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  76/494262

 

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 marks in U.S. Registration Nos. 1174921, 1291939, 2274322, 2484343, 2495439 and 2718845 as to be likely to cause confusion, to cause mistake, or to deceive.  TMEP §§1207.01 et seq.  See the enclosed registrations.

 

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. 

 

Similarities of the Marks

The applicant’s mark is BOSTON.  The registered marks are BostonAcoustics (stylized), BOSTON ACOUSTICS, BOSTON RALLY, BOSTONACOUSTICS.COM, Boston BostonAcoustics.com (stylized), and BOSTON BOSTON ACOUSTICS, respectively (all owned by Boston Acoustics Inc.). 

 

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 (C.C.P.A. 1976). In re J.M. Originals Inc., 6 USPQ2d 1393 (TTAB 1988).  TMEP §1207.01(b)(viii). 

 

The dominant portion of all the marks is the term BOSTON.

 

Relatedness of the Goods and the Channels of Trade

The applicant’s goods include electrical signal communications systems that are comprised of data, voice and power signals.  The registered goods include loudspeakers, audio equipment, and audio products including audio signal processors.

 

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).  The applicant’s data, voice and power signal communication systems are not entirely clear (see requirement below for clarification) and as such would encompass the applicant’s goods.  Additionally, once clarified, the goods may still be in the same general field or have the same potential consumers.

 

The similarities among the marks and the goods are so great as to create a likelihood of confusion among consumers.  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).  TMEP §§1207.01(d)(i).  Accordingly, the mark is refused registration on the Principal Register under Section 2(d).

 

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.

 

Potential 2(d) Cites

The examining attorney encloses information regarding pending Application Serial Nos. 75/411089 and 76/192712.  The filing dates of the referenced applications precede the applicant’s filing date.  There may be a likelihood of confusion between the applicant’s mark and the referenced marks under Trademark Act Section 2(d), 15 U.S.C. §1052(d).  If one or more of the referenced applications matures into a registration, the examining attorney may refuse registration in this case under Section 2(d).  37 C.F.R. §2.83; TMEP §1208.01.

 

Informalities

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

 

Identification of Goods

The identification of goods is unacceptable as indefinite.  The applicant may adopt the following identification, if accurate: 

 

            Electrical signal communication systems comprising _____ [indicate type of “wiring” type e.g. electric, electrical, power] wires, ____ [indicate type of “cabling” – see attached for types of “cable”] cables, _____  [indicate type of “distribution node” e.g. electrical] distribution nodes and outlet equipment, namely, _____ [specify the “equipment” by its common commercial name(s)] for data, voice and power signals; signal processors, namely, modular electrical signal extender and distribution equipment for power, voice and data signal distribution; electrical distribution boxes, electrical connectors, ______ [specify type of cables] cables, _____ [specify type of wire] wires and circuit boards for transmission, extension and distribution of power, voice and data signals in network environments; power distribution equipment for fixtures, namely, ______ [specify e.g. power cables, power supplies, power wires], in Class 9. 

 

TMEP §1402.01.

 

Note:  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 and/or services that are not within the scope of the goods and/or services recited in the present identification.

 

Note:  The applicant may also refer to the Acceptable Identification of Goods and Services Manual located on-line at http://www.gov.uspto.report/web/offices/tac/doc/gsmanual for additional suggestions of acceptable identifications.

 

Requirements for a Combined Application in a Use-Based Application

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 the goods and/or services in each class and list the goods and/or services 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.   Note:  The applicant has paid for one (1) class to 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).

 

Requirement for Information

The nature of the goods on which the applicant uses the mark is not clear from the present record.  The applicant must submit samples of advertisements or promotional materials.  If such materials are not available, the applicant must submit a photograph of the goods and describe their nature, purpose and channels of trade.  37 C.F.R. §2.61(b); TMEP §§814 and 1402.01(d). 

 

Trademark Rule 2.61(b) states "The examiner may require the applicant to furnish such information and exhibits as may be reasonably necessary to the proper examination of the application".  The Trademark Trial and Appeal Board has upheld a refusal of registration based on the applicant's failure to provide information requested under this rule.  In re Babies Beat Inc., 13 USPQ2d 1729 (TTAB 1990)(failure to submit patent information regarding configuration). 

 

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

 

/Gina M. Fink/

Trademark Attorney - Law Office 103

Phone: (703) 308-9103 ext. 232

Law Office 103 Fax: (703) 746-8103

 

 

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.