United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO)
Office Action (Official Letter) About Applicant’s Trademark Application
NONFINAL OFFICE ACTION
The USPTO must receive applicant’s response to this letter within six months of the issue date below or the application will be abandonedRespondusing the Trademark Electronic Application System (TEAS). A link to the appropriate TEAS response form appears at the end of this Office action.
Issue date: April 12, 2021
The referenced application has been reviewed by the assigned trademark examining attorney. Applicant must respond timely and completely to the issues below. 15 U.S.C. §1062(b); 37 C.F.R. §§2.62(a), 2.65(a); TMEP §§711, 718.03.
SUMMARY OF ISSUES:
- PRIOR-FILED POTENTIALLY CONFLICTING APPLICATION (ADVISORY)
- REFUSAL TO REGISTER - LIKELIHOOD OF CONFUSION
- DISCLAIMER REQUIRED
PRIOR-FILED POTENTIALLY CONFLICTING APPLICATION (ADVISORY)
The filing date of pending U.S. Application Serial No. 90005331 precedes applicant’s filing date. See attached referenced application. If the mark in the referenced application registers, applicant’s mark may be refused registration under Trademark Act Section 2(d) because of a likelihood of confusion between the two marks. See 15 U.S.C. §1052(d); 37 C.F.R. §2.83; TMEP §§1208 et seq. Therefore, upon receipt of applicant’s response to this Office action, action on this application may be suspended pending final disposition of the earlier-filed referenced application.
In response to this Office action, applicant may present arguments in support of registration by addressing the issue of the potential conflict between applicant’s mark and the mark in the referenced application. Applicant’s election not to submit arguments at this time in no way limits applicant’s right to address this issue later if a refusal under Section 2(d) issues.
REFUSAL TO REGISTER – 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. 5948414 and 5975575. Trademark Act Section 2(d), 15 U.S.C. §1052(d); see TMEP §§1207.01 et seq. See the attached registrations, which have different owners of record. Applicant did not assert ownership of them in the instant application when it was filed, and the USPTO's assignment records do not indicate that they are owned by applicant. TMEP §812.01.
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 BH ARCHITECTURE & DESIGN for “Management of real estate; real estate acquisition services; rental of apartments; land acquisition, namely, real estate brokerage services; financial valuation of real estate; real estate investment services; real estate management services; real estate operation services, namely, real estate management; real estate brokerage services; real estate sales services, namely, real estate agency services; real estate leasing services; real estate advisory services; investment services related to real estate; commercial real estate management services; multi-family real estate management services; commercial real estate investment services; multi-family real estate investment services; real estate procurement services for others; real estate appraisal and evaluation services; financial investment in the field of real estate; providing information in the field of real estate via the Internet; providing information in the field of real estate investment via the Internet; real estate consultancy; consulting services related to real estate; real estate fund investment services; management of real estate investment funds” and “Construction, maintenance, and renovation of real property; real estate development services, namely, condominium conversion services in the nature of conversion of rental property to condominium property; real estate development; real estate development and construction of commercial and residential property; real estate renovation of commercial and residential property; providing information in the field of real estate development of commercial and residential property; providing information in the field of real estate construction of commercial and residential property; providing information in the field of real estate renovation of commercial and residential property; construction project management services in the field of commercial and residential real estate; general building contractor services in the field of construction, maintenance and renovation of commercial and residential property; housing services, namely, development of real property, namely, repair, renovation and new construction; real estate construction; real estate site selection; land development services, namely, planning and laying out of residential and/or commercial communities; land development services, namely, planning and laying out of residential, commercial and mixed-use real estate.”
The cited registrations are:
- BH EQUITIES (with “EQUITIES” disclaimed) for “Management of real estate; real estate acquisition services; rental of apartments; land acquisition, namely, real estate brokerage services; financial valuation of real estate; real estate investment services; real estate management services; Real estate operation services, namely, real estate agency services; Real estate sales management; real estate leasing services; real estate advisory services; commercial real estate management services; multi-family real estate management services; commercial real estate investment services; multi-family real estate investment services; real estate procurement services for others; real estate appraisal and evaluation services; financial investment in the field of real estate; providing information in the field of real estate via the Internet; providing information in the field of real estate investment via the Internet; real estate consultancy; Real estate management consultation; Real estate funds investment services; Financial management of real estate investment funds” and “Construction, maintenance, and renovation of property; Real estate development services, namely, condominium conversion services, also known as, conversion of rental property to condominium property; real estate development; real estate development and construction of commercial and residential property; real estate renovation of commercial and residential property; providing information in the field of real estate development of commercial and residential property; providing information in the field of real estate construction of commercial and residential property; providing information in the field of real estate renovation of commercial and residential property; construction project management services in the field of commercial and residential real estate; General building contractor services in the field of construction, maintenance and renovation of commercial and residential property; housing services, namely, development of real property, namely, repair, renovation and new construction; real estate construction; real estate site selection; Land development services, namely, planning and laying out of commercial buildings; land development services, namely, planning and laying out of residential, commercial and mixed-use real estate; and
- BH COMPANIES (with “COMPANIES” disclaimed) for “Management of real estate; real estate acquisition services; rental of apartments; land acquisition, namely, real estate brokerage services; financial valuation of real estate; real estate management services; Real estate operation services, namely, real estate agency services; Real estate sales management; real estate leasing services; real estate advisory services; Real estate investment services; commercial real estate management services; multi-family real estate management services; commercial real estate investment services; multi-family real estate investment services; real estate procurement services for others; real estate appraisal and evaluation services; financial investment in the field of real estate; providing information in the field of real estate via the Internet; providing information in the field of real estate investment via the Internet; real estate consultancy; Real estate management consultation; Real estate funds investment services; Financial management of real estate investment funds”; and “Construction, maintenance, and renovation of property; Real estate development services, namely, condominium conversion services, also known as, conversion of rental property to condominium property; real estate development; real estate development and construction of commercial and residential property; real estate renovation of commercial and residential property; providing information in the field of real estate development of commercial and residential property; providing information in the field of real estate construction of commercial and residential property; providing information in the field of real estate renovation of commercial and residential property; construction project management services in the field of commercial and residential real estate; General building contractor services in the field of construction, maintenance and renovation of commercial and residential property; housing services, namely, development of real property, namely, repair, renovation and new construction; real estate construction; real estate site selection; Land development services, namely, planning and laying out of commercial buildings; land development services, namely, planning and laying out of residential, commercial and mixed-use real estate.”
The Services are Identical
When 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 in the application and registration at issue, not on extrinsic evidence of actual use. See Stone Lion Capital Partners, LP v. Lion Capital LLP, 746 F.3d 1317, 1323, 110 USPQ2d 1157, 1162 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (quoting Octocom Sys. Inc. v. Hous. Computers Servs. Inc., 918 F.2d 937, 942, 16 USPQ2d 1783, 1787 (Fed. Cir. 1990)).
In this case, the services in the application and registrations are identical. Therefore, it is presumed that the channels of trade and class(es) of purchasers are the same for these services. See Cai v. Diamond Hong, Inc., 901 F.3d 1367, 1372, 127 USPQ2d 1797, 1801 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (quoting In re Viterra Inc., 671 F.3d 1358, 1362, 101 USPQ2d 1905, 1908 (Fed. Cir. 2012)). Thus, applicant’s and registrant’s goods and/or services are related.
The Marks are Confusingly Similar
Although marks are compared in their entireties, one feature of a mark may be more significant or dominant in creating a commercial impression. See In re Viterra Inc., 671 F.3d 1358, 1362, 101 USPQ2d 1905, 1908 (Fed. Cir. 2012); In re Nat’l Data Corp., 753 F.2d 1056, 1058, 224 USPQ 749, 751 (Fed. Cir. 1985); TMEP §1207.01(b)(viii), (c)(ii). “BH” is the dominant term in the cited registrations; the second word in each mark has been disclaimed. Disclaimed matter that is descriptive of or generic for a party’s goods and/or services is typically less significant or less dominant when comparing marks. In re Detroit Athletic Co., 903 F.3d 1297, 1305, 128 USPQ2d 1047, 1050 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (citing In re Dixie Rests., Inc., 105 F.3d 1405, 1407, 41 USPQ2d 1531, 1533-34 (Fed. Cir. 1997)); TMEP §1207.01(b)(viii), (c)(ii).
Likewise, “BH” is the dominant term in applicant’s mark. The additional wording “ARCHITECTURE & DESIGN” in applicant’s mark is merely descriptive of or generic for applicant’s assorted real estate design-related construction and management services. Thus, the wording other than “BH” in the parties’ marks is less significant in terms of affecting the commercial impression of the marks, and renders the term “BH” the more dominant element of the marks.
Moreover, “BH” is the first term in the marks. Consumers are generally more inclined to focus on the first word, prefix, or syllable in any trademark or service mark. See Palm Bay Imps., Inc. v. Veuve Clicquot Ponsardin Maison Fondee En 1772, 396 F.3d 1369, 1372, 73 USPQ2d 1689, 1692 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (finding similarity between VEUVE ROYALE and two VEUVE CLICQUOT marks in part because “VEUVE . . . remains a ‘prominent feature’ as the first word in the mark and the first word to appear on the label”); Century 21 Real Estate Corp. v. Century Life of Am., 970 F.2d 874, 876, 23 USPQ2d 1698, 1700 (Fed Cir. 1992) (finding similarity between CENTURY 21 and CENTURY LIFE OF AMERICA in part because “consumers must first notice th[e] identical lead word”); see also In re Detroit Athletic Co., 903 F.3d 1297, 1303, 128 USPQ2d 1047, 1049 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (finding “the identity of the marks’ two initial words is particularly significant because consumers typically notice those words first”).
Given the similarity of the marks for identical services, there is a likelihood of confusion regarding the source of the services. Accordingly, registration must be refused under Section 2(d) of the Trademark Act.
OWNERSHIP OF CITED REGISTRATIONS
If the marks in the cited registrations are owned by applicant, applicant may provide evidence of ownership of the marks by satisfying one of the following:
(1) Record the assignment with the USPTO’s Assignment Recordation Branch (ownership transfer documents such as assignments can be filed online at http://etas.uspto.gov) and promptly notify the trademark examining attorney that the assignment has been duly recorded;
(2) Submit copies of documents evidencing the chain of title; or
(3) Submit the following statement, verified with an affidavit or signed declaration under 37 C.F.R. §2.20: “Applicant is the owner of U.S. Registration Nos. 5948414 and 5975575.” To provide this statement using the Trademark Electronic Application System (TEAS), use the “Response to Office Action” form; answer “yes” to wizard questions #3 and #9; then, continuing on to the next portion of the form, in the “Additional Statement(s)” section, find “Active Prior Registration(s)” and insert the U.S. registration numbers in the data fields; and follow the instructions within the form for signing. The form must be signed twice; a signature is required both in the “Declaration Signature” section and in the “Response Signature” section.
TMEP §812.01; see 15 U.S.C. §1060; 37 C.F.R. §§2.193(e)(1), 3.25, 3.73(a)-(b); TMEP §502.02(a).
Recording a document with the Assignment Recordation Branch does not constitute a response to an Office action. TMEP §503.01(d).
Although applicant’s mark has been refused registration, applicant may respond to the refusal(s) by submitting evidence and arguments in support of registration.
If applicant responds to the refusal, applicant must also respond to the requirement set forth below.
DISCLAIMER REQUIRED
Applicant must disclaim the word “ARCHITECTURE & DESIGN” in the mark because it is merely descriptive of an ingredient, quality, characteristic, function, feature, purpose, or use of applicant’s 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).
This wording merely describes applicant’s services because they involve management and construction of real estate architecture and design plans.
Applicant may respond to this issue by submitting a disclaimer in the following format:
No claim is made to the exclusive right to use “ARCHITECTURE & DESIGN” apart from the mark as shown.
For an overview of disclaimers and instructions on how to provide one using the Trademark Electronic Application System (TEAS), see the Disclaimer webpage.
Please call or email the assigned trademark examining attorney with questions about this Office action.
How to respond. Click to file a response to this nonfinal Office action.
/Kathy de Jonge/
Trademark Examining Attorney
Law Office 107
(571) 272-9152
kathleen.dejonge@USPTO.gov (informal use only)
RESPONSE GUIDANCE
- Missing the response deadline to this letter will cause the application to abandon. A response or notice of appeal must be received by the USPTO before midnight Eastern Time of the last day of the response period. TEAS and ESTTA maintenance or unforeseen circumstances could affect an applicant’s ability to timely respond.