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  76/496622

 

This letter responds to the applicant’s communication filed on February 26, 2004.

 

The amended drawing is acceptable and made of record.  The Section 2(d) refusal with regards to U.S. Reg. No. 2151221 is hereby withdrawn.  The Section 2(d) refusal with regards to U.S. Reg. No. 1795016 is maintained and made FINAL.

 

Final Refusal Section 2(d) – Likelihood of Confusion

Registration was refused under Trademark Act Section 2(d), 15 U.S.C. §1052(d), because the mark for which registration is sought so resembles the mark shown in U.S. Registration No. 1795016 as to be likely, when used in connection with the identified goods/services, to cause confusion, or to cause mistake, or to deceive.

 

The examining attorney has considered the applicant’s arguments carefully but has found them unpersuasive.  For the reasons below, the refusal under Section 2(d) is maintained and made FINAL.

 

Applicant applies to register the mark CONTRACTOR’S CHOICE for polyvinyl chloride vinyl tile and adhesive backed vinyl floor tile.  Registrant is CONTRACTORS’ CHOICE for ceramic tile.

 

Applicant argues that the goods are different.

 

Similarity of the Marks

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. 

 

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 §1207.01(b).

 

The marks are essentially phonetic equivalents.  Similarity in sound alone is sufficient to find a likelihood of confusion.  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).  In this instance the marks are virtually identical.  Both marks sounds and look the same.

 

Similarity of the Goods

The goods/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 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). 

 

The examining attorney must consider any goods or services in the registrant’s normal fields of expansion to determine whether the registrant’s goods or services are related to the applicant’s identified goods or services under Section 2(d).  In re General Motors Corp., 196 USPQ 574 (TTAB 1977).  TMEP §1207.01(a)(v).  Attached is evidence from current registrations on the Principal Register in which vinyl tiles and ceramic tiles are registered under the same mark.  The registration information is a representative sample of the other marks.  Also included is evidence taken from the Internet® in which, vinyl and ceramic tiles are sold together.  

 

Because of the similarity between the marks and the goods, the refusal to register under Section 2(d) is maintained and made FINAL.

 

Please note that the only appropriate responses to a final action are either (1) compliance with the outstanding requirements, if feasible, or (2) filing of an appeal to the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board.  37 C.F.R. §2.64(a).  If the applicant fails to respond within six months of the mailing date of this refusal, this Office will declare the application abandoned.  37 C.F.R. §2.65(a).

 

 

                                                                        /thl/

Tarah K. Hardy Ludlow

Trademark Attorney

Law Office 110

(703) 308-9110, x. 223

(703) 746-6493 fax

 

 

 

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 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.

 

 

Mark
        TILE EXPRESS
Goods and Services
        IC 019. US 001 012 033 050. G & S: flooring, namely, ceramic tiles, wood flooring, vinyl tiles, clay tiles, glass tiles, rubber floor tiles, gypsum tiles, earthenware tiles, marble tiles, non-metal floor tiles, and plastic tiles. FIRST USE: 19940801. FIRST USE IN COMMERCE: 19940801
Mark Drawing Code
        (1) TYPED DRAWING
Serial Number
        76328310
Filing Date
        October 22, 2001
Current Filing Basis
        1A
Original Filing Basis
        1A
Publication for Opposition Date
        July 1, 2003
Registration Number
        2766213
Registration Date
        September 23, 2003
Owner Name and Address
        (REGISTRANT) Tile Express CORPORATION FLORIDA 2999 North Powerline Road Pompano Beach FLORIDA 33069
Disclaimer Statement
        NO CLAIM IS MADE TO THE EXCLUSIVE RIGHT TO USE "TILE" APART FROM THE MARK AS SHOWN
Type of Mark
        TRADEMARK
Register
        PRINCIPAL
Live Dead Indicator
        LIVE
Attorney of Record
        RALPH E. LOCHER

 

 

 

 

Mark
        ALEXANDER JULIAN AT HOME
Goods and Services
        IC 019. US 001 012 033 050. G & S: LINOLEUM AND VINYL FLOOR TILES; CERAMIC TILES; WOODEN FLOOR TILES; NON-METAL LAMINATED FLOOR TILES, NON-METAL DOORS AND WOOD DOOR MOLDING. FIRST USE: 20010600. FIRST USE IN COMMERCE: 20010600
Mark Drawing Code
        (3) DESIGN PLUS WORDS, LETTERS, AND/OR NUMBERS
Design Code
        261102 261111 261113 261116 261120 261121
Serial Number
        75922261
Filing Date
        February 18, 2000
Current Filing Basis
        1A
Original Filing Basis
        1B
Publication for Opposition Date
        February 26, 2002
Registration Number
        2698170
Registration Date
        March 18, 2003
Owner Name and Address
        (REGISTRANT) Alexander Julian, Inc. CORPORATION NORTH CAROLINA 63 Copps Hill Road Ridgefield CONNECTICUT 06877
Description of Mark
        The lining shown in the drawing is a feature of the mark.
Type of Mark
        TRADEMARK
Register
        PRINCIPAL
Other Data
        The name "ALEXANDER JULIAN" identifies a living individual whose consent is of record.
Live Dead Indicator
        LIVE
Attorney of Record
        James E. Rosini