq.
`Although applicant’s mark has been refused registration, applicant may respond to the refusal(s) by submitting evidence and arguments in
`support of registration.
`Disclaimer
`
`Applicant must provide a disclaimer of the unregistrable part(s) of the applied-for mark even though the mark as a whole appears to be
`registrable.  See 15 U.S.C. §1056(a); TMEP §§1213, 1213.03(a).  A disclaimer of an unregistrable part of a mark will not affect the mark’s
`appearance.  See Schwarzkopf v. John H. Breck, Inc., 340 F.2d 978, 979-80, 144 USPQ 433, 433 (C.C.P.A. 1965).
`
`In this case, applicant must disclaim the wording “ EST. 2014” because it is not inherently distinctive.   These unregistrable term(s) at best are
`merely descriptive of an ingredient, quality, characteristic, function, feature, purpose, or use of applicant’s goods and/or services.   See 15 U.S.C.
`§1052(e)(1); DuoProSS Meditech Corp. v. Inviro Med. Devices, Ltd., 695 F.3d 1247, 1251, 103 USPQ2d 1753, 1755 (Fed. Cir. 2012); TMEP
`§§1213, 1213.03(a). 
`






`

`

`The attached evidence from the Merriam-Webster Dictionary Online shows the wording EST. means “established” and 2014 is a year.   Thus,
`the wording merely describes information about applicant’s company, namely, that is was created in the year 2014.
`
`Applicant may respond to this issue by submitting a disclaimer in the following format:  
`No claim is made to the exclusive right to use “EST. 2014” apart from the mark as shown.  
`Disclaimer webpage.   
`
`For an overview of disclaimers and instructions on how to satisfy this issue using the Trademark Electronic Application System (TEAS), see the
`
`Mark Description Amendment
`Applicant must submit an amended description of the mark because the current one is incomplete and does not describe all the significant aspects
`of the mark.  37 C.F.R. §2.37; see TMEP §§808.01, 808.02.  Descriptions must be accurate and identify all the literal and design elements in the
`mark.  See 37 C.F.R. §2.37; TMEP §§808 et seq. 
`The following description is suggested, if accurate:  The mark consists of Two half circles, enclosed in gear teeth, at the top right and left. The
`top gear half circles are attached by a smaller half gear section. The circles create a silhouette design of a mouse's head. A curved banner
`bisects the center of the design with the stylized wording DISGEAR. At the bottom is a centered half circle containing EST 2014. The next half
`circle to the bottom contains LIVE THE MAGIC. below is another half circle. Below is a half circle made of gear teeth.
`
`Advisory – Applicant May Wish to Seek US Trademark Counsel
`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.  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.   TMEP §§705.02, 709.06. 
`For attorney referral information, applicant may consult the American Bar Association’s Consumers’ Guide to Legal Help ; an online directory
`of legal professionals, such as FindLaw®; or a local telephone directory.  The USPTO, however, may not assist an applicant in the selection of a
`private attorney.  37 C.F.R. §2.11.
`
`Assistance
`
`If applicant has questions regarding this Office Action, please call or email the assigned trademark examining attorney with questions about this
`Office action.  Although the trademark examining attorney cannot provide legal advice or statements about applicant’s rights, the trademark
`examining attorney can provide applicant with additional explanation about the refusal(s) and/or requirement(s) in this Office action.  See TMEP
`§§705.02, 709.06.  Although the USPTO does not accept emails as responses to Office actions, emails can be used for informal communications
`
`and will be included in the application record.  See 37 C.F.R. §§2.62(c), 2.191; TMEP §§304.01-.02, 709.04-.05.  
`
`Response guidelines.  For this application to proceed, applicant must explicitly address each refusal and/or requirement in this Office action.  For
`a refusal, applicant may provide written arguments and evidence against the refusal, and may have other response options if specified above.  For
`a requirement, applicant should set forth the changes or statements.  Please see “ Responding to Office Actions” and the informational video
`“Response to Office Action ” for more information and tips on responding.
`
`If 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 and the trademark will fail to register.  See 15 U.S.C. §1062(b); 37 C.F.R. §§2.65(a), 2.68(a); TMEP
`§§718.01, 718.02.  Additionally, the USPTO will not refund the application filing fee, which is a required processing fee.  See 37 C.F.R.
`§§2.6(a)(1)(i)-(iv), 2.209(a); TMEP §405.04.
`
`When an application has abandoned for failure to respond to an Office action, an applicant may timely file a petition to revive the application,
`which, if granted, would allow the application to return to active status.  See 37 C.F.R. §2.66; TMEP §1714.  The petition must be filed within
`two months of the date of issuance of the notice of abandonment and may be filed online via the Trademark Electronic Application System
`(TEAS) with a $100 fee.  See 37 C.F.R. §§2.6(a)(15)(ii), 2.66(a)(1), (b)(1).
`To expedite prosecution of the 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/trademarks/teas/index.jsp.  If applicant has technical questions about the
`TEAS response to Office action form, applicant can review the electronic filing tips available online at
`http://www.uspto.gov/trademarks/teas/e_filing_tips.jsp and e-mail technical questions to TEAS@uspto.gov.
`
`TEAS PLUS OR TEAS REDUCED FEE (TEAS RF) APPLICANTS – TO MAINTAIN LOWER FEE, ADDITIONAL
`







`  
`

`

`REQUIREMENTS MUST BE MET, INCLUDING SUBMITTING DOCUMENTS ONLINE:  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.  See 37 C.F.R. §§2.22(b), 2.23(b);
`TMEP §§819, 820.  TEAS Plus or TEAS RF applicants who do not meet these requirements must submit an additional processing fee of $125
`per class of goods and/or services.  37 C.F.R. §§2.6(a)(1)(v), 2.22(c), 2.23(c); TMEP §§819.04, 820.04.  However, in certain situations, TEAS
`Plus or TEAS RF applicants may respond to an Office action by authorizing an examiner’s amendment by telephone or e-mail without incurring
`
`this additional fee.     
`
`/Lyndsey Kuykendall, Esq./
`Examining Attorney
`Law Office 124
`571-272-5995
`Lyndsey.Kuykendall@uspto.gov
`
`TO RESPOND TO THIS LETTER:   Go to http://www.uspto.gov/trademarks/teas/response_forms.jsp.   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. 
`For technical assistance with online forms, e-mail TEAS@uspto.gov.  For questions about the Office action itself, please contact the assigned
`trademark examining attorney.  E-mail communications will not be accepted as responses to Office actions; therefore, do not respond to
`this Office action by e-mail.
`
`All informal e-mail communications relevant to this application will be placed in the official application record.
`
`WHO MUST SIGN THE RESPONSE:  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).  If an applicant is represented by an attorney, the attorney must sign the
`
`response.  
`
`PERIODICALLY CHECK THE STATUS OF THE APPLICATION:   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/.   Please keep a copy of the TSDR status screen.   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.   For more information on checking
`status, see http://www.uspto.gov/trademarks/process/status/.
`
`TO UPDATE CORRESPONDENCE/E-MAIL ADDRESS:  Use the TEAS form at http://www.uspto.gov/trademarks/teas/correspondence.jsp.
`





`  
`

`

`Print: May 13, 2019
`
`76472323
`
`DESIGN MARK
`
`serial Number
`T64T2328
`
`Status
`REGISTERED AND RENEWED
`
`Registration Number
`2T84058
`
`Date Registered
`ZOOBHllHlB
`
`Type of Mark
`TRADEMARK
`
`Register
`PRINCIPAL
`
`Mark Drawing Code
`[2] DESIGN ONLY
`
`Chener
`INC. CORPORATION DELAWARE 500 South Buena Vista
`DISNEY ENTERPRISES,
`Street Burbank CALIFORNIA 91521
`
`Goodsfiewices
`G & S: T—shirts,
`022 039.
`US
`10 025.
`Class Status -- ACTIVE.
`[ visors, polar fleece caps,
`[shorts,
`swim trunks], baseball caps,
`mittens, underwear, jackets, sweatshirts,[ infant sleepers],
`infant
`
`pants,
`infant shirts, swimsuits. First Use: 1998f03f31. First Use In
`Commerce: 1998f03f31.
`
`]
`
`Colors Claimed
`Color is not Claimed as a feature of the mark.
`
`Filing Date
`2002H12HO4
`
`Examining .itttorne'yr
`MAHONEY, PAULA
`
`Attorney of Record
`Steven Plotkin
`
`

`

`

`

`mam'mm"
`mummies (Er-gm)
`|
`Sun In mums Acmml
`sum mum
`
`Wymflmfld.
`Pal'ks&T|l:lueIs
`Planesmstav Ttingstu
`snap Heh&Rfles
`Ficm Gamma-im-
`Dales
`Mung (1so)
`emira-
`Al Rum Hotels
`— — Rooms
`
`2
`0
`Check |n
`_ Check Out
`:I Ammble
`
`Build Ynur Varation
`
`
`
`

`

`ShowDisnewcom
`a
`@nqglw’awwrld.
`
`Sign in orCn-‘ate ALmunl
`
`|
`
`United SlaleE(EnglI5lI)
`
`0.5.33.0,me
`
`FarksS.T|ckels
`
`PlacestoSlay
`
`ThingsluDo
`
`snap
`
`Help&Rules
`
`Floan
`
`(awkwamm
`
`Can't Miss Experiences
`
`New and Limited-Time Experiences ‘for.2019
`
`‘
`
`Celebrate the Circle of Life at Disney's_ A
`Animal Kingdom Park _
`’
`'
`, “’
`
`IllumiNations: Refleciionstof Eamhu :I'aking
`its final bow Septel‘nber 30. 2019 "
`.
`"
`
`Star Wars: Galaxy's Edge - Opening
`August 29, 2019 at Disney‘s Hollywood
`Studios
`,
`
`

`

`Sm Disney com
`a
`
`shup HeipafiulesTIIingsicDoFlacesloSiayParks&.T|ckels@nqglw’aw‘rld. From ©w®7w¢mm
`
`Sign in or Cleats mum |
`
`United Slales (Engllin)
`
`‘5“-mm”
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Shop, Save and Plan
`
`Show Thousands of Authentic
`Walt Disney World Producis'
`
`Discover Memory Maker
`
`Make More Memories
`Get all your Disney Phat-Pass photos,
`videos and even more benefi‘is included for
`one price.
`
`Ready to Start Planning? E“;
`
`GetSwfledwithFreeVldeas
`
`For assistance wrih your Walt Disney Wodd \llSiL please call (407) 939-5277,
`7:50 AM in 11 am PM Easlem Tune Guests under 13 years or age musl have parenlur gumdian pemssmn in can
`
`

`

`t-ri
`(“
`,
`
`‘Fxti
`in fl,
`..
`a
`g,
`
`x 1?
`WIKIPEDIA
`'Ehr Free Encyckipcclla
`
`Main page
`Contents
`Fealured Bantam
`Curremevems
`Random article
`Donate to vtfilapedia
`\Mldpedia slore
`imeratfiort
`Hep
`About Vilkipedia
`Comriiuiirty ponal
`Recentchanges
`Contact page
`Tools
`What links here
`Related changes
`Upload no
`Special pages
`Permanent link
`Page information
`mudata item
`Cite this page
`Prirlf/exporl
`Create a book
`Download as FDF
`Pnnlallls Version
`in other proyecis
`iitikiriiedia commons
`VVilt'lnewS
`iMkiquole
`Mir-M299
`Languages
`Deulsch
`Espafiol
`Francais
`e201
`lcoliano
`Pycciriiri
`Tagalog
`TrértgViét
`
`it?
`
`infers more i
`i i "i
`iEoit links
`
`1::
`
`Arbcle Talk
`
`:Not logged in Talk Contributions Create account Log in
`
`Read Viewsource Viewhistory iscartnilviittpem—Ql
`
`The WaltVDisney 9317171133137,
`From errpedia, the tree encyclopedia
`'Dlsney' redirects here. Forms confounder. see WaltDisney. Forother uses, see Disney (disambiguation).
`The Walt Disney Company, commonly known as WaltDisney orsimply Disney (room/W (common metonym House of Mouse, reierring to the company's mascot Mickey Mousey‘l is an American diversified
`multinational mass media and entenalnrnenl conglomerate headquartered at the Wall Disney Studios in Burbank, California
`Disney was originally lounded on October 16, 1923 by brothers Wait and Roy 0. Disney as the Disney Brothers Cannon Studio, it also operated under the names The Walt Disney Studio and Walt Disney
`Productions before officially changing its name to The Walt Disney Company in 1986. The company established itself as a leader in the Amencan animation industry before diversifying into livesaction film
`production, television, and theme parks
`since the 19305, Disney has created and acquired corporate divisions in order to market more mature content than is typically associated with its ilagshrp family—oriented brands The company is known for its film
`studio division, Walt Disney Studios, which includes Wait Disney Pictures, Wait Disney Animation Sludlos, Pixar, Marvel Studios, Lucasrrlm 20th Century Fox, Fox Searchlight Pictures and Blue Sky Studios
`Disney's other main divisions are Disney Parks. Experiences and Products Disney Media Networks and Walt Disney DIFBCIcIDcCOI'lSUiI‘lef at International Disney also owns and operates the ABC broadcast
`network, cable television networls such as Disney Channel. ESPN. Froetorm, FX, National Geographic nelwork, and A&E Networle; publishing, merchandising, music, and theater divrsions, and Wait Disney
`Parks and Resorts, a group of 14 theme parks around the world [51"]
`The company has been a component orthe Dow Jones Industrial Average since 1991 Carlodn character Mickey Mouse, created in 1928 by Walt Disney and ub lwerks, is one ofthe world's most recognizable
` characters,m and serves as the company‘s official mascot.
`i
`contents [hide]
`
`1 90'9”“ ”5‘0”!
`1 1 19234 9213 Silent film era
`1 2 192&1934 Mickey Mouse and Silly symphonies
`1 :

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.

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