UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
SERIAL NO: 76/512553
APPLICANT: Unicity Properties, Inc.
|
|
CORRESPONDENT ADDRESS: PRESTON C. REGEHR PARSONS BEHLE & LATIMER 201 SOUTH MAIN STREET, SUITE 1800 SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84145
|
RETURN ADDRESS: Commissioner for Trademarks 2900 Crystal Drive Arlington, VA 22202-3514 ecom114@uspto.gov
|
MARK: CLEANSE BURN BUILD
|
|
CORRESPONDENT’S REFERENCE/DOCKET NO: 3929 TM
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 76/512553
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. 2,239,091 as to be likely to cause confusion, to cause mistake, or to deceive. TMEP §§1207.01 et seq. See the enclosed registration.
In addition, the examining attorney encloses information regarding pending Application Serial No. 76/494529. The filing date of the referenced application precedes the applicant’s filing date. There may be a likelihood of confusion between the two marks under Trademark Act Section 2(d), 15 U.S.C. §1052(d). If the referenced application 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.
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 be considered in determining whether there is a likelihood of confusion under Section 2(d). Any one of the factors listed may be dominant in any given case, depending upon the evidence of record. In this case, the following factors are the most relevant: similarity of the marks, similarity of the goods/services, and similarity of trade channels of the goods/services. TMEP §§1207.01 et seq. The dominant, literal feature of applicant’s mark is identical to the registered mark and quite similar in overall impression to the prior-filed pending mark. Moreover, the respective marks are applied to identical goods and services.
If the marks cited have been assigned to the applicant, the applicant is responsible for proving its ownership of those marks. TMEP §812.01. The applicant may record the assignment with the Assignment Branch of the Patent and Trademark Office. Trademark Act Section 10, 15 U.S.C. §1060; 37 C.F.R. §3.25. The applicant should then provide the examining attorney with the reel and frame numbers at which the assignment is recorded.
In the alternative, the applicant may submit evidence of the assignment of the marks to the applicant. This evidence may consist of (1) documents evidencing the chain of title, or (2) an explanation, in an affidavit or supported by a declaration under 37 C.F.R. §2.20, of the chain of title (specifying each party in the chain, the nature of each conveyance, and the relevant dates). 37 C.F.R. §3.73.
If the applicant chooses to respond to the refusal to register, the applicant must also respond to the following informalities.
The wording “personal care products” in the Class 3 identification of goods is unacceptable as indefinite. The applicant must amend the identification to specify the commercial name of the goods. If there is no common commercial name for the product, the applicant must describe the product and its intended uses. TMEP §1402.01. In the alternative, if it was intended to use this wording as a heading, it may be amended to “personal care products, namely”.
The applicant must clarify the Class 5 identification of goods by specifying the condition(s) or disease(s) to be treated by homeopathic medicines. TMEP §1402.01. In the alternative, the wording “homeopathic supplements” may be adopted.
Further action awaits response to the above.
/David H. Stine/
Trademark Attorney
Law Office 114
(703)308-9114 x154
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.