Offc Action Outgoing

ILLUMINE

Illumine, LLC

Offc Action Outgoing

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE

 

    SERIAL NO: 76/378555

 

    APPLICANT:                          Illumine, LLC

 

 

        

 

    CORRESPONDENT ADDRESS:

    KEVIN T. OLIVEIRA

    ODIN, FELDMAN & PITTLEMAN, P.C.

    9302 LEE HIGHWAY

    SUITE 1100

    FAIRFAX, VIRGINIA 22031

RETURN ADDRESS: 

Commissioner for Trademarks

2900 Crystal Drive

Arlington, VA 22202-3514

ecom105@uspto.gov

 

 

 

    MARK:          ILLUMINE

 

 

 

    CORRESPONDENT’S REFERENCE/DOCKET NO:   42324-00001

 

    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.

 

 

 

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  76/378555

 

The present application has been in suspension since July 2, 2002 pending disposition of Serial No. 76/189246.  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, ILLUMINE, when used on or in connection with the identified goods, so resembles the mark, ILLUMINATA, in U.S. Registration No. 2,737,782 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 respective marks are virtually identical in sight and sound.  Furthermore the respective marks create the same commercial impression.

 

The goods and 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 and 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).

 

In the instant case, the goods and services identified are highly related career counseling and professional development products and services.  The applicant’s goods would be found in the same trade channels and utilized by the same class of purchasers as the registrant’s services.  Upon viewing virtually identical marks on the related goods and services, these purchasers would mistakenly believe the goods and services emanated from a common source.  Thus there is a likelihood of confusion as to the source of the goods and services 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 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.

 


uspto.report is an independent third-party trademark research tool that is not affiliated, endorsed, or sponsored by the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) or any other governmental organization. The information provided by uspto.report is based on publicly available data at the time of writing and is intended for informational purposes only.

While we strive to provide accurate and up-to-date information, we do not guarantee the accuracy, completeness, reliability, or suitability of the information displayed on this site. The use of this site is at your own risk. Any reliance you place on such information is therefore strictly at your own risk.

All official trademark data, including owner information, should be verified by visiting the official USPTO website at www.uspto.gov. This site is not intended to replace professional legal advice and should not be used as a substitute for consulting with a legal professional who is knowledgeable about trademark law.

© 2024 USPTO.report | Privacy Policy | Resources | RSS Feed of Trademarks | Trademark Filings Twitter Feed