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  76/465222

 

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. §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. 1894457 as to be likely to cause confusion, to cause mistake, or to deceive.  TMEP §§1207.01 et seq.  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 (C.C.P.A. 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).  TMEP §§1207.01 et seq. 

 

In the present instance, the proposed mark is IISI plus a design, for goods/services including “accident investigation.”  The mark in the cited registration is ISI, also in typed form, for “private investigation services and accident investigation services for insurance companies, adjusters, attorneys and employers.”

 

Initially, when an applicant's mark is compared to a registered mark, "the points of similarity are of greater importance than the points of difference."  Esso Standard Oil Co. v. Sun Oil Co., 229 F.2d 37, 108 USPQ 161 (D.C. Cir.), cert. denied, 351 U.S. 973, 109 USPQ 517 (1956). Also, 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).  TMEP §1207.01(c)(ii). 

 

With that in mind, the letter or acronym portion of the applicant’s mark is highly similar in spelling, appearance and commercial impression to the cited registration. “IISI” and “ISI” are also similar in style and font as well. Furthermore, letter marks have generally been given a wide scope of protection on the premise that it is more difficult to remember arbitrarily arranged letters than it is to recall words, thus making confusion among consumers even more probable. Alberto Culver F.D.C. Wholesale Corp., 16 USPQ2d 1957 (TTAB 1990).

 

Since similarity in either sound appearance, meaning or commercial impression alone is sufficient to find a likelihood of confusion, the marks are confusingly similar.  In re Mack, 197 USPQ 755 (TTAB 1977).

 

Continuing, the examining attorney must still consider the commercial relationship between the goods or services of the respective parties carefully to determine whether there is a likelihood of confusion.  In re Concordia International Forwarding Corp., 222 USPQ 355 (TTAB 1983). The goods or services of the parties however 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/services 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).  TMEP §1207.01(a)(i). 

 

Here, the marks of both the applicant and the registrant identify closely related services. In fact, both the application and the cited registrations identify “accident investigation” services. Moreover, it is well settled that the issue of likelihood of confusion between marks must be determined on the basis of the goods or services as they are identified in the application and the registration. Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce v. Wells Fargo Bank, 811 F.2d 1490, 1 USPQ2d 1813 (Fed. Cir. 1987); Paula Payne Products Co. v. Johnson Publishing Co., 473 F.2d 901, 177 USPQ 76 (C.C.P.A. 1973).  Since the identification of the applicant’s goods/services is very broad, it is presumed that the application encompasses all goods/services of the type described, including those in the registrant’s more specific identification, that they move in all normal channels of trade and that they are available for all potential customers.  TMEP §1207.01(a)(iii). 

 

Furthermore, 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). 

 

In closing, the examining attorney must resolve any doubt regarding a likelihood of confusion in favor of the prior registrant.  In re Hyper Shoppes (Ohio), Inc., 837 F.2d 463, 6 USPQ2d 1025 (Fed. Cir., 1988).  Accordingly, confusion is likely and the mark is refused registration under Section 2(d) of the Trademark Act.     

 

RESPONSE:

 

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.    

 

INFORMALITIES:

The applicant must also respond to the following issues.

 

DRAWING:

 

The drawing is not acceptable because it will not reproduce satisfactorily.  Specifically, the drawing contains gray shading and exceeds the current maximum size requirement. The applicant therefore must submit a new drawing showing the mark clearly and conforming to 37 C.F.R. §2.52.  TMEP §807.07(a).

As a reminder, the requirements for a special‑form drawing are as follows:

 

(1) The drawing must appear in black and white; no color is permitted.

 

(2)  Every line and letter must be black and clear.

 

(3)  The use of gray to indicate shading is unacceptable.

 

(4)  The lining must not be too fine or too close together.

 

(5)  The preferred size of the area in which the mark is displayed is 2½ inches (6.1 cm.) high and 2½ inches (6.1 cm.) wide.  It should not be larger than 4 inches (10.3 cm.) high or 4 inches (10.3 cm.) wide.

 

(6)  If the reduction of the mark to the required size renders any details illegible, the applicant may insert a statement in the application to describe the mark and these details.

 

37 C.F.R. §2.52; TMEP §§807.01(b) and 807.07(a).  The Office will enforce these drawing requirements strictly. 

 

The Office prefers that the drawing be depicted on a separate sheet of smooth, nonshiny, white paper 8 to 8½ inches (20.3 to 21.6 cm.) wide and 11 inches (27.9 cm.) long, and that the sheet contain a heading listing, on separate lines, the applicant’s complete name; the applicant’s address; the goods or services recited in the application; and, if the application is filed under Section 1(a) of the Act, the dates of first use of the mark and of first use of the mark in commerce; or, if the application is filed under Section 44(d), the priority filing date of the foreign application.  37 C.F.R. §2.52(b); TMEP §§807.01(a), 807.01(b), 807.01(c) and 807.07(a).

DESCRIPTION OF GOODS/SERVICES:

 

Some of the wording in the description of goods and services is unacceptable. For instance, the term “system” in the identification is unacceptable as indefinite.  With this term, the applicant must amend the identification by listing the major parts of the system and describing the nature and use of the system.  TMEP §1402.03(a).

 

Ultimately, when a description is indefinite, the applicant must amend the description to specify the common commercial name of the goods or services.  If there is no common commercial name for the goods or services, the applicant must describe the goods or services and indicate their nature.  TMEP §1402.11. Please also keep in mind that activity for which a service mark can be registered must constitute a real activity that is performed for the benefit or order of someone other than the applicant. As such, a service cannot be an ancillary activity or one, which is necessary to the applicant’s larger business.

Furthermore, registration of a process, method, system, or the like, is sometimes sought on the assumption that such activity is a service and the name applied to it is registrable as a service mark. A process, however, is only a way of doing something and therefore is not an activity conducted for the benefit of others. Thus, a term which merely designates a process or is used only as the name of a process is not registrable as a service mark. In re Universal Oil Products Co., 167 USPQ 245 (TTAB 1970), aff’d, 177 USPQ (C.C.P.A. 1973).

As a suggestion therefore, the applicant may delete the indefinite material or adopt the following descriptions, if accurate:

 

Computer software for the motor vehicle accident investigation industry comprising word processing, two-dimensional drawing, and two-dimensional animation, and user manuals sold therewith as a unit, in International Class 009

 

Accident investigations; investigation services related to insurance claims, in International Class 045

 

TMEP §1402.

 

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 or services that are not within the scope of the services recited in the present identification.

 

 

CLASSIFICATION OF SERVICES:

 

The applicant has classified “ACCIDENT INVESTIGATION” incorrectly.  The applicant must amend the application to classify the services in International Class 045.  37 C.F.R. §§2.32(a)(7) and 2.85; TMEP §§1401.02(a) and 1401.03(b).

 

ADDITIONAL FEES REQUIRED:

 

The application potentially identifies goods and services 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 based on use in commerce under Trademark Act Section 1(a), 15 U.S.C. §1051(a), the applicant must comply with each of the following:

 

(1)  The applicant must specifically identify them in each class and list them 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(b); 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.  

 

(3)  The applicant must submit: 

 

(a) dates of first use and first use in commerce and one specimen for each class that includes goods or services based on use in commerce under Trademark Act Section 1(a).  The dates of use must be at least as early as the filing date of this application, 37 C.F.R. §§2.34(a)(1) and 2.86(a), and the specimen(s) must have been in use in commerce at least as early as the filing date of the application, and/or

 

(b) a statement of a bona fide intention to use the mark in commerce on or in connection with all the goods or services specified in each class that includes goods or services based on a bona fide intention to use the mark in commerce under Trademark Act Section 1(b), where such statement was not included for the goods or services in the original application.

 

(4)  The applicant must submit an affidavit or a declaration under 37 C.F.R. §2.20 signed by the applicant to verify (3) above.  37 C.F.R. §§2.59(a) and 2.71(c).

 

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

 

 

 

 

/Brian D. Brown/

Trademark Attorney

Law Office 105

(703) 308-9105 ext. 178

(703) 872-9825 fax

ecom105@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.

 

FEE INCREASE:

 

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.

 

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