U.S. Application Serial No. 79379691
Mark: SUNNIEST
| Correspondence Address: Guangzhou Nexip Technology Co., Ltd. Room 1105, Teem Tower, Tianhe Road, Guangzhou Guangdong Province CHINA |
Applicant: SUNNIEST SOLAR NANTONG LTD
Reference/Docket No. N/A
Correspondence Email Address:
International Registration No. 1752879
Deadline for responding. The USPTO must receive applicant’s response within six months of the “date on which the notification was sent to WIPO (mailing date)” located on the WIPO cover letter, or the U.S. application will be abandoned (see https://www.uspto.gov/trademarks-application-process/abandoned-applications for information on abandonment). To confirm the mailing date, go to the USPTO’s Trademark Status and Document Retrieval (TSDR) database at https://tsdr.uspto.gov/, select “US Serial, Registration, or Reference No.,” enter the U.S. application serial number in the blank text box, and click on “Documents.” The mailing date used to calculate the response deadline is the “Create/Mail Date” of the “IB-1rst Refusal Note.”
Respond to this Office action using the USPTO’s Trademark Electronic Application System (TEAS). A link to the appropriate TEAS response form appears at the end of this Office action.
Discussion of provisional full refusal. This is a provisional full refusal of the request for extension of protection to the United States of the international registration, known in the United States as a U.S. application based on Trademark Act Section 66(a). See 15 U.S.C. §§1141f(a), 1141h(c).
T
he 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(d) Refusal – Likelihood of Confusion
SECTION 2(d) REFUSAL – LIKELIHOOD OF CONFUSION
Registration of the applied-for mark is refused because of a likelihood of confusion with the marks in U.S. Registration Nos. 5111159 and 5517438. Trademark Act Section 2(d), 15 U.S.C. §1052(d); see TMEP §§1207.01 et seq. See the attached registrations.
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). Any evidence of record related to those factors need be considered; however, “not all of the DuPont factors are relevant or of similar weight in every case.” In re Guild Mortg. Co., 912 F.3d 1376, 1379, 129 USPQ2d 1160, 1162 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (quoting In re Dixie Rests., Inc., 105 F.3d 1405, 1406, 41 USPQ2d 1531, 1533 (Fed. Cir. 1997)).
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.
Applicant's mark is SUNNIEST (stylized characters) for “Photovoltaic cells; solar batteries; batteries, electric; solar panels for the production of electricity; semi-conductors; power inverters; distribution boxes for electrical power; components for electrical mains in the nature of electric wires, cables; accumulators, electric” in International Class 009.
The cited registered marks, which are owned by the same registrant, are as follows:
SUNNEST (standard characters) (Reg. No. 5111159) for “Battery cases; Battery chargers; Cell phone battery chargers; Cell phone battery chargers for use in vehicles; Cell phone cases; Data cables” in International Class 009; and
SUNNEST (standard characters) (Reg. No. 5517438) for “Air humidifying apparatus; [ Gas scrubbing apparatus; ] Germicidal lamps for purifying air; Lamps; LED (light emitting diode) lighting fixtures; LED light assemblies for street lights, signs, commercial lighting, automobiles, buildings, and other architectural uses; Light diffusers; Lighting installations for vehicles; Lights for vehicles; Multi-purpose, electric countertop food preparation apparatus for cooking, baking, broiling, roasting, toasting, searing, browning, barbecuing and grilling food; Pocket searchlights; Roasting jacks; Safety lamps for underground use; Sockets for electric lights; Electric Chinese lanterns; Fairy lights for festive decoration; LED safety lamps; Light bulbs [ ; Sanitary installations in the nature of steam rooms ]” in International Class 011.
Similarity of the 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)), aff’d per curiam, 777 F. App’x 516, 2019 BL 343921 (Fed. Cir. 2019); TMEP §1207.01(b).
In the present case, applicant's mark SUNNIEST and registrant's mark SUNNEST are highly similar in appearance, sound, connotation, and commercial impression and only differ in that applicant's mark includes a letter "I".
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. 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) (holding COMMCASH and COMMUNICASH confusingly similar); In re Corning Glass Works, 229 USPQ 65, 66 (TTAB 1985) (holding CONFIRM and CONFIRMCELLS confusingly similar); In re Pellerin Milnor Corp., 221 USPQ 558, 560 (TTAB 1983) (holding MILTRON and MILLTRONICS confusingly similar); TMEP §1207.01(b)(ii)-(iii).
Moreover, t
he marks SUNNIEST and SUNNEST are essentially phonetic equivalents and thus sound similar. Similarity in sound alone may be sufficient to support a finding that the compared marks are confusingly similar. In re 1st USA Realty Prof’ls, Inc., 84 USPQ2d 1581, 1586 (TTAB 2007) (citing Krim-Ko Corp. v. Coca-Cola Bottling Co., 390 F.2d 728, 732, 156 USPQ 523, 526 (C.C.P.A. 1968)); TMEP §1207.01(b)(iv).
Therefore, the marks are confusingly similar.
Similarity of the Goods
T
he goods and/or services are compared to determine whether they are similar, commercially related, or travel in the same trade channels. See Coach Servs., Inc. v. Triumph Learning LLC, 668 F.3d 1356, 1369-71, 101 USPQ2d 1713, 1722-23 (Fed. Cir. 2012); Herbko Int’l, Inc. v. Kappa Books, Inc., 308 F.3d 1156, 1165, 64 USPQ2d 1375, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2002); TMEP §§1207.01, 1207.01(a)(vi).
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); see Made in Nature, LLC v. Pharmavite LLC, 2022 USPQ2d 557, at *44 (TTAB 2022) (quoting In re Jump Designs LLC, 80 USPQ2d 1370, 1374 (TTAB 2006)).
In the present case, applicant's and registrant's goods are very closely related.
In support of this assertion, the trademark examining attorney has attached evidence from the USPTO’s X-Search database consisting of a number of third-party marks registered for use in connection with the same or similar goods as those of both applicant and registrant in this case. This evidence shows that the goods listed therein are of a kind that may emanate from a single source under a single mark. See In re I-Coat Co., 126 USPQ2d 1730, 1737 (TTAB 2018) (citing In re Infinity Broad. Corp., 60 USPQ2d 1214, 1217-18 (TTAB 2001); In re Albert Trostel & Sons Co., 29 USPQ2d 1783, 1785-86 (TTAB 1993); In re Mucky Duck Mustard Co., 6 USPQ2d 1467, 1470 n.6 (TTAB 1988)); TMEP §1207.01(d)(iii).
Therefore, the goods are considered to be related.
Summary
In sum, the similarities between the marks and the relatedness of the respective goods are such that it is likely consumers will mistakenly believe the goods emanate from the same source.
The overriding concern is not only to prevent buyer confusion as to the source of the goods, but to protect the registrant from adverse commercial impact due to use of a similar mark by a newcomer. See In re Shell Oil Co., 992 F.2d 1204, 1208, 26 USPQ2d 1687, 1690 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Therefore, any doubt regarding a likelihood of confusion determination is resolved in favor of the registrant. 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).
Accordingly, registration is refused pursuant to Section 2(d) of the Trademark Act.
Although applicant’s mark has been refused registration, applicant may respond to the refusal by submitting evidence and arguments in support of registration. However, if applicant responds to the refusal, applicant must also respond to the requirements set forth below.
U.S. LICENSED ATTORNEY REQUIRED
Applicant is required to be represented by a U.S.-licensed attorney to respond to or appeal the provisional refusal because applicant’s domicile is located outside of the United States and applicant does not appear to be represented by a qualified U.S. attorney. 37 C.F.R. §2.11(a); TMEP §601.01(a). An applicant whose domicile is located outside of the United States or its territories must be represented by an attorney who is an active member in good standing of the bar of the highest court of a U.S. state or territory. 37 C.F.R. §2.11(a); TMEP §§601, 601.01(a). In this case, applicant’s domicile is identified in the application as outside of the United States or its territories. For more information, see the U.S. Counsel webpage at https://www.uspto.gov/trademark/laws-regulations/trademark-rule-requires-foreign-applicants-and-registrants-have-us and Hiring a U.S.-licensed trademark attorney webpage at https://www.uspto.gov/trademarks-getting-started/why-hire-private-trademark-attorney.
To appoint a U.S.-licensed attorney in this application, applicant should submit a completed Trademark Electronic Application System (TEAS) Change Address or Representation form at https://teas.uspto.gov/ccr/car. The newly-appointed attorney must submit a TEAS Response to Examining Attorney Office Action form at https://teas.uspto.gov/office/roa/ indicating that an appointment of attorney has been made and address all other refusals or requirements in this action. Alternatively, if applicant retains an attorney before filing the response, the attorney can respond to this Office action by using the appropriate TEAS response form and provide his or her attorney information in the form and sign it as applicant’s attorney. See 37 C.F.R. §2.17(b)(1)(ii); TMEP §604.01.
APPLICANT'S EMAIL REQUIRED
Applicant must provide applicant’s email address, which is a requirement for a complete application. See 37 C.F.R. §2.32(a)(2); TMEP §803.05(b). This email address cannot be identical to the primary correspondence email address of a U.S.-licensed attorney retained to represent applicant in this application. See TMEP §803.05(b).
IDENTIFICATION OF GOODS
Applicant must clarify some of the wording in the identification of goods because it is indefinite. See 37 C.F.R. §2.32(a)(6); TMEP §§1402.01, 1402.03. This wording is indefinite because it does not make clear the exact nature of the goods.
Madrid Applicants
In a Trademark Act Section 66(a) application, classification of goods and/or services may not be changed from that assigned by the International Bureau of the World Intellectual Property Organization. 37 C.F.R. §2.85(d); TMEP §§1401.03(d), 1904.02(b). Additionally, classes may not be added or goods and/or services transferred from one class to another in a multiple-class Section 66(a) application. 37 C.F.R. §2.85(d); TMEP §1401.03(d).
Applicant should note that any wording in bold, in italics, underlined and/or in ALL CAPS below offers guidance and/or shows the changes being proposed for the identification of goods and/or services. If there is wording in the applicant’s version of the identification of goods and/or services which should be removed, it will be shown with a line through it such as this: strikethrough. When making its amendments, applicant should enter them in standard font, not in bold, in italics, underlined and/or in ALL CAPS.
Applicant may adopt the following identification, if accurate:
International Class 009: Photovoltaic cells; solar batteries; batteries, electric; solar panels for the production of electricity; semi-conductors; power inverters; distribution boxes for electrical power; components for electrical mains in the nature of electric wires, {please delete comma} AND cables; accumulators, electric
Applicant may amend the identification to clarify or limit the goods and/or services, but not to broaden or expand the goods and/or services beyond those in the original application or as acceptably amended. See 37 C.F.R. §2.71(a); TMEP §1402.06. Generally, any deleted goods and/or services may not later be reinserted. See TMEP §1402.07(e). Additionally, for applications filed under Trademark Act Section 66(a), the scope of the identification for purposes of permissible amendments is limited by the international class assigned by the International Bureau of the World Intellectual Property Organization (International Bureau); and the classification of goods and/or services may not be changed from that assigned by the International Bureau. 37 C.F.R. §2.85(d); TMEP §§1401.03(d), 1904.02(b). Further, in a multiple-class Section 66(a) application, classes may not be added or goods and/or services transferred from one existing class to another. 37 C.F.R. §2.85(d); TMEP §1401.03(d).
For assistance with identifying and classifying goods and services in trademark applications, please see the USPTO’s online searchable U.S. Acceptable Identification of Goods and Services Manual. See TMEP §1402.04.
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 the Responding to Office Actions webpage for more information and tips on responding.
Please call or email the assigned trademark examining attorney with questions about this Office action. Although an examining attorney cannot provide legal advice, the examining attorney can provide additional explanation about the refusal(s) and/or requirement(s) in this Office action. See TMEP §§705.02, 709.06.
The USPTO does not accept emails as responses to Office actions; however, emails can be used for informal communications and are included in the application record. See 37 C.F.R. §§2.62(c), 2.191; TMEP §§304.01-.02, 709.04-.05.
How to respond. Click to file a response to this nonfinal Office action.