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  76/396562

 

This letter responds to the applicant’s communication filed on January 27, 2003.

 

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. 2622337, 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. 

 

Here, the marks at issue are PEXAN and PEXON so as such, they look, appear and sound alike serving to create the same commercial impression.  Applicant’s goods are parts and components for water heaters and registrant’s goods are “tubing” for plumbing equipment used in heating systems.  As such, the goods are related since both applicant and registrant’s goods concern plumbing and tubing products related to goods which provide heating.  Thus, where the goods are so closely related and the marks are so very similar, confusion is likely between the marks at issue in accordance with Section 2(d) of the Act.  Please note, this registration resulted from the previously noted prior pending application.

 

An application based on use of the mark in commerce under Trademark Act Section 1(a), 15 U.S.C. §1051(a), must include a specimen showing use of the mark in commerce on or in connection with the goods/services.  TMEP §904.  The application does not contain a specimen.  The applicant must submit a specimen, and must submit the following statement:

 

The specimen was in use in commerce at least as early as the filing date of the application.

 

This statement must be verified with an affidavit or a declaration under 37 C.F.R. §2.20.  37 C.F.R. §2.59(a); TMEP §904.09.

 

Although applicant’s response indicated a specimen of use was provided, no specimen could be found with applicant’s response.

 

The statement supporting use of the substitute specimen must read as follows: 

 

The substitute specimen was in use in commerce at least as early as the filing date of the application.

 

The applicant must sign this statement either in affidavit form or with a declaration under 37 C.F.R. §2.20; TMEP §904.09. 

 

To base the application on a bona fide intention to use the mark in commerce, the applicant must submit the following statement:

 

The applicant has had a bona fide intention to use the mark in commerce on or in connection with the goods or services listed in the application since the filing date of the application.

 

This statement must be verified, i.e., supported either by an affidavit or by a declaration under 37 C.F.R. §§2.20 and 2.33.  Trademark Act Section 1(b), 15 U.S.C. §1051(b);  37 C.F.R. §2.34(a)(2)(i); TMEP §806.01(b).

 

Applicant also failed to provide this information in the response it filed.

 

The following authorities govern the processing of trademark and service mark applications:  The Trademark Act, 15 U.S.C. §§1051 et seq., the Trademark Rules of Practice, 37 C.F.R. Part 2, and the Trademark Manual of Examining Procedure (TMEP).

 

 

 

 

/Edward Nelson/

Examining Attorney

Law Office 114

(703) 308-9114 ext.144

ecom114@uspto.gov

(703)746-8114 (fax no.)

 

 

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.