UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
SERIAL NO: 76/243834
APPLICANT: PHILIPS COMMUNICATION SECURITY & IMAGING ETC.
|
|
CORRESPONDENT ADDRESS: |
RETURN ADDRESS: Commissioner for Trademarks 2900 Crystal Drive Arlington, VA 22202-3514
|
MARK: HI-Q
|
|
CORRESPONDENT’S REFERENCE/DOCKET NO: N/A
CORRESPONDENT EMAIL ADDRESS: |
Please provide in all correspondence:
1. Filing date, serial number, mark and applicant's name. 2. Date of this Office Action. 3. Examining Attorney's name and Law Office number. 4. Your telephone number and e-mail address.
|
Serial Number 76/243834
Action on the instant application was suspended pending disposition of Application Serial No. 76/211447 and the refusal under Section 2(d) as to Registration No. 2198137 was continued. The prior-filed application has matured into Registration No. 2834891. Therefore, the applicant must address the following refusal. Moreover, the refusal under Section 2(d) as to Registration No. 2198137 is continued herein.
The examining attorney refuses registration under Trademark Act Section 2(d), 15 U.S.C. Section 1052(d), because the applicant's mark, when used on or in connection with the identified goods, so resembles the mark in U.S. Registration No. 2834891 as to be likely to cause confusion, to cause mistake, or to deceive. TMEP section 1207. See the enclosed registration.
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 (CCPA 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).
The applicant has applied to register the mark HI-Q for “multi-channel real time digital video recorder.”
The registered mark is HIIQ for “semiconductor devices, integrated circuits, boards, namely evaluation boards for use in semiconductor design and semiconductor implementation of tuners, receivers, RFD receivers and EVILS RFD tuners for cable modems, set-top boxes, digital TV and replay TV/video recorders, and application notes, specification and data sheets, data books, and reference manuals provided as a unit therewith.”
The applicant’s mark is highly similar to the mark in the registration. The only difference between the marks is the registrant’s use of an additional letter I within the mark. However, this difference does not present a separate commercial impression nor obviate the similarity of the marks. Please note that when determining whether there is a likelihood of confusion under Section 2(d), the question is not whether people will confuse the marks, but rather whether the marks will confuse the people into believing that the goods they identify emanate from the same source. In re West Point-Pepperell, Inc., 468 F.2d 200, 175 USPQ 558 (C.C.P.A. 1972). For that reason, the test of likelihood of confusion is not whether the marks can be distinguished when subjected to a side-by-side comparison. The question is whether the marks create the same overall impression. Visual Information Inst., Inc. v. Vicon Indus. Inc., 209 USPQ 179 (TTAB 1980). The focus is on the recollection of the average purchaser who normally retains a general rather than specific impression of trademarks. Chemetron Corp. v. Morris Coupling & Clamp Co., 203 USPQ 537 (TTAB 1979); Sealed Air Corp. v. Scott Paper Co., 190 USPQ 106 (TTAB 1975); TMEP §1207.01(b).
The goods 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 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).
In the instant case, the applicant’s digital video recorders are highly related to the goods in the registration, namely, semiconductor devices and integrated circuits and boards, all of which are used in direct conjunction with digital recorders. As such, both can be found in the same channels of trade such that the average consumer would be likely to believe that the goods come from a common source.
The marks are similar. The goods are highly related. The similarities among the marks and the goods are so great as to create a likelihood of confusion among consumers. The examining attorney must resolve any doubt regarding a likelihood of confusion in favor of the prior registrant. In re Hyper Shoppes (Ohio), Inc., 837 F.2d 463, 6 USPQ2d 1025 (Fed. Cir. 1988). Accordingly, the mark is refused registration on the Principal Register under Section 2(d).
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.
NOTICE: TRADEMARK OPERATION RELOCATING OCTOBER AND NOVEMBER 2004
The Trademark Operation is relocating to Alexandria, Virginia, in October and November 2004. Effective October 4, 2004, all Trademark-related paper mail (except documents sent to the Assignment Services Division for recordation, certain documents filed under the Madrid Protocol, and requests for copies of trademark documents) must be sent to:
Commissioner for Trademarks
P.O. Box 1451
Alexandria, VA 22313-1451
Applicants, registration owners, attorneys and other Trademark customers are strongly encouraged to correspond with the USPTO online via the Trademark Electronic Application System (TEAS), at www.uspto.gov.
If the applicant has any questions or needs assistance in responding to this Office action, please telephone the assigned examining attorney.
/Michael Kazazian/
Trademark Examining Attorney
Law Office 113
(703) 308-9113 ext. 207
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 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.
FOR INQUIRIES OR QUESTIONS ABOUT THIS OFFICE ACTION, PLEASE CONTACT THE ASSIGNED EXAMINING ATTORNEY.