UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE (USPTO)

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

 

 

 

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.

 

ISSUE/MAILING DATE:

 

The referenced application has been reviewed by the assigned trademark examining attorney.  Applicant must respond timely and completely to the issue below.  15 U.S.C. §1062(b); 37 C.F.R. §§2.62(a), 2.65(a); TMEP §§711, 718.03.

 

Summary of Issues applicant must address:

 

• Likelihood of Confusion Refusal
• Merely Descriptive Refusal
• Identification of Goods

 

 

Likelihood of Confusion – Refusal

 

Registration of the applied-for mark is refused because of a likelihood of confusion with the mark in U.S. Registration No. 4081675.  Trademark Act Section 2(d), 15 U.S.C. §1052(d); see TMEP §§1207.01 et seq.  See the enclosed registration.

 

Trademark Act Section 2(d) bars registration of an applied-for mark that so resembles a registered mark that it is likely a potential consumer would be confused, mistaken, or deceived as to the source of the goods of the applicant and registrant.  See 15 U.S.C. §1052(d).  A determination of likelihood of confusion under Section 2(d) is made on a case-by case basis and the factors set forth in In re E. I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., 476 F.2d 1357, 177 USPQ 563 (C.C.P.A. 1973) aid in this determination.  Citigroup Inc. v. Capital City Bank Grp., Inc., 637 F.3d 1344, 1349, 98 USPQ2d 1253, 1256 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (citing On-Line Careline, Inc. v. Am. Online, Inc., 229 F.3d 1080, 1085, 56 USPQ2d 1471, 1474 (Fed. Cir. 2000)).  Not all the du Pont factors, however, are necessarily relevant or of equal weight, and any one of the factors may control in a given case, depending upon the evidence of record.  Citigroup Inc. v. Capital City Bank Grp., Inc., 637 F.3d at 1355, 98 USPQ2d at 1260; In re Majestic Distilling Co., 315 F.3d 1311, 1315, 65 USPQ2d 1201, 1204 (Fed. Cir. 2003); see In re E. I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., 476 F.2d at 1361-62, 177 USPQ at 567.

 

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 and/or services.  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 applicant applied to register the mark, GUEST MODE for “computers; computer hardware; handheld digital electronic devices and software related thereto; electronic communication equipment and instruments; telecommunications apparatus and instruments; telephones, namely mobile telephones; wireless communication devices for voice, data or image transmission; cameras; computer software.” 

 

The registered mark, MODE for “mobile telephones; accessories and replacement parts for mobile telephones, namely, batteries, battery chargers, car chargers for mobile telephones, carrying cases for mobile telephones, data cables, headsets, and memory cards sold as a unit with mobile telephones; component parts of mobile telephones, namely, alarm clocks, calculators, digital cameras, electronic address books and calendars, FM radio tuners, electronic foreign currency converters, global positioning systems, music and video players, and sound and video recorders

 

Similarity of Mark

 

Marks are compared in their entireties for similarities in appearance, sound, connotation, and commercial impression.  In re Viterra Inc., 671 F.3d 1358, 1362, 101 USPQ2d 1905, 1908 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (quoting In re E. I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., 476 F.2d 1357, 1361, 177 USPQ 563, 567 (C.C.P.A. 1973)); TMEP §1207.01(b)-(b)(v).  Similarity in any one of these elements may be sufficient to find the marks confusingly similar.  In re White Swan Ltd., 8 USPQ2d 1534, 1535 (TTAB 1988); see In re 1st USA Realty Prof’ls, Inc., 84 USPQ2d 1581, 1586 (TTAB 2007); TMEP §1207.01(b).

 

When comparing marks, the test is not whether the marks can be distinguished in a side-by-side comparison, but rather whether the marks are sufficiently similar in their entireties that confusion as to the source of the goods offered under applicant’s and registrant’s marks is likely to result.  Midwestern Pet Foods, Inc. v. Societe des Produits Nestle S.A., 685 F.3d 1046, 1053, 103 USPQ2d 1435, 1440 (Fed. Cir. 2012); Edom Labs., Inc. v. Lichter, 102 USPQ2d 1546, 1551 (TTAB 2012); TMEP §1207.01(b).  The focus is on the recollection of the average purchaser, who normally retains a general rather than specific impression of trademarks.  L’Oreal S.A. v. Marcon, 102 USPQ2d 1434, 1438 (TTAB 2012); Sealed Air Corp. v. Scott Paper Co., 190 USPQ 106, 108 (TTAB 1975); TMEP §1207.01(b).

 

Here, the applicant and registrant’s mark are in standard character, and both marks share the term “mode.”  The mere addition of the wording “Guest” in the applicant’s mark generally does not obviate the similarity between the marks nor does it overcome a likelihood of confusion under Trademark Act Section 2(d).  See In re Chatam Int’l Inc., 380 F.3d 1340, 71 USPQ2d 1944 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (GASPAR’S ALE and JOSE GASPAR GOLD); Coca-Cola Bottling Co. v. Jos. E. Seagram & Sons, Inc., 526 F.2d 556, 188 USPQ 105 (C.C.P.A. 1975) (BENGAL and BENGAL LANCER); Lilly Pulitzer, Inc. v. Lilli Ann Corp., 376 F.2d 324, 153 USPQ 406 (C.C.P.A. 1967) (THE LILLY and LILLI ANN); In re Toshiba Med. Sys. Corp., 91 USPQ2d 1266 (TTAB 2009) (TITAN and VANTAGE TITAN); In re El Torito Rests., Inc., 9 USPQ2d 2002 (TTAB 1988) (MACHO and MACHO COMBOS); In re Corning Glass Works, 229 USPQ 65 (TTAB 1985) (CONFIRM and CONFIRMCELLS); In re U.S. Shoe Corp., 229 USPQ 707 (TTAB 1985) (CAREER IMAGE and CREST CAREER IMAGES); In re Riddle, 225 USPQ 630 (TTAB 1985) (ACCUTUNE and RICHARD PETTY’S ACCU TUNE); TMEP §1207.01(b)(iii).

 

Similarity of Goods

 

When analyzing an applicant’s and registrant’s goods for similarity and relatedness, that determination is based on the description of the goods stated in the application and registration at issue, not on extrinsic evidence of actual use.  See Octocom Sys. Inc. v. Hous. Computers Servs. Inc., 918 F.2d 937, 942, 16 USPQ2d 1783, 1787 (Fed. Cir. 1990); see also Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Packard Press Inc., 281 F.3d 1261, 1267, 62 USPQ2d 1001, 1004 (Fed. Cir. 2002). 

 

Absent restrictions in an application and/or registration, the identified goods are presumed to travel in the same channels of trade to the same class of purchasers.  Citigroup Inc. v. Capital City Bank Grp., Inc., 637 F.3d 1344, 1356, 98 USPQ2d 1253, 1261 (Fed. Cir. 2011); Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Packard Press Inc., 281 F.3d at 1268, 62 USPQ2d at 1005.  Additionally, unrestricted and broad identifications are presumed to encompass all goods and/or services of the type described.  See In re Jump Designs, 80 USPQ2d 1370, 1374 (TTAB 2006); In re Linkvest S.A., 24 USPQ2d 1716, 1716 (TTAB 1992). 

 

In this case, the identifications set forth in the application and registration are identical and have no restrictions as to nature, type, channels of trade, or classes of purchasers.  Therefore, it is presumed that these goods travel in all normal channels of trade, and are available to the same class of purchasers.  See Midwestern Pet Foods, Inc. v. Societe des Produits Nestle S.A., 685 F.3d 1046, 1053, 103 USPQ2d 1435, 1440 (Fed. Cir. 2012).  Accordingly, the goods and/or services of applicant and the registrant are considered related for purposes of the likelihood of confusion analysis.

 

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).

 

The applicant should note the additional refusal.

 

Merely Descriptive Refusal

 

Registration is refused because the applied-for mark merely describes a feature of the applicant’s goods.  Trademark Act Section 2(e)(1), 15 U.S.C. §1052(e)(1); see TMEP §§1209.01(b), 1209.03 et seq.

 

A mark is merely descriptive if it describes an ingredient, quality, characteristic, function, feature, purpose, or use of an applicant’s goods and/or services.  TMEP §1209.01(b); see, e.g., DuoProSS Meditech Corp. v. Inviro Med. Devices, Ltd., ___ F.3d ___, 103 USPQ2d 1753, 1755 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (quoting In re Oppedahl & Larson LLP, 373 F.3d 1171, 1173, 71 USPQ2d 1370, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2004)); In re Steelbuilding.com, 415 F.3d 1293, 1297, 75 USPQ2d 1420, 1421 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (citing Estate of P.D. Beckwith, Inc. v. Comm’r of Patents, 252 U.S. 538, 543 (1920)). 

 

A mark is merely descriptive if “it immediately conveys knowledge of a quality, feature, function, or characteristic of [an applicant’s] goods or services.”  In re The Chamber of Commerce of the U.S., 675 F.3d 1297, 1300, 102 USPQ2d 1217, 1219 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (quoting In re Bayer Aktiengesellschaft, 488 F.3d 960, 963, 82 USPQ2d 1828, 1831 (Fed. Cir. 2007)); TMEP §1209.01(b); see DuoProSS Meditech Corp. v. Inviro Med. Devices, Ltd., ___ F.3d ___, 103 USPQ2d 1753, 1755 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (quoting In re Abcor Dev. Corp., 588 F.2d 811, 814, 200 USPQ 215, 218 (C.C.P.A. 1978)).  Furthermore, the determination of whether a mark is merely descriptive is made in relation to an applicant’s goods and/or services, not in the abstract.  DuoProSS Meditech Corp. v. Inviro Med. Devices, Ltd., ___ F.3d ___, 103 USPQ2d 1753, 1757 (Fed. Cir. 2012); In re The Chamber of Commerce of the U.S., 675 F.3d 1297, 1300, 102 USPQ2d 1217, 1219 (Fed. Cir. 2012); TMEP §1209.01(b); see, e.g., In re Polo Int’l Inc., 51 USPQ2d 1061, 1062-63 (TTAB 1999) (finding DOC in DOC-CONTROL would refer to the “documents” managed by applicant’s software rather than the term “doctor” shown in a dictionary definition); In re Digital Research Inc., 4 USPQ2d 1242, 1243-44 (TTAB 1987) (finding CONCURRENT PC-DOS and CONCURRENT DOS merely descriptive of “computer programs recorded on disk” where the relevant trade used the denomination “concurrent” as a descriptor of a particular type of operating system).  A mark does not need to be merely descriptive of all the goods or services specified in an application.  In re The Chamber of Commerce of the U.S., 675 F.3d 1297, 1300, 102 USPQ2d 1217, 1219 (Fed. Cir. 2012); In re Franklin Cnty. Historical Soc'y, 104 USPQ2d 1085, 1089 (TTAB 2012).  “A descriptiveness refusal is proper ‘if the mark is descriptive of any of the [goods or] services for which registration is sought.’”  In re The Chamber of Commerce of the U.S., 675 F.3d at 1300, 102 USPQ2d at 1219 (quoting In re Stereotaxis Inc., 429 F.3d 1039, 1040, 77 USPQ2d 1087, 1089 (Fed. Cir. 2005)).

 

Here, the applicant applied to register the mark, GUEST MODE for “computers; computer hardware; handheld digital electronic devices and software related thereto; electronic communication equipment and instruments; telecommunications apparatus and instruments; telephones, namely mobile telephones; wireless communication devices for voice, data or image transmission; cameras; computer software." 

 

Based on the evidence attached from a Google® search, the term “guest mode” used in connection with software identifies a feature and function of the software that allows electronic devices to be used by a guest, returning to its original state after being used.  See http://winsupersite.com/windows-7/windows-7-feature-focus-guest-mode.

The article from http://www.mobilemag.com/2012/10/01/sony-tablet-s-software-update-brings-guest-mode-and-more/ describes the feature as follows: 

 

The new Guest Mode is similar in some ways to the multi-user function on the new Nook tablets. For the most part, smartphones and tablets are an individual experience, but what if your friend wanted to borrow your tablet briefly? With Guest Mode, they are given a completely separate session with separate home screens and logins from the main account. This way, they can't snoop around in your Facebook or Gmail.  

 

You can password protect Guest Mode and hand-pick which apps they can (and can’t) use. You can even have multiple guest modes, in case you want one for your colleagues and another one that’s a little more censored for the kids

 

As such, the mark describes a feature and function of the applicant’s software and for used in connection with the electronic devices and telecommunication apparatus and instruments.  Therefore, registration is refused under Section 2(e)(1). 

 

Although applicant’s mark has been refused registration, applicant may respond to the refusals by submitting evidence and arguments in support of registration.  If the applicant chooses to respond to the refusals to register, the applicant must also respond to the following requirement.

 

Identification of Goods

 

The wording “handheld digital electronic devices and software related thereto” is unacceptable as indefinite because it does not identify the precise type of electronic device and the function of the software.  The applicant may amend as follows:  “handheld digital electronic devices for the sending and receiving of telephone calls, electronic mail, and other digital data, for use as a digital format audio player, and for use as a handheld computer, personal digital assistant, electronic organizer, electronic notepad, and camera, and software for performing these functions; global positioning system (GPS) and navigation devices,” in International Class 9.

 

The wording “electronic communication equipment and instruments; telecommunications apparatus and instruments” is unacceptable as indefinite because it does not identify the specific type of apparatus, equipment and instruments.  In the identification of goods, applicant must use the common commercial or generic names for the goods, be as complete and specific as possible, and avoid the use of indefinite words and phrases.  TMEP §1402.03(a).  If applicant uses indefinite words such as “accessories,” “apparatus,” “components,” “devices,” “equipment,” “materials,” “parts,” “systems,” or “products,” such words must be followed by “namely,” followed by a list of the specific goods identified by their common commercial or generic names.  See TMEP §§1401.05(d), 1402.03(a).

 

The wording “computer software” is unacceptable s indefinite because it does not identify the function of the software.  An identification for computer software must specify the purpose or function of the software.  See TMEP §1402.03(d).  If the software is field-specific, the identification must also specify the field of use.  Id.  Clarification of the purpose, function, or field of use of the software is necessary for the USPTO to properly examine the application and make appropriate decisions concerning possible conflicts between the applicant’s mark and other marks.  See In re N.A.D. Inc., 57 USPQ2d 1872, 1874 (TTAB 2000).

 

Identifications of goods can be amended only to clarify or limit the goods; adding to or broadening the scope of the goods is not permitted.  37 C.F.R. §2.71(a); see TMEP §§1402.06 et seq., 1402.07.  Therefore, applicant may not amend the identification to include goods that are not within the scope of the goods set forth in the present identification.  For assistance with identifying and classifying goods and/or services in trademark applications, please see the online searchable Manual of Acceptable Identifications of Goods and Services at http://tess2.gov.uspto.report/netahtml/tidm.html.  See TMEP §1402.04.

 

 

 

 

 

/Stephanie Ali/

Trademark Examining Attorney

Law Office 109

571-272-9272 (voice)

571-273-9109 (fax)

 

TO RESPOND TO THIS LETTER:  Go to http://www.gov.uspto.report/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.gov.uspto.report/.  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.gov.uspto.report/trademarks/process/status/.

 

TO UPDATE CORRESPONDENCE/E-MAIL ADDRESS:  Use the TEAS form at http://www.gov.uspto.report/trademarks/teas/correspondence.jsp.