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  76/450460

 

 

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. 1935580 as to be likely to cause confusion, or 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).

 

The registered mark CORREFLOW is used on scientific and industrial process control instruments, specifically catalyst feed monitors, sensor assemblies, namely electrical sensors for measuring fluid flow, and accessories therefor.  Applicant wishes to register CORI-FLOW for “Registered computer programs, namely, software; hardware; electric apparatus and instruments for measuring, weighing and reproducing of amounts of gas and liquids, so far as not included in other classes.”

 

The marks look and sound alike, and are essentially phonetic equivalents.  Similarity in sound alone is sufficient to find a likelihood of confusion.  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). 

 

Applicant has identified its goods so broadly that they would include registrant’s more narrowly defined goods.

 

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 requirements.

 

No Signed Declaration

 

The application must be signed, and verified or supported by a declaration under 37 C.F.R. §2.20.  37 C.F.R. §2.33.  No signed verification or declaration was provided.  Therefore, the applicant must provide a signed verification or signed declaration attesting to the facts set forth in the application.

 

If the application is based on use in commerce under Trademark Act Section 1(a), 15 U.S.C. §1051(a), the verified statement must include an allegation that the mark is in use in commerce and was in use in commerce on or in connection with the goods or services listed in the application as of the application filing date.  37 C.F.R. §2.34(a)(1)(i); TMEP §§804.02, 806.01(a) and 901. 

 

If the application is based on Trademark Act Section 1(b) or 44, 15 U.S.C. §1051(b) or 1126, the verified statement must include an allegation that the applicant had a bona fide intention to use the mark in commerce on or in connection with the goods or services listed in the application as of the application filing date.  37 C.F.R. §§2.34(a)(2)(i), 2.34(a)(3)(i) and 2.34(a)(4)(ii); TMEP §§804.02, 806.01(b), 806.01(c), 806.01(d) and 1101. 

 

Dual Basis

 

The applicant has filed asserting a bona fide intention to use the mark in commerce under Trademark Act Section 1(b), 15 U.S.C. §1051(b), and claiming priority under Section 44(d), 15 U.S.C. §1126(d), based on a foreign application.  Under these circumstances, the applicant may rely solely on its intent to use the mark in commerce as the basis for registration and not the expected foreign registration, and still claim the benefit of the priority filing date.  If the applicant chooses to do so, this Office will approve the case for publication without waiting for the applicant to submit the foreign registration.  Of course, the application must be in condition for publication in all other respects.  Moreover, while the application may be approved for publication, the mark will not be registered until an acceptable allegation of use has been filed.

 

If the applicant wishes to proceed relying on the applicant’s intent to use the mark in commerce as the sole basis for registration, with the claim of priority, the applicant should so advise the examining attorney.  TMEP §§806.02(f) and 806.04(b).

 

If the applicant does not so indicate, this Office will presume that the applicant wishes to rely on the foreign registration as an additional basis for registration and will expect the applicant to submit a true copy, a photocopy, a certification, or a certified copy of the foreign registration and, if appropriate, an English translation.  It is customary for the translator to sign the translation.  TMEP §§1004.01 and 1004.01(b).

 

Identification of Goods Indefinite

 

The goods appear to be computer programs.  The wording the applicant has used to identify the goods is unacceptable as indefinite.  The applicant must indicate not only that the goods are computer programs but also the purpose or function of the program.  TMEP §1402.03(d).  This additional information is necessary to permit this Office to reach judgments concerning possible conflicts between the applicant’s mark and other marks.  See In re Linkvest S.A., 24 USPQ2d 1716 (TTAB 1992). 

 

Applicant must amend “hardware” to “computer hardware”, if accurate.  “Hardware” alone is indefinite.

 

The wording “electric apparatus and instruments for measuring, weighing and reproducing of amounts of gas and liquids, so far as not included in other classes” in the identification of goods is unacceptable as indefinite.  The applicant must amend the identification to specify the commercial name of the goods.  If there is no common commercial name for the product, the applicant must describe the product and its intended uses. TMEP §1402.01.

 

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

 

 

 

 

Michael Engel

Examining Attorney, LO 108

703-308-9108 x183  voice

703-746-8108  fax

ecom108@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.