UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
|
SERIAL NO: 76/407858
APPLICANT: The James Import Co., Inc.
|
|
|
CORRESPONDENT ADDRESS: FRITZ L SCHWEITZER III SCHWEITZER CORNMAN GROSS & BONDELL LLP 292 MADISON AVENUE, 19TH FLOOR NEW YORK, NEW YORK 10017
|
RETURN ADDRESS: Commissioner for Trademarks 2900 Crystal Drive Arlington, VA 22202-3514
|
|
MARK: TORC
|
|
|
CORRESPONDENT’S REFERENCE/DOCKET NO: 1297-001T/MA
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.
|
Serial Number 76/407858
This application was suspended pending the termination of a cancellation proceeding to cancel U.S. Registration No. 2432235. The registration is still in effect.
Registration was refused under Trademark Act Section 2(d), 15 U.S.C. Section 1052(d), because the mark for which registration is sought so resembles the mark shown in U.S. Registration No. 2432235 as to be likely, when used in connection with the identified goods, to cause confusion, or to cause mistake, or to deceive.
The examining attorney has considered the applicant's arguments carefully but has found them unpersuasive. For the reasons below, the refusal under Section 2(d) is maintained and made FINAL.
Section 2(d) of the Trademark Act bars registration where a mark so resembles a registered mark, that it is likely, when applied to the goods, to cause confusion, or to cause mistake or to deceive. TMEP section 1207.01. The Court in In re E. I. DuPont de Nemours & Co., 476 F.2d 1357, 177 USPQ 563 (CCPA 1973), listed the principal factors to consider in determining whether there is a likelihood of confusion. Among these factors are the similarity of the marks as to appearance, sound, meaning and commercial impression and the similarity of the goods and services. The overriding concern is to prevent buyer confusion as to the source of the goods. Miss Universe, Inc. v. Miss Teen U.S.A., Inc., 209 USPQ 698 (N.D. Ga. 1980). Therefore, any doubt as to the existence of a likelihood of confusion must be resolved in favor of the registrant. Lone Star Mfg. Co. v. Bill Beasley, Inc., 498 F.2d 906, 182 USPQ 368 (CCPA 1974).
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).
The applicant’s mark is TORC. The registrant’s mark is TORQ. 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).
Comparison of the Goods and Services
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., Inc., 473 F.2d 901, 177 USPQ 76 (CCPA 1973.
The applicant’s proposed goods are fruit drinks. The registrant’s goods are fruit flavored non-alcoholic beverages. The goods are virtually identical for likelihood of confusion purposes.
For the above reasons, the refusal under Section 2(d) is maintained and made FINAL.
/Dawn Feldman Lehker/
Trademark Attorney
United States Patent and Trademark Office
(703) 308-9111 ext. 132
F(703)746-8111
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.