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  76/319888

 

The Office has reassigned this application to the undersigned examining attorney.

 

The refusal to register based on likelihood of confusion with the previously cited registrations, and to Ser. Nos. 76-284695 and 78-083847 is withdrawn.  On August 1, 2002, action on this application was suspended pending the disposition of Application Serial No. 76-174992.  The referenced application has matured into a registration.  Therefore, registration is refused as follows.

 

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, so resembles the mark in U.S. Registration No. 2,651,244 as to be likely to cause confusion, 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 is TECHNO, for an extensive list of stationery and related items.  The registered mark is TECHNO CLASSICA, for various goods and services, most relevant of which is stationery.  The appearance of CLASSICA in the registered mark fails to obviate the likelihood of confusion between the marks. 

 

The mere addition of a term to a registered mark is not sufficient to overcome a likelihood of confusion under Section 2(d).  Coca‑Cola Bottling Co. v. Joseph E. Seagram & Sons, Inc., 526 F.2d 556, 188 USPQ 105 (C.C.P.A. 1975) (“BENGAL” and “BENGAL LANCER”); In re El Torito Restaurants Inc., 9 USPQ2d 2002 (TTAB 1988) (“MACHO” and “MACHO COMBOS”); In re United States Shoe Corp., 229 USPQ 707 (TTAB 1985) (“CAREER IMAGE” and “CREST CAREER IMAGES”).  TMEP §1207.01(b)(iii). 

 

The goods identified by the marks both include stationery, as well as related items.  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). 

 

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.

 

If the applicant chooses to respond to the refusal to register, the applicant must also respond to the following issues.

 

IDENTIFICATION OF GOODS

 

The identification of goods is unacceptable as indefinite.  The applicant has combined very broad terms like “stationery” with a long list of items that are encompassed by that term, as well as other terms that are indefinite or outside of class 16.  The applicant may adopt the following identification, if accurate: 

 

“Starch for use in the manufacture of paper,” in class 1;

 

“Protractors,” in class 9;

 

“Posters; paper for copiers, laser printers and facsimile transmission; carbon, drawing, filler, graph, note, tracing and writing paper; index and note cards; stencils; printed tip tables; adhesive paper labels; note books; memo, note and writing pads; account books; bookmarks; voucher books; printed tracing patterns; writing instruments, namely, bone styluses and French curves; loose leaf binders; adhesives and paste for stationery purposes; paperweights; bookends; chalk erasers; rubber bands for offices; desk stands for photographs; chalk, pencil and pencil lead holders; stationery folders; slate boards for writing; pencil sharpeners; pencil leads; sealing wax; rubber stamps; inking and stamp pads; stamp pad and writing inks; inkwells; magnetic blackboards; thumbtacks; drawing instruments; paper fasteners; terrestrial globes; file binders; drafting and drawing square rulers; printed charts; staplers,” in class 16.  TMEP §1402.01.

 

The applicant must rewrite the identification of goods in its entirety because of the nature and extent of the amendment.  37 C.F.R. §2.74(b).

 

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. §2.71(a); TMEP §1402.06.  Therefore, the applicant may not amend to include any goods that are not within the scope of goods set forth in the present identification.

 

COMBINED APPLICATION REQUIREMENTS

 

If the applicant prosecutes this application as a combined, or multiple‑class, application, the applicant must comply with each of the following.

 

(1)  The applicant must list the goods 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 not covered by the fee already paid.  37 C.F.R. §§2.6(a)(1) and 2.86(a); 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.  

 

/Ira Goodsaid/

Examining Attorney

Law Office 115

(703) 308-9115 ext. 159

ecom115@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.