To: SPWT, LLC(tomika.anderson@gmail.

com)
U.S. Trademark Application Serial No. 90750399 - SINGLE PARENTS WHO
Subject:
TRAVEL
Sent: February 23, 2022 06:04:01 PM EST
Sent As: [email protected]

Attachments
screencapture-singleparentswhotravel-com-16450458666611
86857724
screencapture-www-trafalgar-com-en-us-ways-to-go-single-parent-vacations-
16456567390041
screencapture-www-collinsdictionary-com-dictionary-english-single-parent-16456567823531
screencapture-www-collinsdictionary-com-dictionary-english-girl-16456568171901
screencapture-girltrips-eftours-com-16456568689501
screencapture-www-travelandleisure-com-trip-ideas-private-travel-clubs-affordable-
exclusive-experiences-16456571673711

United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO)

Office Action (Official Letter) About Applicant’s Trademark Application

U.S. Application Serial No. 90750399

Mark: SINGLE PARENTS WHO TRAVEL

Correspondence Address:
SPWT, LLC
2384 MERSEYSIDE DRIVE
WOODBRIDGE VA 22191 UNITED STATES

Applicant: SPWT, LLC

Reference/Docket No. N/A

Correspondence Email Address: [email protected]

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 abandoned. Respond using the Trademark Electronic Application
System (TEAS). A link to the appropriate TEAS response form appears at the end of this Office
action.

Issue date: February 23, 2022

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(d) Refusal — Likelihood of Confusion
• Sections 1(a) And 45 Refusal -- Premature Use
• Disclaimer Amendment Required

SECTION 2(d) REFUSAL — LIKELIHOOD OF CONFUSION

Registration of the applied-for mark is refused because of a likelihood of confusion with the mark(s) in
U.S. Registration No(s). 5025988. Trademark Act Section 2(d), 15 U.S.C. §1052(d); see TMEP
§§1207.01 et seq. See the attached registration.

In this case, applicant has applied to register the mark SINGLE PARENTS WHO TRAVEL for use in
connection with “Travel and transport information service; Travel booking agencies; Travel clubs;
Travel guide and travel information services; Travel guide services; Travel information; Travel
information services; Travel route planning; Arranging transport for travelers; Booking of travel
tickets; Booking of seats for travel; Booking of tickets for travel; Coordinating travel arrangements for
individuals and for groups; Escorting of travellers; Organisation of travel; Organizing transport for
travelers; Providing a website featuring information on travel; Providing information about travel, via
the Internet; Provision of travel information; Transport of travellers.”

Registration No. 5025988 is for the mark used in connection with “Providing a web site featuring travel
information and commentary; Travel clubs.”

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.

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).

Here, applicant’s mark, SINGLE PARENTS WHO TRAVEL, is confusingly similar to the registered
mark GIRLS WHO TRAVEL. Specifically, both marks contain the phrase "WHO TRAVEL". 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) (finding COMMCASH and COMMUNICASH confusingly
similar); In re Corning Glass Works, 229 USPQ 65, 66 (TTAB 1985) (finding CONFIRM and
CONFIRMCELLS confusingly similar); In re Pellerin Milnor Corp., 221 USPQ 558, 560 (TTAB
1983) (finding MILTRON and MILLTRONICS confusingly similar); TMEP §1207.01(b)(ii)-
(iii). Here, both marks create the overall commercial impression of a specific group that makes
journeys.

Further, the wording "SINGLE PARENTS" in the applied-for mark and “GIRLS” in the registered
mark do not obviate the similarities between the marks as both terms describe the intended audiences of
the services.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 Detroit Athletic Co., 903 F.3d
1297, 1305, 128 USPQ2d 1047, 1050 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (citing In re Dixie Rests., 105 F.3d 1405, 1407,
41 USPQ2d 1531, 1533-34 (Fed. Cir. 1997)); TMEP §1207.01(b)(viii), (c)(ii). Matter that is descriptive
of or generic for a party’s goods and/or services is typically less significant or less dominant in relation
to other wording in a mark. See Anheuser-Busch, LLC v. Innvopak Sys. Pty Ltd., 115 USPQ2d 1816,
1824-25 (TTAB 2015) (citing In re Chatam Int’l Inc., 380 F.3d 1340, 1342-43, 71 USPQ2d 1944, 1946
(Fed. Cir. 2004)).

In the present case, the attached evidence shows that the wording "SINGLE PARENTS" and "GIRLS"
in the applied-for and registered mark is merely descriptive of or generic for applicant’s and
registrant's services. Thus, this wording is less significant in terms of affecting the mark’s commercial
impression, and renders the wording “WHO TRAVEL” the more dominant element of the mark.
Therefore, consumers would perceive the marks as describing the same source that is providing the
same services for different audiences.
Ultimately, when purchasers call for the services of the applicant and registrant using SINGLE
PARENTS WHO TRAVEL and GIRLS WHO TRAVEL, they are likely to be confused as to the
sources of those services by the similarities between the marks. Thus, the marks are confusingly
similar.
 Relatedness of the Services

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).

In this case, applicant's “Travel and transport information service; Travel booking agencies; Travel
clubs; Travel guide and travel information services; Travel guide services; Travel information; Travel
information services; Travel route planning; Arranging transport for travelers; Booking of travel
tickets; Booking of seats for travel; Booking of tickets for travel; Coordinating travel arrangements for
individuals and for groups; Escorting of travellers; Organisation of travel; Organizing transport for
travelers; Providing a website featuring information on travel; Providing information about travel, via
the Internet; Provision of travel information; Transport of travellers” are related to registrant’s
“Providing a web site featuring travel information and commentary; Travel clubs”. Specifically, both
the application and registration identify travel services.

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 "travel club" services in the application and registration(s) are identical. Therefore, it is
presumed that the channels of trade and class(es) of purchasers are the same for these goods and/or
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.

In this case, the registration(s) use(s) broad wording to describe travel clubs that provide a wide range
of travel services (see attached article about travel clubs), which presumably encompasses all goods
and/or services of the type described, including applicant’s more narrow specific travel services. 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). Further, applicants' information services
encompass registrant's proving a website featuring travel information. Thus, applicant’s and registrant’s
services 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.
When purchasers encounter the services of the applicant and registrant, they are likely to be confused
as to the source of the services by the relationship between them. Thus, the services are closely related.

Therefore, because the marks are confusingly similar and the services are closely related, purchasers
encountering these services are likely to believe, mistakenly, that they emanate from a common source.
Accordingly, there is a likelihood of confusion and 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(s) by
submitting evidence and arguments in support of registration.

SECTIONS 1(a) AND 45 REFUSAL -- PREMATURE USE

Registration is refused because the evidence shows that applicant has not used the applied-for mark in
commerce in connection with the identified goods and/or services as of the application filing date.
Trademark Act Sections 1(a) and 45, 15 U.S.C. §§1051(a), 1127; 37 C.F.R. §2.34(a)(1)(i); see TMEP
§§904, 1301.03(a). Here, the provided webpage for the applicant reads "Launching Soon", suggesting
the services are not yet in use.

The use or display of a mark in the sale or advertising of goods and/or services before the goods are
actually created or provided or the services rendered does not show use in commerce. See Couture v.
Playdom, Inc., 778 F.3d 1379, 1380-82, 113 USPQ2d 2042, 2043-44 (Fed. Cir. 2015); In re Cedar
Point, Inc., 220 USPQ 533 (TTAB 1983); TMEP §§904, 1301.03(a).

Accordingly, the mark is refused registration pursuant to Sections 1(a) and 45 of the Trademark Act.

If applicant’s goods were being sold or transported or the services were being rendered in commerce as
of the application filing date, applicant must submit the following:

(1) A different specimen (a verified “substitute” specimen) showing the

applied-for mark in use in commerce for the goods and/or services specified in the
application. Any webpage printout or screenshot submitted as a specimen must include
the webpage’s URL and the date it was accessed or printed on the specimen itself,
within the TEAS form that submits the specimen, or in a verified statement under 37
C.F.R. §2.20 or 28 U.S.C. §1746 in a later-filed response. See 37 C.F.R. §2.56(c);
TMEP §§904.03(i), 1301.04(a).

(2) The following statement, verified with an affidavit or signed declaration

under 37 C.F.R. §2.20: “The substitute specimen was in use in commerce at least as
early as the application filing date.” 37 C.F.R. §2.59(a); TMEP §904.05; see 37 C.F.R.
§2.193(e)(1). If submitting a substitute specimen requires an amendment to the dates of
use, applicant must also verify the amended dates. 37 C.F.R. §2.71(c); TMEP §904.05.

If applicant did not use the applied-for mark in commerce on or before the filing date, applicant may
substitute a different basis for filing if applicant can meet the requirements for the new basis. In this
case, applicant may wish to amend the application to assert a Section 1(b) basis. See TMEP §806.03(c).
However, if applicant amends the basis to Section 1(b), registration will not be granted until applicant
later amends the application back to use in commerce by filing an acceptable allegation of use with a
proper specimen. See 15 U.S.C. §1051(c), (d); 37 C.F.R. §§2.76, 2.88; TMEP §1103. If the same
specimen is submitted with an allegation of use, the same refusal will issue.

To amend to Section 1(b), applicant must submit the following statement, verified with an affidavit or
signed declaration under 37 C.F.R. §2.20: “Applicant has a bona fide intention to use the mark in
commerce and had a bona fide intention to use the mark in commerce as of the application filing
date.” 37 C.F.R. §2.34(a)(2); TMEP §806.01(b); see 15 U.S.C. §1051(b); 37 C.F.R. §§2.35(b)(1),
2.193(e)(1).

If applicant responds to the refusal(s), applicant must also respond to the requirement(s) set forth
below.

DISCLAIMER AMENDMENT REQUIRED

Applicant disclaimed the individual words “TRAVEL”, which appears the mark as part of the phrase
“SINGLE PARENTS WHO TRAVEL.” However, this phrase is unitary because the words are read
together as a single unit; and they form a grammatically or otherwise unitary expression. See TMEP
§§1213.05, (b), 1213.08(b). Words in a grammatically or otherwise unitary expression must be
disclaimed as a composite. TMEP §1213.08(b); see, e.g., In re Med. Disposables Co., 25 USPQ2d
1801, 1805 (TTAB 1992); In re Wanstrath, 7 USPQ2d 1412, 1413 (Comm’r Pats. 1987). Components
of a mark that are not adjacent or adjacent components that do not form a grammatically or otherwise
unitary expression may be disclaimed separately, which is not present in this case. See TMEP
§1213.08(a)(i), (b).

Here, a disclaimer of the entire composite phrase is not required. Therefore, applicant should request to
withdraw this disclaimer from the application.

RESPONSE TO THIS OFFICE ACTION

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. Because of the legal technicalities and strict deadlines of the
trademark application process, applicant is encouraged to hire a private attorney who specializes in
trademark matters to assist in this process. The assigned trademark examining attorney can provide
only limited assistance explaining the content of an Office action and the application process. USPTO
staff cannot provide legal advice or statements about an applicant’s legal rights. TMEP §§705.02,
709.06. See Hiring a U.S.-licensed trademark attorney for more information.

How to respond. Click to file a response to this nonfinal Office action.

 /Emma Sirignano/
Emma Sirignano
Trademark Examining Attorney
Law Office 113
(571) 272-7031
[email protected]

RESPONSE GUIDANCE
• Missing the response deadline to this letter will cause the application to abandon. The
response must be received by the USPTO before midnight Eastern Time of the last day of the
response period. TEAS maintenance or unforeseen circumstances could affect an applicant’s
ability to timely respond.

• Responses signed by an unauthorized party are not accepted and can cause the application to
abandon. If applicant does not have an attorney, the response must be signed by the individual
applicant, all joint applicants, or someone with legal authority to bind a juristic applicant. If
applicant has an attorney, the response must be signed by the attorney.

• If needed, find contact information for the supervisor of the office or unit listed in the
signature block.
 United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO)

USPTO OFFICIAL NOTICE

Office Action (Official Letter) has issued
on February 23, 2022 for
U.S. Trademark Application Serial No. 90750399

A USPTO examining attorney has reviewed your trademark application and issued an Office
action. You must respond to this Office action in order to avoid your application
abandoning. Follow the steps below.

(1) Read the Office action HERE. This email is NOT the Office action.

(2) Respond to the Office action by the deadline using the Trademark Electronic Application
System (TEAS). Your response must be received by the USPTO on or before 11:59 p.m.
Eastern Time of the last day of the response period. Otherwise, your application will be
abandoned. See the Office action itself regarding how to respond.

(3) Direct general questions about using USPTO electronic forms, the USPTO website, the
application process, the status of your application, and whether there are outstanding deadlines
to the Trademark Assistance Center (TAC).

After reading the Office action, address any question(s) regarding the specific content to the
USPTO examining attorney identified in the Office action.

GENERAL GUIDANCE

• Check the status of your application periodically in the Trademark Status &
Document Retrieval (TSDR) database to avoid missing critical deadlines.

• Update your correspondence email address to ensure you receive important USPTO
notices about your application.

• Beware of misleading notices sent by private companies about your application.

Private companies not associated with the USPTO may mail or email you trademark-
related offers and notices - most of which require fees. The USPTO will only email
official USPTO correspondence from the domain "@uspto.gov".

• Hiring a U.S.-licensed attorney. If you do not have an attorney and are not required to
have one under the trademark rules, we encourage you to hire a U.S.-licensed attorney
specializing in trademark law to help guide you through the registration process. The
USPTO examining attorney identified above is not your attorney and cannot give you
legal advice, but rather works for and represents the USPTO in trademark matters.
Print: Wed Feb 23 2022 86857724

(4) STANDARD CHARACTER MARK

Mark Punctuated
GIRLS WHO TRAVEL
Translation
Goods/Services

• IC 039. US 100 105.G & S: Providing a web site featuring travel information and commentary; Travel
clubs. FIRST USE: 20110626. FIRST USE IN COMMERCE: 20110626

Mark Drawing Code

(4) STANDARD CHARACTER MARK
Design Code
Serial Number
86857724
Filing Date
20151222
Current Filing Basis
1A
Original Filing Basis
1A
Publication for Opposition Date
20160607
Registration Number
5025988
Date Registered
20160823
Owner
(REGISTRANT) Schuman, Arden INDIVIDUAL UNITED STATES Apt 603 730 S. Clark Chicago ILLINOIS
60605
Priority Date
Disclaimer Statement
NO CLAIM IS MADE TO THE EXCLUSIVE RIGHT TO USE "TRAVEL" APART FROM THE MARK AS
SHOWN
Description of Mark
Type of Mark
SERVICE MARK
Register
PRINCIPAL
Live Dead Indicator
LIVE
Attorney of Record