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  76/481657

 

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. 1337522 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 applicant applied to register the mark DIPENTUM and design for “a medicinal compound used in the treatment of various gastrointestinal and rheumatoid disorders.”  The registered mark is DIPENTUM for “a medicinal compound used in the treatment of various gastrointestinal and rheumatoid disorders.”

 

The test of likelihood of confusion is not whether the marks can be distinguished when subjected to a side‑by‑side comparison.  The issue is whether the marks create the same overall impression. Visual Information Institute, Inc. v. Vicon Industries Inc., 209 USPQ 179 (TTAB 1980).  The focus is on the recollection of the average purchaser 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 marks are highly similar in that both contain or consist of the term, DIPENTUM.  The only difference in the marks is that the applicant’s mark contains a design element.  The examining attorney must look at the marks in their entireties under Section 2(d).  Nevertheless, one feature of a mark may be recognized as more significant in creating a commercial impression.  Greater weight is given to that dominant feature in determining whether there is a likelihood of confusion.  In re National Data Corp., 224 USPQ 749 (Fed. Cir. 1985); Tektronix, Inc. v. Daktronics, Inc., 534 F.2d 915, 189 USPQ 693 (CCPA 1976). In re J.M. Originals Inc., 6 USPQ2d 1393 (TTAB 1988).  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).  Here, the dominant portion of each mark is the wording, DIPENTUM.

 

The goods of the parties 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 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).

 

Both marks are used to identify medicinal compounds used in the treatment of various gastrointestinal and rheumatoid disorders.  The same consumers will be exposed to the goods identified with each mark.  The similarities among the marks and the goods of the parties are so great as to create a likelihood of confusion.  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).

 

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.

 

Informality

 

If the applicant chooses to respond to the refusal to register, the applicant must also respond to the following informality.

 

Drawing Contains Color

The drawing of the mark contains the color, magenta, and gray shading.  A drawing must be in black-and-white. Therefore, the applicant must submit a new drawing showing the mark clearly and conforming to 37 C.F.R. Section 2.52.  If the applicant wishes to depict color in the drawing, then the applicant must provide a clear and specific description of what the color is and where the color appears in the mark.  37 C.F.R. Section 2.52(a)(2)(v).   In addition, the drawing is too large.  The drawing must comply with the size requirements set by the office. 

 

Special-Form Drawing Requirements

 

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. Sections 2.51 and 2.52; TMEP section 807.07(a).  The Office will enforce these drawing requirements strictly.  TMEP section 807.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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

 

 

Elizabeth Pignatello

Elizabeth Pignatello

Trademark Examining Attorney

Law Office 105

(703) 308-9105 Ext. 224

(703) 872-9825 fax

ecom105@uspto.gov -formal response

elizabeth.pignatello@uspto.gov -informal

 

 

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.