To: | Cedar Chemical Corp. (jbetsher@prodigy.net) |
Subject: | TRADEMARK APPLICATION NO. 76308383 - INTER - N/A |
Sent: | 4/4/04 1:44:15 PM |
Sent As: | ECom105 |
Attachments: | Attachment - 1 |
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
SERIAL NO: 76/308383
APPLICANT: Cedar Chemical Corp.
|
|
CORRESPONDENT ADDRESS: JEANINE BETSHER 5100 POPLAR AVE STE 2414 MEMPHIS TN 38137-2407
|
RETURN ADDRESS: Commissioner for Trademarks 2900 Crystal Drive Arlington, VA 22202-3514
|
MARK: INTER
|
|
CORRESPONDENT’S REFERENCE/DOCKET NO: N/A
CORRESPONDENT EMAIL ADDRESS: jbetsher@prodigy.net |
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 76/308383
The present application has been in suspension since November 26, 2001 pending disposition of Serial No. 76/234731. Because the previously filed application has now matured into a registration, the registration of the present application is refused./
SECTION 2(D) REFUSAL
The examining attorney refuses registration under Trademark Act Section 2(d), 15 U.S.C. Section 1052(d), because the applicant's mark, INTER, when used on or in connection with the identified goods, so resembles the mark, N-TER, in U.S. Registration No. 2,780,090 as to be likely to cause confusion, to cause mistake, or to deceive. TMEP section 1207. See the enclosed registration.
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 (CCPA 1973). Similarity in any one of these elements is sufficient to find a likelihood of confusion. In re Mack, 197 USPQ 755 (TTAB 1977). When the applicant's mark is compared to a registered mark, "the points of similarity are of greater importance than the points of difference." Esso Standard Oil Co. v. Sun Oil Co., 229 F.2d 37, 108 USPQ 161 (D.C. Cir.), cert. denied, 351 U.S. 973, 109 USPQ 517 (1956).
The applicant’s mark is INTER; the registrant’s mark is N-TER. The marks are essentially phonetic equivalents and are thus similar sounding. Similarity in sound alone may be sufficient to support a finding of likelihood of confusion. RE/MAX of America, Inc. v. Realty Mart, Inc., 207 USPQ 960, 964 (TTAB 1980); Molenaar, Inc. v. Happy Toys Inc., 188 USPQ 469 (TTAB 1975); In re Cresco Mfg. Co., 138 USPQ 401 (TTAB 1963); TMEP §1207.01(b)(iv).
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 goods identified are highly related agricultural products. The applicant’s herbicide for agricultural use would be found in the same trade channels and utilized by the same class of purchasers as the registrant’s agricultural adjuvants for use with herbicides, insecticides, pesticides and surfactants. Upon viewing virtually identical marks on the related goods, these purchasers would mistakenly believe the goods emanated from a common source. Thus there is a likelihood of confusion as to the source of the goods and registration must be refused pursuant to Section 2(d) of the Trademark Act.
/Karen K. Bush/
Trademark Examining Attorney
Law Office 105
703-308-9105 ext. 182
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.