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  76/448665  AMERICAN RED CROSS

 

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

 

I.  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 services, so resembles the mark in U.S. Registration No. 1,697,594 as to be likely to cause confusion, to cause mistake, or to deceive.  TMEP section 1207.  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 (CCPA 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).

 

COMPARISON OF THE MARKS:

 

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).  A comparison of the applicant’s mark AMERICAN RED CROSS and the registered mark AMERICAN RED CROSS & Design shows that the marks are highly similar in sound, meaning and overall commercial impression in that applicant has appropriated the dominant portion of the registrant’s mark AMERICAN RED CROSS in its entirety in the formation of its mark.  This appropriation does not alter the overall similar commercial impressions of the marks.  When a mark consists of a word portion and a design portion, the word portion is more likely to be impressed upon a purchaser's memory and to be used in calling for the goods or services. In re Appetito Provisions Co., 3 USPQ2d 1553 (TTAB 1987); Amoco Oil Co. v. Amerco, Inc., 192 USPQ 729 (TTAB 1976).  As such, the addition of the design element in the registrant’s mark does not minimize the similarity between the marks.

 

COMPARISON OF THE GOODS/SERVICES:

 

The goods or 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 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).  The applicant’s services and the registrant’s services are related in that health and safety training could include water safety instruction.  Therefore, the applicant’s services are highly likely to be encountered by the same purchasers of the registrant’s services.

 

-  OWNERSHIP OF CITED REGISTRATION:

 

If the registered mark cited has been assigned to the applicant, the applicant is responsible for proving its ownership of that mark.  TMEP §812.01.  The applicant may record the assignment with the Assignment Branch of the Patent and Trademark Office.  Trademark Act Section 10, 15 U.S.C. §1060; 37 C.F.R. §3.25.  The applicant should then provide the examining attorney with the reel and frame numbers at which the assignment is recorded.  In the alternative, the applicant may submit evidence of the assignment of the mark to the applicant.  This evidence may consist of (1) documents evidencing the chain of title, or (2) an explanation, in an affidavit or supported by a declaration under 37 C.F.R. §2.20, of the chain of title (specifying each party in the chain, the nature of each conveyance and the relevant dates).  37 C.F.R. §3.73. 

 

If the applicant chooses to respond to the refusal to register, the applicant must also respond to the following informality.

 

II.  DISCLAIMER:

 

The applicant must disclaim the geographically descriptive wording “AMERICAN” apart from the mark as shown. Trademark Act Section 6, 15 U.S.C. Section 1056; TMEP sections 1213 and 1213.02(a).  The above wording is geographically descriptive because applicant’s services are provided (at least in part) in the United States of America, the applicant’s base of operations.  Where AMERICAN is defined in relevant part as “[o]f or relating to the United States of America.”[1]

 

A properly worded disclaimer should read as follows:

 

No claim is made to the exclusive right to use AMERICAN apart from the mark as shown.

 

III.  CONCLUSION:

 

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 has any questions or needs assistance in responding to this Office Action, please telephone the assigned examining attorney.

 

/KSC/

Karanendra S. Chhina

Trademark Attorney

Law Office 114

(703) 308-9114 x441

 

 

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.