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  76/426887

 

On July 1, 2003, action on this application was suspended pending the disposition of Application Serial No. 75181456.  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/services, so resembles the mark in U.S. Registration No. 2787762 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. 

 

In determining whether there is a likelihood of confusion, the examining attorney must consider all circumstances surrounding the sale of the goods/services.  Industrial Nucleonic Corp. v. Hinde Engineering Co., 475 F.2d 1197, 177 USPQ 386 (C.C.P.A. 1973).  These circumstances include the marketing channels, the identity of the prospective purchasers and the degree of similarity between the marks and between the goods/services.  In comparing the marks, similarity in any one of the elements of sound, appearance or meaning is sufficient to find a likelihood of confusion.  If the goods/services of the parties differ, it is necessary to show that they are related in some manner.  In re Mack, 197 USPQ 755 (TTAB 1977).  TMEP §§1207.01 et seq. 

 

The applicant has applied to register 3D COMMUNICATOR (with 3D disclaimed) for computer software, namely, software to facilitate the capture, manipulation and transmission of data to model real objects; computer peripherals; turntables; robotic positioners; image capture devices, namely, scanners, digitizers and cameras; computer software to permit manipulation of images and graphical data; computer e-commerce software to allow users to perform electronic business transactions via the global computer network; computer software used to facilitate the purchasing of items in e-commerce environments; computer software that provides solutions for e-commerce activities, namely, computer software applications used to create, edit, manage and secure web servers, global computer network servers and web sites on global computer networks, computer software used to develop web servers and operating system software for computers; computer software that provides solutions for e-commerce activities; computer software for use in database management, spreadsheets, word processing, warehousing, and web site development that provide solutions for e-commerce activities; computer software for business that offers assistance in the implementation, integration, conduct and maintenance of e-commerce activities from inception to placement of products and offering of services in the market; computer software to log commercial computer software to create management reports; computer software to facilitate management analysis of order transactions.  The registered mark is COMMUNICATOR for computer software, namely, a suite of software for sharing, accessing and communicating information over computer networks. 

 

Here, the marks of the parties are confusingly similar, as applicant has merely added the descriptive “3D” to the registered mark.  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”); Lilly Pulitzer, Inc. v. Lilli Ann Corp., 376 F.2d 324, 153 USPQ 406 (C.C.P.A. 1967) (“THE LILLY” and “LILLI ANN”); 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”); In re Corning Glass Works, 229 USPQ 65 (TTAB 1985) (“CONFIRM” and “CONFIRMCELLS”); In re Riddle, 225 USPQ 630 (TTAB 1985) (“ACCUTUNE” and “RICHARD PETTY’S ACCU TUNE”); In re Cosvetic Laboratories, Inc., 202 USPQ 842 (TTAB 1979) (“HEAD START” and “HEAD START COSVETIC”).  TMEP §1207.01(b)(iii). 

 

The test of likelihood of confusion is not whether the marks can be distinguished when subjected to a side‑by‑side comparison.  The issue is whether the marks create the same overall impression. Visual Information Institute, Inc. v. Vicon Industries Inc., 209 USPQ 179 (TTAB 1980).  The focus is on the recollection of the average purchaser who normally retains a general rather than specific impression of trademarks.  Chemetron Corp. v. Morris Coupling & Clamp Co., 203 USPQ 537 (TTAB 1979); Sealed Air Corp. v. Scott Paper Co., 190 USPQ 106 (TTAB 1975); TMEP §1207.01(b).

 

The goods are closely related, as registrant’s somewhat broad identification of goods includes many of the types of software in the applicant’s application.  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). 

 

Since the marks are so similar and the goods so closely related, consumers would believe that all of the goods emanate from a single source.  Therefore, registration is refused under Trademark Act Section 2(d).  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. 

 

The identification of goods requirement made in the July 1, 2003 suspension letter is CONTINUED.  Although the wording “robotic positioners” will be accepted, the applicant must clarify “computer software that provides solutions for e-commerce activities.”  The prior application that applicant points to as an example of wording previously approved by the office lists the goods as “computer software … that provides solutions for e-commerce activities, namely a retail transaction encryption program for use in the electronic retailing industry.”  That wording would be acceptable in the instant application as well.

 

NOTICE:  TRADEMARK OPERATION RELOCATING OCTOBER AND NOVEMBER 2004

 

The Trademark Operation is relocating to Alexandria, Virginia, in October and November 2004.  Effective October 4, 2004, all Trademark-related paper mail (except documents sent to the Assignment Services Division for recordation, certain documents filed under the Madrid Protocol, and requests for copies of trademark documents) must be sent to:

 

Commissioner for Trademarks

P.O. Box 1451

Alexandria, VA  22313-1451

 

Applicants, registration owners, attorneys and other Trademark customers are strongly encouraged to correspond with the USPTO online via the Trademark Electronic Application System (TEAS), at www.uspto.gov.

 

 

 

/James T. Griffin/

Examining Attorney, Law Office 103

(571) 272-9169

Informal communications only:

jim.griffin@uspto.gov

 

 

How to respond to this Office Action:

 

You may respond formally using the Office's Trademark Electronic Application System (TEAS) Response to Office Action form (visit http://eteas.gov.uspto.report/V2.0/oa242/WIZARD.htm and follow the instructions therein, but you must wait until at least 72 hours after receipt if the office action issued via e-mail).  PLEASE NOTE: Responses to Office Actions on applications filed under the Madrid Protocol (Section 66(a)) CANNOT currently be filed via TEAS.

 

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.