To: | SENSA, Inc. (esensa@bellsouth.net) |
Subject: | TRADEMARK APPLICATION NO. 76451709 - ION - N/A |
Sent: | 2/10/03 5:43:41 PM |
Sent As: | ECom107 |
Attachments: | Attachment - 1 |
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
SERIAL NO: 76/451709
APPLICANT: SENSA, Inc.
|
|
CORRESPONDENT ADDRESS: SENSA, INC. 9785 SW 181 TERRACE, SUITE 204 MIAMI FL 33157
|
RETURN ADDRESS: Commissioner for Trademarks 2900 Crystal Drive Arlington, VA 22202-3513 ecom107@uspto.gov
|
MARK: ION
|
|
CORRESPONDENT’S REFERENCE/DOCKET NO: N/A
CORRESPONDENT EMAIL ADDRESS: esensa@bellsouth.net |
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 76/451709
The following authorities govern the processing of trademark and service mark applications: The Trademark Act, 15 U.S.C. Section 1051 et seq., the Trademark Rules of Practice, 37 C.F.R. Part 2, and the Trademark Manual of Examining Procedure (TMEP).
The assigned examining attorney has reviewed the referenced application and determined the following.
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. 1320267 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).
The registered mark is ION for, among other things, “personal detergent for use on the hair and body” and the applicant is seeking to register the mark ION for “massage-fluids, lubricants and glide-gels.” The marks are identical.
In addition to the marks being identical, applicant’s goods are highly related to the goods listed in the above-cited registration. Consumers would likely believe that the goods emanate from one common source and associate the goods with the same producer.
If the applicant chooses to respond to the refusal to register, the applicant must also respond to the following informalities.
The application identifies goods that may be classified in several international classes. Therefore, the applicant must either: (1) restrict the application to the number of class(es) covered by the fee already paid, or (2) pay the required fee for each additional class(es). 37 C.F.R. §2.86(a)(2); TMEP §§810.01, 1401.04, 1401.04(b) and 1403.01.
Effective January 1, 2003, the fee for filing a trademark application is $335 for each class. This applies to classes added to pending applications as well as to new applications filed on or after that date. 37 C.F.R. §2.6(a)(1).
If the applicant prosecutes this application as a combined, or multiple‑class, application, the applicant must comply with each of the following.
(1) The applicant must list the goods/services by international class with the classes listed in ascending numerical order. TMEP §1403.01.
(2) The applicant must submit a filing fee for each international class of goods/services not covered by the fee already paid. 37 C.F.R. §§2.6(a)(1) and 2.86(a); TMEP §§810.01 and 1403.01. Effective January 1, 2003, the fee for filing a trademark application is $335 for each class. This applies to classes added to pending applications as well as to new applications filed on or after that date.
The identification of goods is unacceptable because it is indefinite and it identifies goods in other classes. TMEP section 804. The Trademark Act requires that the applicant “specify” the goods in an explicit manner. TMEP 804.01. Additionally, the identification of goods should be clear, accurate, definite and as concise as possible. TMEP 804.01. Therefore, the applicant must make the following clarifications. Applicant must use the common commercial name for massage-fluids. Moreover, applicant must state the type of lubricants and glide-gels. Applicant may adopt the following, if accurate.
Class 3 “massage oils; massage gels and massage lotions” in Class 3.
Class 5 “gels for use as personal lubricant” in Class 5.
Please note that, while an application may be amended to clarify or limit the identification, additions to the identification are not permitted. 37 C.F.R. §2.71(a); TMEP §1402.06. Therefore, the applicant may not amend to include any goods that are not within the scope of goods set forth in the present identification.
No set form is required for response to this Office action. The applicant must respond to each point raised. The applicant should simply set forth the required changes or statements and request that the Office enter them. The applicant must sign the response. In addition to the identifying information required at the beginning of this letter, the applicant should provide a telephone number to speed up further processing.
The applicant may wish to hire a trademark attorney because of the technicalities involved in the application. The Patent and Trademark Office cannot aid in the selection of an attorney.
In all correspondence to the Patent and Trademark Office, the applicant should list the name and law office of the examining attorney, the serial number of this application, the mailing date of this Office action, and the applicant's telephone number.
/AMY GEARIN/
Trademark Attorney
LO 107
United States Patent and Trademark Office
(703) 308-9107 x159
ecom107@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.
FOR INQUIRIES OR QUESTIONS ABOUT THIS OFFICE ACTION, PLEASE CONTACT THE ASSIGNED EXAMINING ATTORNEY.