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  76/267855

 

On March 1, 2002, action on this application was suspended pending the disposition of Application Serial No. 76-264084.  The referenced application has matured into a registration.  Therefore, registration is refused as follows.

 

Section 2(d) Refusal—Likelihood of Confusion

          

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 goods/services, so resembles the mark in U.S. Registration No. 2715085 as to be likely to cause confusion, or to cause mistake, or to deceive.  TMEP §§1207.01 et seq.  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 (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 applicant’s mark, RPI AND DESIGN, is similar to registrant’s mark, RPI, because they are similar in sound, appearance, connotation and overall commercial impression.  The examining attorney must look at the marks in their entireties under Section 2(d). Nevertheless, one feature of a mark may be recognized as more significant in creating a commercial impression.  Greater weight is given to that dominant feature in determining whether there is a likelihood of confusion.  In re National Data Corp., 224 USPQ 749 (Fed. Cir. 1985); Tektronix, Inc. v. Daktronics, Inc., 534 F.2d 915, 189 USPQ 693 (C.C.P.A. 1976). In re J.M. Originals Inc., 6 USPQ2d 1393 (TTAB 1988).  TMEP §1207.01(b)(viii).  The word RPI is the whole of registrant’s mark and the dominant term in applicant’s mark.  Therefore, RPI is the dominant feature of both marks which creates the commercial impression of a single source of ownership that a likelihood of confusion would result among purchasers.  Moreover, 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 applicant’s goods, “engines and parts therefore serving as the prime movers for water and air vehicles and for machine operations; engines and parts therefore serving as the prime movers for refrigeration compressors; engines and parts therefor for water and sewage pumps; engines and parts therefor serving as the prime movers for electrical generators; liquid fuel and gaseous fuel rotary combustion engines for commercial and pleasure marine crafts, land vehicles and machine operations; engines and parts therefore serving as the prime movers for land vehicles”, is related to registrant’s services, “repair, remanufacture, and rebuild of railroad locomotive electric traction motors to the order and/or specification of others”, because the registrant repairs, remanufactures and rebuilds applicant’s goods.  The applicant’s identification of goods is broad enough to include the more specific serviced goods of the registrant’s.  It is well settled that the issue of likelihood of confusion between marks must be determined on the basis of the goods or services as they are identified in the application and the registration. Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce v. Wells Fargo Bank, 811 F.2d 1490, 1 USPQ2d 1813 (Fed. Cir. 1987); Paula Payne Products Co. v. Johnson Publishing Co., 473 F.2d 901, 177 USPQ 76 (C.C.P.A. 1973).  Since the identification of the applicant’s goods is very broad, it is presumed that the application encompasses all goods/services of the type described, including those in the registrant’s more specific identification, that they move in all normal channels of trade and that they are available for all potential customers.  TMEP §1207.01(a)(iii). 

 

Accordingly, the mark is refused registration under section 2(d) on the Principal Register.

 

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.

 

Informality

 

If the applicant chooses to respond to the refusal to register, the applicant must also respond to the following informality in order for the application to proceed.  Please note, compliance with the below mentioned informality is insufficient, in and of itself, to overcome the above mentioned deficiencies.

 

Definite Identification of Goods Requirement

 

In the Examiner’s Amendment of August 21, 2001, the identification of goods statement did not make it clear that the goods in Class 11 were to be deleted.  The applicant must state as such for the record.  The identification of goods includes only those goods in Classes 07 and 12.

 

Moreover, the wording, “liquid fuel and gaseous fuel rotary combustion engines for land vehicles” are goods  in Class 12 rather than Class 07.  The applicant must amend these goods to Class 12 for the record.

 

The applicant may adopt the following identification and classification, if accurate:

 

Engines and parts therefore serving as the prime movers for water and air vehicles and for machine operations; engines and parts therefore serving as the prime movers for refrigeration compressors; engines and parts therefor for water and sewage pumps; engines and parts therefor serving as the prime movers for electrical generators; liquid fuel and gaseous fuel rotary combustion engines for commercial and pleasure marine crafts, and machine operations in International Class 07.

 

Engines and parts therefore serving as the prime movers for land vehicles; liquid fuel and gaseous fuel rotary combustion engines for land vehicles in International Class 12.

 

TMEP §1402.01.

 

Please note that, while an application may be amended to clarify or limit the identification, additions to the identification are not permitted.  37 C.F.R. Section 2.71(a); TMEP section 804.09.  Therefore, the applicant may not amend to include any goods that are not within the scope of goods set forth in the present identification.

 

To the extent the suggested identification of goods or services is incomplete or inaccurate, the applicant is advised that the Trademark Acceptable Identification of Goods and Services Manual is accessible via the USPTO homepage at www.uspto.gov under the heading Trademarks and the subheadings Guidance and Manuals and Legal Resources or at http://www.gov.uspto.report/web/offices/tac/doc/gsmanual/.

 

If the applicant prosecutes this application as a combined, or multiple‑class, application based on use in commerce under Trademark Act Section 1(a), 15 U.S.C. §1051(a), the applicant must comply with each of the following:

 

(1)  The applicant must specifically identify the goods/services in each class and list the goods/services by international class with the classes listed in ascending numerical order.  TMEP §1403.01.

 

(2)  The applicant must submit a filing fee for each international class of goods/services not covered by the fee already paid.  37 C.F.R. §§2.6(a)(1) and 2.86(b); TMEP §§810.01 and 1403.01.  Effective January 1, 2003, the fee for filing a trademark application is $335 for each class.  This applies to classes added to pending applications as well as to new applications filed on or after that date.  

 

(3)  The applicant must submit: 

 

(a) dates of first use and first use in commerce and one specimen for each class that includes goods or services based on use in commerce under Trademark Act Section 1(a).  The dates of use must be at least as early as the filing date of this application, 37 C.F.R. §§2.34(a)(1) and 2.86(a), and the specimen(s) must have been in use in commerce at least as early as the filing date of the application, and/or

 

(b) a statement of a bona fide intention to use the mark in commerce on or in connection with all the goods or services specified in each class that includes goods or services based on a bona fide intention to use the mark in commerce under Trademark Act Section 1(b), where such statement was not included for the goods or services in the original application.

 

            (4)  The applicant must submit an affidavit or a declaration under 37 C.F.R. §2.20 signed by the applicant to verify (3) above.  37 C.F.R. §§2.59(a) and 2.71(c).

 

 

 

 

/William T. Verhosek/

Examining Atty/LO 114

703-308-9114x142

(Fax) 703-746-8114

ecom114@uspto.gov

 

 

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.