To: | Nations Signature Closers, Inc. (kmcley@nationsholding.com) |
Subject: | TRADEMARK APPLICATION NO. 76486163 - NSC - N/A |
Sent: | 10/6/2004 10:04:02 AM |
Sent As: | ECOM110@USPTO.GOV |
Attachments: |
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
SERIAL NO: 76/486163
APPLICANT: Nations Signature Closers, Inc.
|
|
CORRESPONDENT ADDRESS: |
RETURN ADDRESS: Commissioner for Trademarks P.O. Box 1451 Alexandria, VA 22313-1451
|
MARK: NSC
|
|
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 76/486163
The examining attorney acknowledges the applicant’s response to the office action of March 8th 2004. The refusal to register is maintained and made FINAL.
Likelihood of Confusion
The trademark 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. 2749810 as to be likely to cause confusion, to cause mistake, or to deceive. TMEP section 1207.
The trademark attorney must analyze each case in two steps to determine whether there is a likelihood of confusion. First, the trademark 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 trademark 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).
As stated in the first refusal, the marks are highly similar as each contains the literal portion NSC. This shared wording creates a strong similarity. Similarity in sound alone may be sufficient to support a finding of likelihood of confusion. RE/MAX of America, Inc. v. Realty Mart, Inc., 207 USPQ 960, 964 (TTAB 1980); Molenaar, Inc. v. Happy Toys Inc., 188 USPQ 469 (TTAB 1975); In re Cresco Mfg. Co., 138 USPQ 401 (TTAB 1963); TMEP §1207.01(b)(iv).
As to the second part of the test each party provides services in the field of real estate. Home buyers will encounter the services of both the applicant and registrant in the course of the same transaction. Each party provides services within the real estate purchasing process. Thus, the services are related.
The applicant suggests that amending the identification of goods to “notary services” would remove any likelihood of confusion. The examining attorney can offer no opinion on such an amendment as such an amendment is impossible in this application. The proposed amendment to the identification cannot be accepted because it refers to services that are not within the scope of the identification that was set forth in the application, as amended on January 16, 2004. While the identification of services may be amended to clarify or limit the services, additions to the identification or a broadening of the scope of the identification are not permitted. 37 C.F.R. §2.71(a); TMEP §§1402.06 et seq. and 1402.07.
If applicant fails to respond to this final action within six months of the mailing date, the application will be abandoned. 15 U.S.C. §1062(b); 37 C.F.R. §2.65(a). Applicant may respond to this final action by:
(1) submitting a response that fully satisfies all outstanding requirements, if feasible (37 C.F.R. §2.64(a)); and/or
(2) filing an appeal to the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board, with an appeal fee of $100 per class (37 C.F.R. §§2.6(a)(18) and 2.64(a); TMEP §§715.01 and 1501 et seq.; TBMP Chapter 1200).
In certain circumstances, a petition to the Director may be filed to review a final action that is limited to procedural issues, pursuant to 37 C.F.R. §2.63(b)(2). 37 C.F.R. §2.64(a). See 37 C.F.R. §2.146(b), TMEP §1704, and TBMP Chapter 1201.05 for an explanation of petitionable matter. The petition fee is $100. 37 C.F.R. §2.6(a)(15).
NOTICE: TRADEMARK OPERATION RELOCATING OCTOBER AND NOVEMBER 2004
The Trademark Operation is relocating to Alexandria, Virginia, in October and November 2004. Effective October 4, 2004, all Trademark-related paper mail (except documents sent to the Assignment Services Division for recordation, certain documents filed under the Madrid Protocol, and requests for copies of trademark documents) must be sent to:
Commissioner for Trademarks
P.O. Box 1451
Alexandria, VA 22313-1451
Applicants, registration owners, attorneys and other Trademark customers are strongly encouraged to correspond with the USPTO online via the Trademark Electronic Application System (TEAS), at www.uspto.gov.
/Daniel F. Capshaw/
Trademark Attorney
Law Office 110
703.308.9110.241
How to respond to this Office Action:
You may respond formally using the Office's Trademark Electronic Application System (TEAS) Response to Office Action form (visit http://eteas.gov.uspto.report/V2.0/oa242/WIZARD.htm and follow the instructions therein, but you must wait until at least 72 hours after receipt if the office action issued via e-mail). PLEASE NOTE: Responses to Office Actions on applications filed under the Madrid Protocol (Section 66(a)) CANNOT currently be filed via TEAS.
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.