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  76/507838

 

The assigned examining attorney has reviewed the referenced application and determined the following.

 

Section 2(d) - Likelihood of Confusion Refusal

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. 2041221 as to be likely to cause confusion, to cause mistake, or to deceive.  TMEP §§1207.01 et seq.  See the enclosed registration.

 

Section 2(d) of the Trademark Act bars registration where a mark so resembles a registered mark, that it is likely, when applied to the goods/services, to cause confusion, or to cause mistake or to deceive. TMEP §1207.01.  The Court in In re E. I. DuPont de Nemours & Co., 476 F.2d 1357, 177 USPQ 563 (C.C.P.A. 1973), listed the principal factors to consider in determining whether there is a likelihood of confusion.  Among these factors are the similarity of the marks as to appearance, sound, meaning and commercial impression and the similarity of the goods/services.  The overriding concern is to prevent buyer confusion as to the source of the goods/services.  Miss Universe, Inc. v. Miss Teen U.S.A., Inc., 209 USPQ 698 (N.D. Ga. 1980).  Therefore, any doubt as to the existence of a likelihood of confusion must be resolved in favor of the registrant.  Lone Star Mfg. Co. v. Bill Beasley, Inc., 498 F.2d 906, 182 USPQ 368 (C.C.P.A. 1974). 

 

Applicant’s mark is FASTFLEX.  Registrant’s mark is FAST-FLEX.  The marks are almost identical, with the minor exception of the hyphen in registrant’s mark. The marks are spelled the same and sound the same.

 

 Furthermore, applicant intends to use the mark on textile machines and components and accessories to these machines, while registrant uses the mark on assembly systems consisting of high speed conveyors and assembly modules.  Both applicant’s and the registrant’s goods are sued in the manufacturing setting.

 

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). 

 

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 informalities.

 

Identification of Goods

The wording “winding advance units” in the identification of goods is unacceptable as indefinite because the nature of these goods is unclear.  TMEP §1402.01.  The applicant may amend this wording to “spooling machines for use in making textiles, which feature a thread winding advance unit,” if accurate.  Furthermore, the wording components, parts and accessories” is indefinite as the common commercial name for each component, part or accessory must be set forth.

 

The identification of goods must be specific.  The applicant may amend to list only items that are within the scope of goods set forth in the identification.  37 C.F.R. §2.71(a); TMEP §§1402.01 and 1402.03(a).

 

For assistance regarding an acceptable listing of goods and/or services, please see the on‑line searchable Manual of Acceptable Identifications of Goods and Services, at http://www.gov.uspto.report/web/offices/tac/doc/gsmanual/.

 

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 goods that are not within the scope of goods set forth in the present identification.

 

Combined Applications

The application identifies goods that may be classified in several international classes.  Therefore, the applicant must either:  (1) restrict the application to the number of class(es) covered by the fee already paid, or (2) pay the required fee for each additional class(es).  37 C.F.R. §2.86(a)(2); TMEP §§810.01, 1401.04, 1401.04(b) 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.  37 C.F.R. §2.6(a)(1). 

 

If the applicant prosecutes this application as a combined, or multiple‑class, application, the applicant must comply with each of the following.

 

(1) The applicant must list the goods/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(a); 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.  

 

Translation

The foreign certificate of registration is not written in English, therefore the applicant must provide an English translation.  The applicant must submit an English translation of the foreign registration.  37 C.F.R. §2.34(a)(3)(ii).  It is customary for the translator to sign the translation.  TMEP §1004.01(b).

 

Option to Delete Basis

The applicant has filed asserting a bona fide intention to use the mark in commerce under Trademark Act Section 1(b), 15 U.S.C. §1051(b), and claiming priority under Section 44(d), 15 U.S.C. §1126(d), based on a foreign application.  Applicant should clarify for the record whether the Section 1(b) basis is being retained.  TMEP §§806.02(f) and 806.04(b).  If the Section 1(b) basis is retained, while the application may be approved for publication, the mark will not be registered until an acceptable allegation of use has been filed.

 

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

 

/Nora Buchanan Will/

Trademark Attorney, Law Office 116

ph 703-306-7915/ fax 703-746-8116

 

 

 

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.