Trademark Trial and Appeal Board Electronic Filing System. http://estta.uspto.gov

ESTTA Tracking number: ESTTA993325

Filing date: 08/07/2019

IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE

BEFORE THE TRADEMARK TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD

Petition for Cancellation

Notice is hereby given that the following party has filed a petition to cancel the registration indicated below.

Petitioner Information

Name Kimball International, Inc.

Entity Corporation Citizenship Indiana

Address 1600 Royal StreetJasper, IN 47549UNITED STATES

Attorney informa-tion

Stephanie A. GummFaegre Baker Daniels LLP300 N. Meridian Street, Suite 2700Indianapolis, IN 46204UNITED STATESStephanie.Gumm@FaegreBD.com, Abe.Shanehsaz@FaegreBD.com, Trade-mark@FaegreBD.com3172371423

Registration Subject to Cancellation

Registration No. 5204889 Registration date 05/16/2017

Registrant CHERRY MAN INDUSTRIES2100 E. Grand Ave. Ste 600El Segundo, CA 90245UNITED STATESEmail: timmyh@cherrymanindustries.com

Goods/Services Subject to Cancellation

Class 020. First Use: 2016/05/01 First Use In Commerce: 2016/05/01All goods and services in the class are subject to cancellation, namely: Office furniture

Grounds for Cancellation

Abandonment Trademark Act Section 14(3)

Attachments Petition to Cancel IDESK DEBUT.pdf(26224 bytes )Exhibit A Petition to Cancel IDESK DEBUT.pdf(77622 bytes )Exhibit B Petition to Cancel IDESK DEBUT Reduced Size.pdf(2027972 bytes )

Signature /Abe J. Shanehsaz/

Name Abe Jentry Shanehsaz

Date 08/07/2019

1 US.124162674.01

IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE TRADEMARK TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD

KIMBALL INTERNATIONAL, INC.

Petitioner,

vs. CHERRY MAN INDUSTRIES d/b/a CHERRYMAN INDUSTRIES Registrant.

) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

Cancellation No. _________ Registration No. 5,204,889 Mark: IDESK DEBUT

PETITION TO CANCEL

Petitioner, Kimball International, Inc. (“Kimball”), is an Indiana corporation having its

principal place of business at 1600 Royal Street, Jasper, Indiana 47549, USA.

Kimball believes that it will be harmed and damaged by the continued registration of

Registration No. 5,204,889 (the "'889 Registration"), owned by Cherry Man Industries d/b/a

Cherryman Industries ("Registrant"). Kimball petitions to cancel the '889 Registration pursuant to

Section 14 of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1064.

Kimball alleges the following grounds for this Petition:

1. On information and belief, Registrant is a California corporation with address at

2100 E. Grand Ave., Ste 600, El Segundo, California 90245, USA.

2. On information and belief, Registrant owns the '889 Registration for the mark

IDESK DEBUT (the “Subject Mark”) for use in association with “office furniture” within

International Class 20 (the “Subject Goods”). The '889 Registration issued on the Principal Register

on May 16, 2017, with an asserted date of first use of May 1, 2016.

2 ` US.124162674.01

3. Kimball owns pending U.S. Application Serial No. 88/362,467 for the mark DEBUT

for use in connection with “furniture; office furniture; desks; height adjustable desks; casegoods

furniture, namely, credenzas, storage units, file cabinets, storage cabinets, shelf units, and modular

office systems and parts thereof, namely, mounting tracks, brackets, wall panels, tiles, and privacy

dividers” in International Class 20 (“Kimball’s Application”). Kimball’s Application was filed on

March 7, 2017. A copy of Kimball’s Application is attached as Exhibit A.

4. On or about June 18, 2019, the United States Patent and Trademark Office’s

(“U.S.P.T.O.”) issued an Office Action against Kimball’s Application containing a §2(d) refusal, in

part based on grounds of likelihood of confusion with the ‘889 Registration and the mark shown

therein (the “Office Action”). A copy of that Office Action is attached as Exhibit B.

5. On the day this Petition to Cancel was submitted, Kimball filed a response to the

Office Action amending the description of goods in Kimball’s Application to “furniture; office

furniture; desks; height adjustable desks; casegoods furniture, namely, credenzas, storage units in

the nature of storage and organization systems comprised of shelves, drawers, cupboards and

bookcases, file cabinets, storage cabinets, shelf units, and modular office furniture systems and

parts thereof, namely, mounting tracks, brackets, wall panels, tiles, and privacy dividers; all of the

foregoing expressly excluding mirrors.”

6. On information and belief, Registrant does not use the Subject Mark in commerce in

association with the Subject Goods.

7. On information and belief, to the extent Registrant ever made any bona fide use in

commerce of the Subject Mark in association with the Subject Goods, Registrant has abandoned any

bona fide use of the Subject Mark in commerce in association with the Subject Goods underlying

the '889 Registration.

3 ` US.124162674.01

8. On information and belief, to the extent Registrant ever made any bona fide use in

commerce of the Subject Mark in association with the Subject Goods, Registrant has discontinued

any use of Subject Mark in commerce in association with the Subject Goods underlying the '889

Registration without a bona fide intent to resume such use.

9. Accordingly, the '889 Registration should be cancelled pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1064.

10. Kimball believes that it is, will be, and will continue to be damaged by Registrant's

persisting registration of the Subject Mark in the '889 Registration. Such damage includes, at least,

the USPTO's refusal to register Kimball’s Application based on a likelihood of confusion with the

‘889 Registration and the mark shown therein.

11. Kimball therefore requests the Board grant Kimball's petition to cancel the ‘889

Registration.

12. The $400.00 cancellation petition filing fee is being submitted concurrently with this

Petition to Cancel. The Commissioner is authorized to debit the deposit account of Faegre Baker

Daniels LLP for any deficiency in the required fee.

Please address all correspondence to:

Stephanie A. Gumm Abe Jentry Shanehsaz Faegre Baker Daniels LLP 300 N. Meridian Street Suite 2700 Indianapolis, Indiana 46204 Trademark@FaegreBD.com; Stephanie.Gumm@FaegreBD.com; Abe.Shanehsaz@FaegreBD.com

Dated: August 7, 2018 Respectfully submitted,

FAEGRE BAKER DANIELS LLP

By: /Stephanie A. Gumm/

Stephanie A. Gumm

4 ` US.124162674.01

Abe Jentry Shanehsaz Faegre Baker Daniels LLP 300 N. Meridian Street Suite 2700 Indianapolis, Indiana 46204 Tel: 317-237-1423 Fax: 317-237-1000

Attorneys for Petitioner Kimball

International, Inc.

Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 no persons are required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a valid OMB control number. PTO Form 1478 (Rev 09/2006)

OMB No. 0651-0009 (Exp 02/28/2021)

Trademark/Service Mark Application, Principal Register

Serial Number: 88362467

Filing Date: 03/29/2019

The table below presents the data as entered.

Input Field Entered

SERIAL NUMBER 88362467

MARK INFORMATION

*MARK DEBUT

STANDARD CHARACTERS YES

USPTO-GENERATED IMAGE YES

LITERAL ELEMENT DEBUT

MARK STATEMENTThe mark consists of standard characters, without claim to any

particular font style, size, or color.

REGISTER Principal

APPLICANT INFORMATION

*OWNER OF MARK Kimball International, Inc.

*STREET 1600 Royal Street

*CITY Jasper

*STATE

(Required for U.S. applicants)Indiana

*COUNTRY United States

*ZIP/POSTAL CODE

(Required for U.S. and certain international addresses)47546-2256

LEGAL ENTITY INFORMATION

TYPE corporation

STATE/COUNTRY OF INCORPORATION Indiana

GOODS AND/OR SERVICES AND BASIS INFORMATION

INTERNATIONAL CLASS 020 

*IDENTIFICATION

furniture; office furniture; desks; height adjustable desks;

casegoods furniture, namely, credenzas, storage units, file

cabinets, storage cabinets, shelf units, and modular office

systems and parts thereof, namely, mounting tracks, brackets,

wall panels, tiles, and privacy dividers

FILING BASIS SECTION 1(b)

ATTORNEY INFORMATION

NAME Stephanie A. Gumm

ATTORNEY DOCKET NUMBER KIMT-1182

FIRM NAME Faegre Baker Daniels LLP

EXHIBIT A

STREET 300 North Meridian Street, Suite 2700

CITY Indianapolis

STATE Indiana

COUNTRY United States

ZIP/POSTAL CODE 46204

PHONE 317-237-1423

FAX (317) 237-8443

EMAIL ADDRESS trademark@faegrebd.com

AUTHORIZED TO COMMUNICATE VIA EMAIL Yes

OTHER APPOINTED ATTORNEY

Jared B. Briant, Amie Peele Carter, Marcelo S. Copat, Adam F.

Cox, Jodi A. DeSchane, Jamie M. Drewry, John J. Emanuele,

Dianna L. Gould, Eric J. Groen, Brian D. Lefort, Calvin L.

Litsey, David R. Merritt, William S. Meyers, Robert D. Null,

Louis T. Perry, Christopher J. Reckamp, Patricia I. Reding,

Peter M. Routhier, James J. Saul, Michael D. Schwartz, James

R. Steffen, Daniel Tychonievich, Gary S. Weinstein, Abe

Jentry Shanehsaz, Julie A. Bellville, and Douglas A. Yerkeson

CORRESPONDENCE INFORMATION

NAME Stephanie A. Gumm

FIRM NAME Faegre Baker Daniels LLP

STREET 300 North Meridian Street, Suite 2700

CITY Indianapolis

STATE Indiana

COUNTRY United States

ZIP/POSTAL CODE 46204

PHONE 317-237-1423

FAX (317) 237-8443

*EMAIL ADDRESS trademark@faegrebd.com; stephanie.gumm@faegrebd.com

*AUTHORIZED TO COMMUNICATE VIA EMAIL Yes

FEE INFORMATION

APPLICATION FILING OPTION TEAS RF

NUMBER OF CLASSES 1

APPLICATION FOR REGISTRATION PER CLASS 275

*TOTAL FEE DUE 275

*TOTAL FEE PAID 275

SIGNATURE INFORMATION

SIGNATURE /Julie Heitz Cassidy/

SIGNATORY'S NAME Julie Heitz Cassidy

SIGNATORY'S POSITION Vice President, General Counsel

SIGNATORY'S PHONE NUMBER 812-482-8409

DATE SIGNED 03/27/2019

Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 no persons are required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a valid OMB control number. PTO Form 1478 (Rev 09/2006)

OMB No. 0651-0009 (Exp 02/28/2021)

 

Trademark/Service Mark Application, Principal Register

Serial Number: 88362467

Filing Date: 03/29/2019

To the Commissioner for Trademarks:

MARK: DEBUT (Standard Characters, see mark)

The literal element of the mark consists of DEBUT.

The mark consists of standard characters, without claim to any particular font style, size, or color.

The applicant, Kimball International, Inc., a corporation of Indiana, having an address of

      1600 Royal Street

      Jasper, Indiana 47546-2256

      United States

requests registration of the trademark/service mark identified above in the United States Patent and Trademark Office on the Principal Register

established by the Act of July 5, 1946 (15 U.S.C. Section 1051 et seq.), as amended, for the following:

       International Class 020:  furniture; office furniture; desks; height adjustable desks; casegoods furniture, namely, credenzas, storage units, file

cabinets, storage cabinets, shelf units, and modular office systems and parts thereof, namely, mounting tracks, brackets, wall panels, tiles, and

privacy dividers

Intent to Use: The applicant has a bona fide intention, and is entitled, to use the mark in commerce on or in connection with the identified

goods/services.

The applicant's current Attorney Information:

      Stephanie A. Gumm and Jared B. Briant, Amie Peele Carter, Marcelo S. Copat, Adam F. Cox, Jodi A. DeSchane, Jamie M. Drewry, John J.

Emanuele, Dianna L. Gould, Eric J. Groen, Brian D. Lefort, Calvin L. Litsey, David R. Merritt, William S. Meyers, Robert D. Null, Louis T.

Perry, Christopher J. Reckamp, Patricia I. Reding, Peter M. Routhier, James J. Saul, Michael D. Schwartz, James R. Steffen, Daniel

Tychonievich, Gary S. Weinstein, Abe Jentry Shanehsaz, Julie A. Bellville, and Douglas A. Yerkeson of Faegre Baker Daniels LLP      300

North Meridian Street, Suite 2700

      Indianapolis, Indiana 46204

      United States

      317-237-1423(phone)

      (317) 237-8443(fax)

      trademark@faegrebd.com (authorized)

The attorney docket/reference number is KIMT-1182.

The applicant's current Correspondence Information:

      Stephanie A. Gumm

      Faegre Baker Daniels LLP

      300 North Meridian Street, Suite 2700

      Indianapolis, Indiana 46204

      317-237-1423(phone)

      (317) 237-8443(fax)

      trademark@faegrebd.com;stephanie.gumm@faegrebd.com (authorized)

E-mail Authorization: I authorize the USPTO to send e-mail correspondence concerning the application to the applicant, the applicant's

attorney, or the applicant's domestic representative at the e-mail address provided in this application. I understand that a valid e-mail address

must be maintained and that the applicant or the applicant's attorney must file the relevant subsequent application-related submissions via the

Trademark Electronic Application System (TEAS). Failure to do so will result in the loss of TEAS Reduced Fee status and a requirement to

submit an additional processing fee of $125 per international class of goods/services.

A fee payment in the amount of $275 has been submitted with the application, representing payment for 1 class(es).

Declaration

Basis:

If the applicant is filing the application based on use in commerce under 15 U.S.C. § 1051(a):

The signatory believes that the applicant is the owner of the trademark/service mark sought to be registered;

The mark is in use in commerce on or in connection with the goods/services in the application;

The specimen(s) shows the mark as used on or in connection with the goods/services in the application; and

To the best of the signatory's knowledge and belief, the facts recited in the application are accurate.

And/Or

If the applicant is filing the application based on an intent to use the mark in commerce under 15 U.S.C. § 1051(b), § 1126(d),

and/or § 1126(e):

The signatory believes that the applicant is entitled to use the mark in commerce;

The applicant has a bona fide intention to use the mark in commerce on or in connection with the goods/services in the

application; and

To the best of the signatory's knowledge and belief, the facts recited in the application are accurate.

To the best of the signatory's knowledge and belief, no other persons, except, if applicable, concurrent users, have the right to use the

mark in commerce, either in the identical form or in such near resemblance as to be likely, when used on or in connection with the

goods/services of such other persons, to cause confusion or mistake, or to deceive.

To the best of the signatory's knowledge, information, and belief, formed after an inquiry reasonable under the circumstances, the

allegations and other factual contentions made above have evidentiary support.

The signatory being warned that willful false statements and the like are punishable by fine or imprisonment, or both, under 18 U.S.C. §

1001, and that such willful false statements and the like may jeopardize the validity of the application or submission or any registration

resulting therefrom, declares that all statements made of his/her own knowledge are true and all statements made on information and

belief are believed to be true.

Declaration Signature

Signature: /Julie Heitz Cassidy/   Date: 03/27/2019

Signatory's Name: Julie Heitz Cassidy

Signatory's Position: Vice President, General Counsel

Payment Sale Number: 88362467

Payment Accounting Date: 03/29/2019

Serial Number: 88362467

Internet Transmission Date: Fri Mar 29 09:51:48 EDT 2019

TEAS Stamp: USPTO/BAS-XXX.XXX.XXX.XXX-20190329095148

583188-88362467-620b58484bedb23e6bc6173f

8b82fae1e7974d70f9c2fbfecc5c2dc49584a6fd

d-CC-8458-20190325110851370594

 

To: Kimball International, Inc. (trademark@faegrebd.com)

Subject: U.S. TRADEMARK APPLICATION NO. 88362467 - DEBUT - KIMT-1182

Sent: 6/18/2019 7:25:32 PM

Sent As: ECOM122@USPTO.GOV

Attachments: 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

Attachment - 16

Attachment - 17

Attachment - 18

Attachment - 19

Attachment - 20

Attachment - 21

Attachment - 22

Attachment - 23

Attachment - 24

Attachment - 25

Attachment - 26

Attachment - 27

Attachment - 28

Attachment - 29

Attachment - 30

Attachment - 31

Attachment - 32

Attachment - 33

Attachment - 34

Attachment - 35

Attachment - 36

Attachment - 37

Attachment - 38

Attachment - 39

Attachment - 40

Attachment - 41

Attachment - 42

Attachment - 43

Attachment - 44

EXHIBIT B

Attachment - 45

Attachment - 46

Attachment - 47

Attachment - 48

Attachment - 49

Attachment - 50

Attachment - 51

Attachment - 52

Attachment - 53

Attachment - 54

Attachment - 55

Attachment - 56

Attachment - 57

Attachment - 58

Attachment - 59

Attachment - 60

Attachment - 61

Attachment - 62

Attachment - 63

Attachment - 64

Attachment - 65

 

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE (USPTO)

OFFICE ACTION (OFFICIAL LETTER) ABOUT APPLICANT’S TRADEMARK APPLICATION

 U.S. APPLICATION

SERIAL NO.  88362467

 

MARK: DEBUT

 

 

        

*88362467*CORRESPONDENT

ADDRESS:

       STEPHANIE A.

GUMM

       FAEGRE BAKER

DANIELS LLP

       300 NORTH

MERIDIAN STREET,

SUITE 2700

       INDIANAPOLIS, IN

46204

       

 CLICK HERE TO RESPOND TO THIS

LETTER:

http://www.uspto.gov/trademarks/teas/response_forms.jsp

 

VIEW YOUR APPLICATION FILE

 

APPLICANT: Kimball

International, Inc.

 

  

CORRESPONDENT’S

REFERENCE/DOCKET

NO:  

       KIMT-1182

CORRESPONDENT E-

MAIL ADDRESS: 

      

trademark@faegrebd.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: 6/18/2019

 

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:

Section 2(d) Refusal – Likelihood Of Confusion

Amendment of Identification of Goods Required

Multi-Class Advisory

 

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 No. 3472354 and

5204889.  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 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.  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.

 

In this case, the following factors are the most relevant: similarity of the marks, similarity and nature of the goods, and similarity of the trade

channels of the goods.  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.

 

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).

 

Comparison of Marks

 

The applicant’s mark is “DEBUT”. The registrants’ marks are “DEBUT BY DANIELLE” (Reg. No. 3472354) and “IDESK DEBUT” (Reg.

No. 5204889).

 

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).

 

When comparing marks, “[t]he proper test is not a side-by-side comparison of the marks, but instead whether the marks are sufficiently similar in

terms of their commercial impression such that [consumers] who encounter the marks would be likely to assume a connection between the

parties.”   Cai v. Diamond Hong, Inc., __ F.3d __, 127 USPQ2d 1797, 1801 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (quoting Coach Servs., Inc. v. Triumph Learning

LLC, 668 F.3d 1356, 1368, 101 USPQ2d 1713, 1721 (Fed. Cir. 2012)); TMEP §1207.01(b).  The proper focus is on the recollection of the

average purchaser, who retains a general rather than specific impression of trademarks.  In re Inn at St. John’s, LLC , 126 USPQ2d 1742, 1746

(TTAB 2018) (citing In re St. Helena Hosp., 774 F.3d 747, 750-51, 113 USPQ2d 1082, 1085 (Fed. Cir. 2014); Geigy Chem. Corp. v. Atlas Chem.

Indus., Inc., 438 F.2d 1005, 1007, 169 USPQ 39, 40 (CCPA 1971)); TMEP §1207.01(b).

 

Here, applicant’s mark “DEBUT” is entirely incorporated with the registered marks, “DEBUT BY DANIELLE” and “IDESK DEBUT”.

Incorporating the entirety of one mark within another does not obviate the similarity between the compared marks, as in the present case, nor

does it overcome a likelihood of confusion under Section 2(d).  See Wella Corp. v. Cal. Concept Corp., 558 F.2d 1019, 1022, 194 USPQ 419,

422 (C.C.P.A. 1977) (finding CALIFORNIA CONCEPT and surfer design and CONCEPT confusingly similar); Coca-Cola Bottling Co. v. Jos.

E. Seagram & Sons, Inc., 526 F.2d 556, 557, 188 USPQ 105, 106 (C.C.P.A. 1975) (finding BENGAL LANCER and design and BENGAL

confusingly similar); In re Integrated Embedded, 120 USPQ2d 1504, 1513 (TTAB 2016) (finding BARR GROUP and BARR confusingly

similar); In re Mr. Recipe, LLC, 118 USPQ2d 1084, 1090 (TTAB 2016) (finding JAWS DEVOUR YOUR HUNGER and JAWS confusingly

similar); TMEP §1207.01(b)(iii).  In the present case, the marks are identical in part.

 

In this case, applicant’s mark “DEBUT” and registrants’ marks “DEBUT BY DANIELLE” and “IDESK DEBUT” are highly similar in

sound, appearance, and overall commercial connotation.

 

Comparison of Goods

 

The applicant’s goods include office furniture and various specific items of office furniture. The registrant’s goods include office furniture

(Reg. No. 5204889) and wall-mounted mirrors (Reg. No. 3472354).

 

The compared goods 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).

 

Reg. No. 5204889

 

Determining likelihood of confusion is based on the description of the goods 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 registration uses broad wording to describe “office furniture”, which presumably encompasses all goods of the type described,

including applicant’s more narrow “ office furniture; desks; height adjustable desks; casegoods furniture, namely, credenzas, storage units, file

cabinets, storage cabinets, shelf units, and modular office systems and parts thereof, namely, mounting tracks, brackets, wall panels, tiles, and

privacy dividers.”   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 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 are related.

 

Reg. No. 3472354

 

The attached Internet evidence, consisting of screenshots from ashleyfurniture.com, badcock.com, and worldmarket.com (showing these entities

all produce and provide furniture, office furniture, desks, credenzas, storage units, file cabinets, and wall-mounted mirrors), establishes that the

same entity commonly produces and provides the relevant goods and markets the goods under the same mark and the relevant goods are sold or

provided through the same trade channels and used by the same classes of consumers in the same fields of use.  Thus, applicant’s and

registrant’s goods are considered related for likelihood of confusion purposes.   See, e.g., In re Davey Prods. Pty Ltd., 92 USPQ2d 1198, 1202-04

(TTAB 2009); In re Toshiba Med. Sys. Corp., 91 USPQ2d 1266, 1268-69, 1271-72 (TTAB 2009).

 

In summary, the applicant’s and registrant’s marks create the same commercial impression and the respective goods are highly related.

Therefore, consumers are likely to be confused and mistakenly believe that these goods originate from a common source. Accordingly,

registration must be refused under Section 2(d) of the Trademark Act.

 

If applicant responds to the refusals, applicant must also respond to the requirement set forth below.

 

AMENDMENT OF IDENTIFICATION OF GOODS REQUIRED

 

The wording “storage units” in the identification of goods for International Class 20 must be clarified because it is too broad and could include

goods in other international classes.  See 37 C.F.R. §2.32(a)(6); TMEP §§1402.01, 1402.03.  In particular, this wording could encompass

“general purpose metal storage units; storage units in the nature of metal storage sheds” in Class 6; “photo storage boxes; storage containers

made of paper” in Class 16; “storage units in the nature of non-metal bicycle storage racks” in Class 19; “storage units in the nature of storage

racks; storage units in the nature of storage and organization systems comprising shelves, drawers, cupboards, baskets and clothes rods, sold as a

unit” in Class 20; “plastic storage containers for household use” in Class 21; “storage units in the nature of garment bags for storage” in Class

22; and “storage units in the nature of storage racks for ski equipment, sports equipment, and athletic equipment” in Class 28.

 

The wording “modular office systems and parts thereof, namely, mounting tracks, brackets, wall panels, tiles, and privacy dividers” in the

identification of goods is indefinite and must be clarified because the nature of the office systems and the parts must be specified.  See 37 C.F.R.

§2.32(a)(6); TMEP §1402.01.  Applicant may substitute the following wording, if accurate:  “furniture in the nature of modular office systems

and parts thereof sold together as a unit, namely, mounting tracks, brackets, wall panels, tiles, and privacy dividers.”

 

Applicant may adopt the following identification, if accurate (examining attorney’s suggestions in bold font):

 

Class 6:           general purpose metal storage units; storage units in the nature of metal storage sheds

 

Class 16:         photo storage boxes; storage containers made of paper

 

Class 19:         storage units in the nature of non-metal bicycle storage racks

 

Class 20:          furniture; office furniture; desks; height adjustable desks; casegoods furniture, namely, credenzas, storage units in the nature of

storage racks, storage units in the nature of storage and organization systems comprising shelves, drawers, cupboards,

baskets and clothes rods, sold as a unit, file cabinets, storage cabinets, shelf units, and furniture in the nature of modular

office systems and parts thereof sold together as a unit, namely, mounting tracks, brackets, wall panels, tiles, and privacy

dividers

 

Class 21:         plastic storage containers for household use

 

Class 22:         storage units in the nature of garment bags for storage

 

Class 28:         storage units in the nature of storage racks for ski equipment, sports equipment, and athletic equipment

 

See TMEP §§ 1402.01, 1402.03.

 

Applicant may amend the identification to clarify or limit the goods, but not to broaden or expand the goods 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 may not later be reinserted.  See

TMEP §1402.07(e).

 

For assistance with identifying and classifying goods in trademark applications, please see the USPTO’s online searchable U.S. Acceptable

Identification of Goods and Services Manual.  See TMEP §1402.04.

 

MULTI-CLASS ADVISORY

 

The application identifies goods in more than one international class; therefore, applicant must satisfy all the requirements below for each

international class based on Trademark Act Section 1(b):

 

(1)        List the goods and/or services by their international class number in consecutive numerical order, starting with the lowest

numbered class.

 

(2)        Submit a filing fee for each international class not covered by the fee already paid (view the USPTO’s current fee schedule).  The

application identifies goods that are classified in at least seven classes; however, applicant submitted a fee sufficient for only one

class.  Applicant must either submit the filing fees for the classes not covered by the submitted fees or restrict the application to the

number of classes covered by the fees already paid.

 

See 15 U.S.C. §§1051(b), 1112, 1126(e); 37 C.F.R. §§2.32(a)(6)-(7), 2.34(a)(2)-(3), 2.86(a); TMEP §§1403.01, 1403.02(c).

 

See an overview of the requirements for a Section 1(b) multiple-class application and how to satisfy the requirements online using the Trademark

Electronic Application System (TEAS) form.

 

The fee for adding classes to a TEAS Reduced Fee (RF) application is $275 per class.  See 37 C.F.R. §§2.6(a)(1)(iii), 2.23(a).  See more

information regarding the requirements for maintaining the lower TEAS RF fee and, if these requirements are not satisfied, for adding classes ata

higher fee using regular TEAS.

 

RESPONSE GUIDELINES

 

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 refusals and requirement 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. 

 

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.  

 

 

 

/Ryan M. Witkowski/

Examining Attorney

Law Office 122

(571) 272-7584

ryan.witkowski@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.

 

 

To: Kimball International, Inc. (trademark@faegrebd.com)

Subject: U.S. TRADEMARK APPLICATION NO. 88362467 - DEBUT - KIMT-1182

Sent: 6/18/2019 7:25:37 PM

Sent As: ECOM122@USPTO.GOV

Attachments:

 

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE (USPTO)

 

 

IMPORTANT NOTICE REGARDING YOUR

U.S. TRADEMARK APPLICATION

 USPTO OFFICE ACTION (OFFICIAL LETTER) HAS ISSUED

ON 6/18/2019 FOR U.S. APPLICATION SERIAL NO. 88362467

 Please follow the instructions below:

 

(1)  TO READ THE LETTER:  Click on this link or go to http://tsdr.uspto.gov, enter the U.S. application serial number, and click on

“Documents.”

 

The 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.

 

(2)  TIMELY RESPONSE IS REQUIRED:  Please carefully review the Office action to determine (1) how to respond, and (2) the applicable

response time period.  Your response deadline will be calculated from 6/18/2019 (or sooner if specified in the Office action).  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.  For information regarding response time periods, see http://www.uspto.gov/trademarks/process/status/responsetime.jsp.

 

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.  Instead, the USPTO recommends that you respond online using the TEAS response form located at

http://www.uspto.gov/trademarks/teas/response_forms.jsp.

 

(3)  QUESTIONS:  For questions about the contents of the Office action itself, please contact the assigned trademark examining attorney.  For

technical assistance in accessing or viewing the Office action in the Trademark Status and Document Retrieval (TSDR) system, please e-mail

TSDR@uspto.gov.

 

WARNING

 Failure to file the required response by the applicable response deadline will result in the ABANDONMENT of your application.  For

more information regarding abandonment, see http://www.uspto.gov/trademarks/basics/abandon.jsp.

 

PRIVATE COMPANY SOLICITATIONS REGARDING YOUR APPLICATION:  Private companies not associated with the USPTO are

using information provided in trademark applications to mail or e-mail trademark-related solicitations.  These companies often use names that

closely resemble the USPTO and their solicitations may look like an official government document.  Many solicitations require that you pay

“fees.”  

 

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.  All official USPTO correspondence will be mailed only from the “United States

Patent and Trademark Office” in Alexandria, VA; or sent by e-mail from the domain “@uspto.gov.”   For more information on how to handle

private company solicitations, see http://www.uspto.gov/trademarks/solicitation_warnings.jsp.