Offc Action Outgoing

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE

 

 

 

OFFICE ACTION

 

TO AVOID ABANDONMENT, THE OFFICE MUST RECEIVE A PROPER RESPONSE TO THIS OFFICE ACTION WITHIN 6 MONTHS OF THE ISSUE/MAILING DATE.

 

ISSUE/MAILING DATE:

 

Prosecution of this application is resumed.

 

The refusal under Section 2(d) as to U.S. Reg. No. 2103650  is WITHDRAWN because the registration has been cancelled.

 

Application Serial No. 75/907004 has been abandoned.

 

Application Serial No. 75/809786 has matured into a registration but the examiner will not cite that registration against the applicant.

 

Application Serial Nos. 75/862345; 75/866655; 75/862344; 75/907003; and 75/482295 have matured into registrations.  Please note the following refusal.

 

The examining attorney refuses registration under Trademark Act Section 2(d), 15 U.S.C. §1052(d), because the applicant’s mark, when used on or in connection with the identified services, so resembles the marks in U.S. Registration Nos. 2933443; 2830279; 2806837; 2897533; and 2828130  as to be likely to cause confusion, or to cause mistake, or to deceive.  TMEP §§1207.01 et seq.  See the enclosed registrations.

 

The examining attorney must analyze each case in two steps to determine whether there is a likelihood of confusion.  First, the examining attorney must look at the marks themselves for similarities in appearance, sound, connotation and commercial impression.  In re E. I. DuPont de Nemours & Co., 476 F.2d 1357, 177 USPQ 563 (C.C.P.A. 1973).  Second, the examining attorney must compare the goods or services to determine if they are related or if the activities surrounding their marketing are such that confusion as to origin is likely.  In re August Storck KG, 218 USPQ 823 (TTAB 1983); In re International Telephone and Telegraph Corp., 197 USPQ 910 (TTAB 1978); Guardian Products Co., v. Scott Paper Co., 200 USPQ 738 (TTAB 1978).  TMEP §§1207.01 et seq. 

 

The examining attorney must compare the marks for similarities in sound, appearance, meaning or connotation.  In re E. I. DuPont de Nemours & Co., 476 F.2d 1357, 177 USPQ 563 (C.C.P.A. 1973).  Similarity in any one of these elements is sufficient to find a likelihood of confusion. In re Mack, 197 USPQ 755 (TTAB 1977).  TMEP §§1207.01(b) et seq. 

 

Registrant is using  PRIMUS and PRIMUS KNOWLEDGE SOLUTIONS.  Applicant is using  PRIMUS.  PRIMUS is common to the marks of registrant and applicant.  Marks may be confusingly similar in appearance where there are similar terms or phrases or similar parts of terms or phrases appearing in both applicant’s and registrant’s mark.  See e.g., Crocker Nat’l Bank v. Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce, 228 USPQ 689 (TTAB 1986), aff’d 1 USPQ2d 1813 (Fed. Cir. 1987) (COMMCASH and COMMUNICASH); In re Phillips-Van Heusen Corp., 228 USPQ 949 (TTAB 1986) (21 CLUB and “21” CLUB (stylized)); In re Corning Glass Works, 229 USPQ 65 (TTAB 1985) (CONFIRM and CONFIRMCELLS); In re Collegian Sportswear Inc., 224 USPQ 174 (TTAB 1984) (COLLEGIAN OF CALIFORNIA and COLLEGIENNE); In re Pellerin Milnor Corp., 221 USPQ 558 (TTAB 1983) (MILTRON and MILLTRONICS); In re BASF A.G., 189 USPQ 424 (TTAB 1975) (LUTEXAL and LUTEX); TMEP §§1207.01(b)(ii) and (b)(iii).

 

 

If the marks of the respective parties are identical or highly similar, the examining attorney must consider the commercial relationship between the goods or services of the respective parties carefully to determine whether there is a likelihood of confusion.  In re Concordia International Forwarding Corp., 222 USPQ 355 (TTAB 1983).  TMEP §1207.01(a). 

 

The goods/services of the parties need not be identical or directly competitive to find a likelihood of confusion.  They need only be related in some manner, or the conditions surrounding their marketing be such, that they could be encountered by the same purchasers under circumstances that could give rise to the mistaken belief that the goods/services come from a common source.  In re Martin’s Famous Pastry Shoppe, Inc., 748 F.2d 1565, 223 USPQ 1289 (Fed. Cir. 1984); In re Corning Glass Works, 229 USPQ 65 (TTAB 1985); In re Rexel Inc., 223 USPQ 830 (TTAB 1984); Guardian Products Co., Inc. v. Scott Paper Co., 200 USPQ 738 (TTAB 1978); In re International Telephone & Telegraph Corp., 197 USPQ 910 (TTAB 1978).  TMEP §1207.01(a)(i).

 

Registrant is using its mark on computer software for a variety of business applications, including  ecommerce applications,  as well as in connection with  computer software design, computer consultation and business consultation.  Applicant is using its mark in connection with web site design and development for others. 

 

Registrant’s identification of goods and services specifically indicate that those goods and services have business, business internet and ecommerce application.  Applicant’s specimen of record indicates that it is designing and developing web sites for internet use for businesses for ecommerce purposes.  Registrant and applicant are using the identical mark PRIMUS to identify related goods and services associated with conducting ecommerce.  Accordingly, the goods and services travel in the same channels of trade and would appeal to the same purchaser.  Therefore, the similarities of the marks and the relatedness of the goods and services create a substantial likelihood that consumers may be confused as to the source of the goods and services.

 

Although the examining attorney has refused registration, the applicant may respond to the refusal to register by submitting evidence and arguments in support of registration.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

/Kathleen M. Vanston/

Examining Attorney

Law Office 107

(571) 272-9235

 

 

RESPOND TO THIS ACTION: If there are any questions about the Office action, please contact the assigned examining attorney. A response to this Office Action should be filed using the Office’s Response to Office action form available at http://www.gov.uspto.report/teas/eTEASpageD.htm.  If notification of this Office action was received via e-mail, no response using this form may be filed for 72 hours after receipt of the notification.  Do not attempt to respond by e-mail as the USPTO does not accept e-mailed responses.

 

If responding by paper mail, please include the following information: the application serial number, the mark, the filing date and the name, title/position, telephone number and e-mail address of the person signing the response.  Please use the following address: Commissioner for Trademarks, P.O. Box 1451, Alexandria, VA 22313-1451.

 

STATUS CHECK: Check the status of the application at least once every six months from the initial filing date using the USPTO Trademark Applications and Registrations Retrieval (TARR) online system at http://tarr.uspto.gov.  When conducting an online status check, print and maintain a copy of the complete TARR screen.  If the status of your application has not changed for more than six months, please contact the assigned examining attorney.