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  76/436055

 

The assigned examining attorney has reviewed the referenced application and determined the following.

 

Likelihood of Confusion

 

The examining attorney refuses registration under Trademark Act Section 2(d), 15 U.S.C. Section 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. 1969260 as to be likely to cause confusion, to cause mistake, or to deceive.  TMEP §§ 1207.01 et seq.  See the enclosed registration.

 

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/services, to cause confusion, or to cause mistake or to deceive. TMEP §1207.01.  The Court in In re E. I. DuPont de Nemours & Co., 476 F.2d 1357, 177 USPQ 563 (C.C.P.A. 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/services.  The overriding concern is to prevent buyer confusion as to the source of the goods/services.  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 (C.C.P.A. 1974). 

 

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).  In comparing the marks, similarity in any one of the elements of sound, appearance or meaning is sufficient to find a likelihood of confusion.  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 has applied to register the mark RAPHAEL for various musical instruments including guitars and pianos, and accessories including tuning forks, guitar straps and picks, and tuners.  The registered mark is RAPHAEL R FLUTEMAKERS for musical instruments, namely, flutes and piccolos.

 

The marks are highly similar.  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 (CCPA 1975) ("BENGAL" and "BENGAL LANCER"); Lilly Pulitzer, Inc. v. Lilli Ann Corp., 376 F.2d 324, 153 USPQ 406 (CCPA 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").  In this case, the reverse is true.  The applicant’s mark does not contain the letter R for RAPHAEL and the descriptive word FLUTEMAKERS.  However, this does not change the overall commercial impression of the two marks.

 

In addition, while the examining attorney cannot ignore a disclaimed portion of a mark and must view marks in their entireties, one feature of a mark may be more significant in creating a commercial impression.  Tektronix, Inc. v. Daktronics, Inc., 534 F.2d 915, 189 USPQ 693 (C.C.P.A. 1976); In re El Torito Restaurants Inc., 9 USPQ2d 2002 (TTAB 1988); In re Equitable Bancorporation, 229 USPQ 709 (TTAB 1986).  Disclaimed matter is typically less significant or less dominant.  The registrant has disclaimed FLUTEMAKERS in its mark.  RAPHAEL are the more significant portions of the marks.  The marks are similar in sound, meaning, and appearance.

 

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). 

 

The goods are highly related in this case.  Both the applicant’s and the registrant’s goods include various us types of musical instruments and accessories.  The goods may travel in the same channels of trade.   Or, the conditions surrounding their marketing may be such, that they could be encountered by the same purchasers under circumstances that could give rise to the mistaken belief that the goods come from a common source. 

 

The similarities among the marks and the goods of the parties are so great as to create a likelihood of confusion. 

 

Informalities

 

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.

Foreign Registration Under Section 44(e)

 

Although the applicant has asserted a Section 44(e) basis, it has not submitted a registration.

 

For an application based on a foreign registration, the applicant must submit:

 

(1)  A true copy, a photocopy, a certification, or a certified copy of a registration of the mark in the applicant’s country of origin.  The applicant’s country of origin must either be a party to a convention or treaty relating to trademarks to which the United States is also a party or extend reciprocal registration rights to nationals of the United States by law.  See TMEP §§1002 et seq. and 1004.01 et seq.

 

(2)  An English translation if the foreign certificate of registration is not written in English.  The translator should sign the translation.  TMEP §1004.01(b). 

 

Trademark Act Section 44(e), 15 U.S.C. §1126(e); 37 C.F.R. §2.34(a)(3);  TMEP §806.01(d).

Drawing

 

If the applicant intends to register the mark in typed form, the applicant must amend the drawing to show the mark all in capital letters.  If the applicant intends to register the mark in special form, the mark as shown may be considered a special form drawing.  Please indicate the type of mark and amend the drawing accordingly, if necessary.

 

The requirements for a typed drawing are as follows:

 

The Office prefers that the drawing be typed on a separate sheet of smooth, nonshiny, white paper 8 to 8½ inches (20.3 to 21.6 cm.) wide and 11 inches (27.9 cm.) long, and that the sheet contain a heading listing, on separate lines, the applicant’s complete name; the applicant’s address; the goods or services recited in the application; and, if the application is filed under Section 1(a) of the Act, the dates of first use of the mark and of first use of the mark in commerce; or, if the application is filed under Section 44(d), the priority filing date of the foreign application.

 

The mark must be typed entirely in capital letters, without spaces between the letters.

 

37 C.F.R. §2.52; TMEP §§807.01(a), 807.01(b), 807.01(c) and 807.06.

 

The requirements for a special‑form drawing are as follows:

 

(1) The drawing must appear in black and white; no color is permitted.

 

(2)  Every line and letter must be black and clear.

 

(3)  The use of gray to indicate shading is unacceptable.

 

(4)  The lining must not be too fine or too close together.

 

(5)  The preferred size of the area in which the mark is displayed is 2½ inches (6.1 cm.) high and 2½ inches (6.1 cm.) wide.  It should not be larger than 4 inches (10.3 cm.) high or 4 inches (10.3 cm.) wide.

 

(6)  If the reduction of the mark to the required size renders any details illegible, the applicant may insert a statement in the application to describe the mark and these details.

 

37 C.F.R. §2.52; TMEP §§807.01(b) and 807.07(a).  The Office will enforce these drawing requirements strictly. 

 

The Office prefers that the drawing be depicted on a separate sheet of smooth, nonshiny, white paper 8 to 8½ inches (20.3 to 21.6 cm.) wide and 11 inches (27.9 cm.) long, and that the sheet contain a heading listing, on separate lines, the applicant’s complete name; the applicant’s address; the goods or services recited in the application; and, if the application is filed under Section 1(a) of the Act, the dates of first use of the mark and of first use of the mark in commerce; or, if the application is filed under Section 44(d), the priority filing date of the foreign application.  37 C.F.R. §2.52(b); TMEP §§807.01(a), 807.01(b), 807.01(c) and 807.07(a).

 

To respond to this Office action electronically, the applicant must:

 

• include the serial number in the subject line;

o       send the response to either mailto:ecom102@uspto.gov, mailto:ecom110@uspto.gov or mailto:ecom112@uspto.gov.  E-mail sent to any other address will NOT be processed, and may result in ABANDONMENT of the application;

o       submit specimens and/or evidence as scanned images or digital photographs in .GIF or .JPG format only.  NO OTHER FORMATS WILL BE PROCESSED (TMEP §304.01);

o       respond within six-months from the Office action mailing date, or within the period stated in the Office action;

o       respond in English; and

o       sign the response electronically, e.g. /john smith/.  See 37 CFR §1.4(d)(1)(iii); TMEP §§304.08 and 804.05.

 

If the applicant wishes to receive future office actions by e-mail, the applicant must state in the response that “The applicant authorizes the USPTO to communicate with the applicant electronically at the following e-mail address: ____________.”  Note: only one e-mail address may be used for correspondence.  TMEP §804.07. 

 

The examining attorney will send correspondence only to the e-mail address listed in the application.  A request to change an e-mail address may be submitted by signed e-mail to one of the above e-mail addresses.

 

Send comments on the USPTO e-Commerce Law Office Pilot Program to Comments@uspto.gov.

 

 

 

 

/Alex S. Keam/

Attorney

Law Office 114

Phone: (703) 308-9114 ext. 140

Fax:  (703) 746-6108

Email for Responses:  ecom114@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.