UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
SERIAL NO: 76/481986
APPLICANT: IntelliSpace, Inc.
|
|
CORRESPONDENT ADDRESS: JESSICA RITTER INTELLISPACE 1156 AVENUE OF THE AMERICAS FL 5 NEW YORK NY 10036-2702
|
RETURN ADDRESS: Commissioner for Trademarks 2900 Crystal Drive Arlington, VA 22202-3513 ecom105@uspto.gov
|
MARK: INTELLISHOW
|
|
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 76/481986
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 services, so resembles the mark in U.S. Registration No. 2676258 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 compare the marks for similarities in sound, appearance, meaning or connotation. In re E. I. DuPont de Nemours & Co., 476 F.2d 1357, 177 USPQ 563 (CCPA 1973). Similarity in any one of these elements is sufficient to find a likelihood of confusion. In re Mack, 197 USPQ 755 (TTAB 1977). The marks INTELESHOW and INTELLISHOW convey the same commercial impression.
Registrant is an application services provider. Applicant provides telecommunications services in the nature of internet access. These are closely related telecommunications services.
The services 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 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).
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.
If the applicant chooses to respond to the refusal to register, the applicant must also respond to the following issues.
The drawing displays the mark as INTELLISHOW. However, this differs from the display of the mark on the specimen, where it appears as INTELLI-SHOW. The applicant must either:
(1) submit a new drawing of the mark that agrees with the specimen; or
(2) submit a substitute specimen that shows use of the mark shown in the drawing.
37 C.F.R. §2.51; TMEP §§807.14 and 807.14(a)(i). The applicant may not amend the drawing if the amendment would materially alter the character of the mark. 37 C.F.R. §2.72(a); TMEP §807.14(a). In this case, applicant may amend its drawing to show the mark as INTELLI-SHOW.
If a substitute specimen is submitted, the applicant must verify, with an affidavit or a declaration under 37 C.F.R. §2.20, that the substitute specimen was in use in commerce at least as early as the filing date of the application. 37 C.F.R. §§2.59(a) and 2.72(a); TMEP §904.09.
The recitation of services is unacceptable as indefinite. The applicant must amend the recitation to indicate the nature of the services and their particular field. TMEP §1402.11.
The applicant may adopt the following recitation of services, if accurate: Telecommunications services, namely, providing access to the internet at hotels and conventions; in International Class 38.
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 services that are not within the scope of the services recited in the present identification.
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.
/John E. Michos/
Trademark Attorney
Law Office 105
703 308-9105 ext. 152
703 872-9825 (fax)
ecom.105@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.