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  76/510416

 

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

 

REGISTRATION REFUSED--LIKELIHOOD OF CONFUSION

 

The examining 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 goods, so resembles the mark in U.S. Registration Nos. 2334247 and 1761886 as to be likely to cause confusion, to cause mistake, or to deceive.  TMEP section 1207.  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 (CCPA 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).

 

The applicant has applied for registration of the proposed mark, HABITS and design.  The registrant’s marks are both HEALTHY HABITS.

 

The examining attorney must compare the marks for similarities of sound, appearance, meaning or connotation.  In re E. I. DuPont de Nemours & Co., 476 F.2d 1357, 177 USPQ 563 (CCPA 1973).  Similarity in any one of these elements is sufficient to find a likelihood of confusion.  In re Mack, 197 USPQ 755 (TTAB 1977).

 

In the present case, the respective marks are highly similar in appearance, sound, commercial impression and connotation.

 

If the marks of the respective parties are identical or highly similar, the examining attorney must consider the commercial relationship between the goods or services of the respective parties carefully to determine whether there is a likelihood of confusion.  In re Concordia International Forwarding Corp., 222 USPQ 355 (TTAB 1983).

 

The goods of the applicant are identified as “computer software for the healthcare industry.”  The services of Registration No. 1761886 are identified as “consulting services rendered to hospitals and other health care facilities concerning marketing strategies.”  The services of Registration No. 2334247 are identified as “promotional and marketing services for health care providers and payors, namely, providing and customizing marketing materials and subscriber communications materials, providing advice and assistance in the use and implementation of the marketing and communications materials, and advising clients in marketing strategies and tactics.” 

 

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 is very broad, it is presumed that the application encompasses all goods and services of the type described, including those in the more recitations provided by the registrants, that they move in all normal channels of trade and that they are available for all potential customers.  TMEP §1207.01(a)(iii). 

 

In the present case, the identification of goods described by the applicant is described so broadly that there are no limitations as to their nature, type, channels of trade or classes of purchasers.  The applicant’s “computer software for the healthcare industry” could most certainly encompass the services that the registrants provide.  Consequently, it is presumed that the applicant’s goods encompass all those of the type described, including the services of the registrants, that they move in the same normal channels of trade, and that they are available to all potential customers. 

 

Accordingly, based on the highly similar nature of the marks and the similarity of the goods and services of the parties, there is a likelihood of confusion 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 informalities.

 

IDENTIFICATION OF GOODS

 

The identification of goods is unacceptable as indefinite because as worded, the exact nature of the goods is unclear.  The applicant must specify the function of the software as it relates to the healthcare industry.

The applicant may adopt the following identification, if accurate:

            “Computer software for use in the healthcare industry, namely, [Specify, i.e., for use in documenting medical records, for use in scheduling appointments, for use as a spreadsheet for medical analysis and diagnosis, computer software for the purpose of ensuring compliance with the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act by providing and facilitating secure transaction of healthcare claims, authorizations and referrals, and billing information],” in International Class 9.

 

TMEP §1402.01.

 

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.  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/.

 

DRAWING NOT ACCEPTABLE: BLURRINESS/GRAY SHADING

 

The applicant has submitted a drawing which contains blurriness and gray shading. This is most likely a computer scanning/printing problem. Please submit a new drawing. The requirements for a special‑form drawing are as follows:

 

(1) The drawing must appear in black and white; no color is permitted.

 

(2)  Every line and letter must be black and clear.

 

(3)  The use of gray to indicate shading is unacceptable.

 

(4)  The lining must not be too fine or too close together.

 

(5)  The preferred size of the area in which the mark is displayed is 2½ inches (6.1 cm.) high and 2½ inches (6.1 cm.) wide.  It should not be larger than 4 inches (10.3 cm.) high or 4 inches (10.3 cm.) wide.

 

(6)  If the reduction of the mark to the required size renders any details illegible, the applicant may insert a statement in the application to describe the mark and these details.

 

37 C.F.R. §2.52; TMEP §§807.01(b) and 807.07(a).  The Office will enforce these drawing requirements strictly. 

 

The Office prefers that the drawing be depicted on a separate sheet of smooth, nonshiny, white paper 8 to 8½ inches (20.3 to 21.6 cm.) wide and 11 inches (27.9 cm.) long, and that the sheet contain a heading listing, on separate lines, the applicant’s complete name; the applicant’s address; the goods or services recited in the application; and, if the application is filed under Section 1(a) of the Act, the dates of first use of the mark and of first use of the mark in commerce; or, if the application is filed under Section 44(d), the priority filing date of the foreign application.  37 C.F.R. §2.52(b); TMEP §§807.01(a), 807.01(b), 807.01(c) and 807.07(a).

 

DELETION FROM DRAWING

 

The Ô is not part of the mark, and the applicant should delete this from the drawing.  TMEP §§807.04 and 807.15.

 

SPECIMEN NOT ACCEPTABLE

 

The specimen is unacceptable as evidence of actual trademark use because the applicant has submitted an advertising brochure.  Invoices, announcements, order forms, bills of lading, leaflets, brochures, publicity releases and other printed advertising material generally are not acceptable specimens for goods.  In re Bright of America, Inc., 205 USPQ 63 (TTAB 1979); TMEP §§904.05 and 904.07.  See In re Ultraflight Inc., 221 USPQ 903 (TTAB 1984).  The applicant must submit a specimen showing the mark as it is used in commerce.  37 C.F.R. §2.56.  Examples of acceptable specimens are tags, labels, instruction manuals, containers, and photographs that show the mark on the goods or packaging.  TMEP §§904.04 et seq.  The applicant must verify, with an affidavit or a declaration under 37 C.F.R. §2.20, that the substitute specimen was in use in commerce at least as early as the filing date of the application.  37 C.F.R. §2.59(a); TMEP §904.09.

 

The following declaration is provided for the applicant's convenience:

 

The undersigned, being hereby warned that willful false statements and the like so made are punishable by fine or imprisonment, or both, under 18 U.S.C. 1001, and that such willful false statements may jeopardize the validity of the application or any resulting registration, declares that he/she is properly authorized to execute this application on behalf of the applicant; he/she believes the applicant to be the owner of the trademark/service mark sought to be registered, that the mark is in use in commerce and was in use in commerce on or in connection with the goods or services listed in the application as of the application filing date; that to the best of his/her knowledge and belief no other person, firm, corporation, or association has the right to use the mark in commerce, either in the identical form thereof or in such near resemblance thereto as to be likely, when used on or in connection with the goods/services of such other person, to cause confusion, or to cause mistake, or to deceive; and that all statements made of his/her own knowledge are true and all statements made on information and belief are believed to be true.

 

_____________________________

(Signature)

 

_____________________________

(Print or Type Name and Position)

 

_____________________________

(Date)

 

 

 

 

 

Howard Smiga /HS/

Trademark Examining Attorney

Law Office 102

(703) 308-9102, x197

(703) 746-8102 Fax

Howard.Smiga@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.

 

PLEASE NOTE:  Because it delays processing, submission of duplicate papers is discouraged.  Unless specifically requested to do so by the Office, parties should not mail follow up copies of documents transmitted by fax.  Cf. ITC Entertainment Group Ltd. V. Nintendo of America Inc. 45 USPQ2d 2021 (TTAB 1998).

 

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.