UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
|
SERIAL NO: 76/457167
APPLICANT: iVillage Parenting Network, Inc.
|
|
|
CORRESPONDENT ADDRESS: BRADFORD S. BREEN ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP 666 FIFTH AVENUE NEW YORK, NEW YORK, 10103
|
RETURN ADDRESS: Commissioner for Trademarks 2900 Crystal Drive Arlington, VA 22202-3513 ecom106@uspto.gov
|
|
MARK: BABYSTEPS
|
|
|
CORRESPONDENT’S REFERENCE/DOCKET NO: 9704-172
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 76/457167
The assigned examining attorney has reviewed the referenced application and determined the following.
LIKELIHOOD OF CONFUSION SECTION 2(d)
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. 2537307 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 examining attorney must resolve any doubt as to the issue of likelihood of confusion in favor of the registrant and against the applicant who has a legal duty to select a mark which is totally dissimilar to trademarks already being used. Burroughs Wellcome Co. v. Warner‑Lambert Co., 203 USPQ 191 (TTAB 1979).
In this case the marks are identical. 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 goods, while not identical, are closely related. The content, if not the form, is the same, namely, child development information and help. The focus is on the recollection of the average purchaser, who may see the registrant’s goods advertised in the applicant’s publications, and who normally retains a general rather than specific impression of trademarks. Chemetron Corp. v. Morris Coupling & Clamp Co., 203 USPQ 537 (TTAB 1979); Sealed Air Corp. v. Scott Paper Co., 190 USPQ 106 (TTAB 1975); TMEP section 1207.01(b).
The potential consumer upon encountering both goods in the marketplace would likely, mistakenly, assume that both goods emanate from a single 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.
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 always provide a telephone number to speed up further processing.
Linda E. B. Mickleburgh
/lebm/
Examining Attorney
Law Office 106
703-308-9106 x222
linda.mickleburgh@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.
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.