UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
SERIAL NO: 76/497307
APPLICANT: Factset Research Systems Inc.
|
|
CORRESPONDENT ADDRESS: JAMES E. ROSINI, ESQ. KENYON & KENYON ONE BROADWAY NEW YORK, NEW YORK 10004
|
RETURN ADDRESS: Commissioner for Trademarks 2900 Crystal Drive Arlington, VA 22202-3514 ecom114@uspto.gov
|
MARK: MARQUEE
|
|
CORRESPONDENT’S REFERENCE/DOCKET NO: 2739/33
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 76/497307
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. §1052(d), because the applicant’s mark, when used on or in connection with the identified goods/services, so resembles the mark in U.S. Registration No. 2064422 as to be likely to cause confusion, to cause mistake, or to deceive. TMEP §§1207.01 et seq. 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 (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.
Applicant’s mark is, MARQUEE, whereas, registrant’s mark is, MARQUIS INVESTMENTS. 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). Additionally, 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). In this instance, the dominant portion of the marks, MARQUEE/MARQUIS are phonetic equivalents.
Moreover, the applicant’s services are for “providing and integrating streaming news and quotes in the fields of finance and economics” and registrant’s services are for “financial services, namely investment counseling, full service and discount investment brokerage, and securities custodial services; and insurance services, namely life, property, casualty, mortgage, fixed and variable annuity, and automobile insurance services.” The examining attorney must determine whether there is a likelihood of confusion on the basis of the goods/services identified in the application and registration. If the application describes the goods/services broadly and there are no limitations as to their nature, type, channels of trade or classes of purchasers, it is presumed that the application encompasses all goods/services of the type described, that they move in all normal channels of trade, and that they are available to all potential customers. TMEP §1207.01(a)(iii).
Accordingly, the examining attorney refuses registration on the Principal Register under Section 2(d) of the Trademark Act.
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 issue.
The recitation of services is unacceptable as indefinite. TMEP section 1402.11. The applicant may adopt the following recitation, if accurate:
Stock exchange price http://atlas/netacgi/ - h3http://atlas/netacgi/ - h5quotations, in International Class 36.
Streaming of video material on the Internet in the fields of finance and economics, in International Class 38.
Entertainment, namely a continuing financial and economics http://atlas/netacgi/ - h7http://atlas/netacgi/ - h9news show broadcast over television, satellite, audio, and video media, in International Class 41.
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. Section 2.71(a); TMEP section 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.
The application identifies services that may be classified in three (3) international classes: 36, 38 or 41. Therefore, the applicant must either: (1) restrict the application to the number of classes covered by the fee already paid, or (2) pay the required fee for each additional class. 37 C.F.R. Section 2.86(a)(2); TMEP sections 810.01 and 1113.01.
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 services in each class and list the 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.
(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).
If the applicant has any questions or needs assistance in responding to this Office action, please telephone the assigned examining attorney.
Tricia McDermott Thompkins /TMT/
Trademark Attorney
Law Office 114
Phone No.: 703-308-9114 x263
Fax No.: 703-746-8114/6506
Email: ecom114@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.