UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
SERIAL NO: 76/453745
APPLICANT: Sims Ventures Inc.
|
|
CORRESPONDENT ADDRESS: SIMS VENTURES INC. P.O BOX 121 HARRODSBURG, KY 40330
|
RETURN ADDRESS: Commissioner for Trademarks 2900 Crystal Drive Arlington, VA 22202-3513 ecom114@uspto.gov
|
MARK: TRAILSPORT
|
|
CORRESPONDENT’S REFERENCE/DOCKET NO: N/A
CORRESPONDENT EMAIL ADDRESS:
|
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 76/453745
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. §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. 2414832 as to be likely to cause confusion, to cause mistake, or to deceive. TMEP §§1207.01 et seq. See the enclosed registration.
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’s mark is TRAILSPORT which is virtually identical to the registrant’s mark TRAIL SPORT. If the marks of the respective parties are identical, the relationship between the goods or services of the respective parties need not be as close to support a finding of likelihood of confusion as might apply where differences exist between the marks. Amcor, Inc. v. Amcor Industries, Inc., 210 USPQ 70 (TTAB 1981). TMEP §1207.01(a).
The applicant’s goods are off-road motorcycles, go-karts, scooters and Atv’s. The registrant’s goods are mini-bikes and motorized scooters. The goods are identical, namely, scooters. In addition, the goods are also related because both are off the road vehicles. If the goods or services of the respective parties are closely related, the degree of similarity between marks required to support a finding of likelihood of confusion is not as great as would apply with diverse goods or services. ECI Division of E Systems, Inc. v. Environmental Communications Inc., 207 USPQ 443 (TTAB 1980). TMEP §1207.01(b).
Couple the virtually identical marks along with the identical and highly related nature of the goods and a consumer encountering both marks may wrongly assume that the goods are derived from a common commercial source.
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 assigned examining attorney has reviewed the referenced application and determined the following.
The wording “scooters” and “Atv’s” in the identification of goods is unacceptable as indefinite because the exact nature of the vehicle is not indicated with enough specificity. In class 12, the term scooters could indicate water, motorized or non-motorized scooters. The term could also refer to toy scooters in International Class 28. The examining attorney has suggested motorized scooters. 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.
For assistance regarding an acceptable listing of goods and/or services, please see the on‑line searchable Manual of Acceptable Identifications of Goods and Services, at http://www.gov.uspto.report/web/offices/tac/doc/gsmanual/.
The applicant may adopt the following identification of goods, if accurate:
Off-road motorcycles, Go-Karts, vehicles, namely, motorized scooters, and all-terrain vehicles, International Class 12; and/or
Toy scooters, International Class 28.
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.
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.
___________________________________________
Brendan D. McCauley
Examining Attorney
Law Office 114
703-308-9114 X165
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.
Fee increase effective January 1, 2003
Effective January 1, 2003, the fee for filing an application for trademark registration will be increased to $335.00 per International Class. The USPTO will not accord a filing date to applications that are filed on or after that date that are not accompanied by a minimum of $335.00.
Additionally, the fee for amending an existing application to add an additional class or classes of goods/services will be $335.00 per class for classes added on or after January 1, 2003.