Offc Action Outgoing

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE

 

OFFICE ACTION

 

TO AVOID ABANDONMENT, WE MUST RECEIVE A PROPER RESPONSE TO THIS OFFICE ACTION WITHIN 6 MONTHS OF OUR MAILING OR E-MAILING DATE. 

 

Serial Number  76/153530

 

On February 7, 2002, action on this application was suspended pending the disposition of a Cancellation against U.S. Registration No. 2338156.  The examining attorney has found no evidence that such a proceeding has been filed.  As such, prosecution of the application is resumed.   

 

FINAL REFUSAL UNDER SECTION 2(d)

 

Registration was refused under Trademark Act Section 2(d), 15 U.S.C. §1052(d), because the mark for which registration is sought so resembles the mark shown in U.S. Registration No. 2338156 as to be likely, when used in connection with the identified goods, to cause confusion, or to cause mistake, or to deceive.

 

The examining attorney has considered the applicant’s arguments carefully but has found them unpersuasive.  For the reasons below, the refusal under Section 2(d) is maintained and made FINAL.

 

Section 2(d) of the Trademark Act bars registration where a mark so resembles a registered mark, that it is likely, when applied to the goods/services, to cause confusion, or to cause mistake or to deceive. TMEP §1207.01.  The Court in In re E. I. DuPont de Nemours & Co., 476 F.2d 1357, 177 USPQ 563 (C.C.P.A. 1973), listed the principal factors to consider in determining whether there is a likelihood of confusion.  Among these factors are the similarity of the marks as to appearance, sound, meaning and commercial impression and the similarity of the goods/services.  The overriding concern is to prevent buyer confusion as to the source of the goods/services.  Miss Universe, Inc. v. Miss Teen U.S.A., Inc., 209 USPQ 698 (N.D. Ga. 1980).  Therefore, any doubt as to the existence of a likelihood of confusion must be resolved in favor of the registrant.  Lone Star Mfg. Co. v. Bill Beasley, Inc., 498 F.2d 906, 182 USPQ 368 (C.C.P.A. 1974). 

 

Here, the applicant’s mark is AIR CASE, for goods described as bags and shipping cases, namely, camera bags and bags for the transportation and storage of camera accessories, computer cases and cases for the transportation of computer accessories and other electronic instruments, and luggage, namely, traveling bags, backpacks, briefcases and attaché cases.

 

The registrant’s mark is AIRCASE INTERNATIONAL and design, for luggage. 

 

The two marks are highly similar.  The wording “AIR CASE” in the applicant’s mark is essentially identical to the wording “AIRCASE” in the registrant’s mark.  This wording represents a dominant and significant element in the registrant’s mark. 

 

The term “International” has been disclaimed from the registrant’s mark.  While the examining attorney cannot ignore a disclaimed portion of a mark and must view marks in their entireties, one feature of a mark may be more significant in creating a commercial impression.  Tektronix, Inc. v. Daktronics, Inc., 534 F.2d 915, 189 USPQ 693 (C.C.P.A. 1976); In re El Torito Restaurants Inc., 9 USPQ2d 2002 (TTAB 1988); In re Equitable Bancorporation, 229 USPQ 709 (TTAB 1986).  Disclaimed matter is typically less significant or less dominant.

 

And although the registrant’s mark contains a design element, when a mark consists of a word portion and a design portion, the word portion is more likely to be impressed upon a purchaser’s memory and to be used in calling for the goods or services. In re Appetito Provisions Co., 3 USPQ2d 1553 (TTAB 1987); Amoco Oil Co. v. Amerco, Inc., 192 USPQ 729 (TTAB 1976).  TMEP §1207.01(c)(ii). 

 

The remaining element in the registrant’s mark, “AIRCASE” is essentially identical the applicant’s mark “AIR CASE.” 

 

Furthermore, the applicant’s goods, which include luggage, and bags and cases, includes goods identical to the registrant’s goods, luggage. 

 

Consumers who are familiar with the registrant’s AIRCASE INTERNATIONAL mark are likely to assume that the applicant’s mark, AIR CASE, simply represents a new or special luggage or bag variety from the same source.  In re Compania Pesquera Vikingos de Colombia, S.A., 221 USPQ 556 (TTAB 1984).

 

The refusal to register under Section 2(d) is maintained and made FINAL.

 

FINAL REFUSAL UNDER SECTION 2(e)(1)

 

Registration was refused under Trademark Act Section 2(e)(1), 15 U.S.C. §1052(e)(1), because the subject matter for which registration is sought is merely descriptive of the identified goods.

 

The examining attorney has considered the applicant’s arguments carefully but has found them unpersuasive.  For the reasons below, the refusal under Section 2(e)(1) is maintained and made FINAL.

 

Again, the applicant has applied for registration for the mark AIR CASE, for bags and shipping cases, namely, camera bags and bags for the transportation and storage of camera accessories, computer cases and cases for the transportation of computer accessories and other electronic instruments, and luggage, namely, traveling bags, backpacks, briefcases and attaché cases.

 

A mark is merely descriptive under Trademark Act Section 2(e)(1), 15 U.S.C. §1052(e)(1), if it describes an ingredient, quality, characteristic, function, feature, purpose or use of the relevant goods/services.  In re Gyulay, 820 F.2d 1216, 3 USPQ2d 1009 (Fed. Cir. 1987);  In re Bed & Breakfast Registry, 791 F.2d 157, 229 USPQ 818 (Fed. Cir. 1986); In re MetPath Inc., 223 USPQ 88 (TTAB 1984); In re Bright‑Crest, Ltd., 204 USPQ 591 (TTAB 1979); TMEP §1209.01(b).

 

The applicant’s goods are cases for air travel.  The goods are literally “cases” for “air” travel.  The wording “AIR CASE” describes an important characteristic, feature, function and use for the goods. 

 

The refusal to register under Section 2(e)(1) is maintained and made FINAL.

 

SUGGESTED AMENDMENT FOR REGISTRATION ON THE SUPPLEMENTAL REGISTER

 

Although the examining attorney has refused registration on the Principal Register, the applicant may amend the application to seek registration on the Supplemental Register.  Trademark Act Section 23, 15 U.S.C. §1091; 37 C.F.R. §§2.47 and 2.75(a); TMEP §§801.02(b), 815 and 816 et seq.

 

FINAL SPECIMEN OF USE REQUIREMENT

 

The examining attorney required the applicant to submit acceptable specimens of use under 37 C.F.R. §2.56. and TMEP §904.04 et seq., because the specimens of record do not show use of the mark on the identified goods.  The applicant did not comply with this requirement. 

 

The requirement for acceptable specimens of use is maintained and made FINAL.

 

The specimen is unacceptable as evidence of actual trademark use because it does not show use of the mark on the identified goods.  The goods are luggage, bags and cases.  The specimen of use consists of the applicant’s web page.  This represents an advertisement for the goods, and does not show use of the mark on the goods.  The applicant must submit a specimen showing the mark as used in commerce.  37 C.F.R. §2.56.  Examples of acceptable specimens are tags, labels, instruction manuals, containers or photographs that show the mark on the goods or packaging.  TMEP §904.04 et seq.  The applicant must verify, with an affidavit or a declaration under 37 C.F.R. §2.20, that the substitute specimen was in use in commerce at least as early as the filing date of the application.  Jim Dandy Co. v. Siler City Mills, Inc., 209 USPQ 764 (TTAB 1981); 37 C.F.R. §2.59(a); TMEP §904.09.

 

The statement supporting use of the substitute specimen must read as follows: 

 

The substitute specimen was in use in commerce at least as early as the filing date of the application.

 

The applicant must sign this statement either in affidavit form or with a declaration under 37 C.F.R. §2.20; TMEP §904.09.  The examining attorney attaches a properly worded statement. 

 

RESPONDING TO THIS OFFICE ACTION

 

Please note that the only appropriate responses to a final action are either (1) compliance with the outstanding requirements, if feasible, or (2) filing of an appeal to the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board.  37 C.F.R. §2.64(a).  If the applicant fails to respond within six months of the mailing date of this refusal, this Office will declare the application abandoned.  37 C.F.R. §2.65(a).

 

 

 

 

 

 

Mitchell Front   /mf/

Trademark Attorney, Law Office 111

(703) 308-9111 ext. 122

 

 

How to respond to this Office Action:

 

To respond formally using the Office’s Trademark Electronic Application System (TEAS), visit http://www.gov.uspto.report/teas/index.html and follow the instructions.

 

To respond formally via E-mail, visit http://www.gov.uspto.report/web/trademarks/tmelecresp.htm and follow the instructions.

 

To respond formally via regular mail, your response should be sent to the mailing Return Address listed above and include the serial number, law office and examining attorney’s name on the upper right corner of each page of your response.

 

To check the status of your application at any time, visit the Office’s Trademark Applications and Registrations Retrieval (TARR) system at http://tarr.gov.uspto.report/

 

For general and other useful information about trademarks, you are encouraged to visit the Office’s web site at http://www.gov.uspto.report/main/trademarks.htm

 

FOR INQUIRIES OR QUESTIONS ABOUT THIS OFFICE ACTION, PLEASE CONTACT THE ASSIGNED EXAMINING ATTORNEY.

The substitute specimen was in use in commerce at least as early as the filing date of the application.

 

The undersigned, being hereby warned that willful false statements and the like so made are punishable by fine or imprisonment, or both, under 18 U.S.C. §1001, and that such willful false statements may jeopardize the validity of the application or any resulting registration, declares that the facts set forth in this application are true; all statements made of his/her own knowledge are true; and all statements made on information and belief are believed to be true.

 

 

_____________________________

(Signature)

 

_____________________________

(Print or Type Name and Position)

 

_____________________________

(Date)