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  76/513958

 

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

 

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 marks in U.S. Registration Nos. 1430888 and 2183093 as to be likely to cause confusion, or 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 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 section 1207.01(b).

 

The examining attorney must look at the marks in their entireties under Section 2(d). Nevertheless, one feature of a mark may be recognized as more significant in creating a commercial impression.  Greater weight is given to that dominant feature in determining whether there is a likelihood of confusion.  In re National Data Corp., 224 USPQ 749 (Fed. Cir. 1985); Tektronix, Inc. v. Daktronics, Inc., 534 F.2d 915, 189 USPQ 693 (CCPA 1976). In re J.M. Originals Inc., 6 USPQ2d 1393 (TTAB 1988).

 

The applicant’s mark in this case consists of the wording “ENABLE.”  The registrant’s mark in U.S. Registration No. 1430888 is the wording “ENABLE” and the registrant’s mark in U.S. Registration No. 2183093 is the wording “ENABLER.”  All marks contain the common word, or a form of the word, ENABLE.  All marks create a common commercial impression.

 

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 or 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 or 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).

 

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 (CCPA 1973).  Since the identification of the registrants’ goods is very broad, it is presumed that the registrations encompasses all computer software programs of the type described, including those in the applicant's more specific identification, that they move in all normal channels of trade and that they are available for all potential customers.

 

The examining attorney must resolve any doubt regarding a likelihood of confusion in favor of the prior registrant.  In re Hyper Shoppes (Ohio), Inc., 837 F.2d 463, 6 USPQ2d 1025 (Fed. Cir., 1988).

 

The applicant should note the following additional ground for refusal.

 

APPLICANT’S MARK IS MERELY DESCRIPTIVE

 

The examining attorney refuses registration on the Principal Register because the proposed mark merely describes the goods/services.  Trademark Act Section 2(e)(1), 15 U.S.C. §1052(e)(1); TMEP §§1209 et seq.

 

A mark is merely descriptive under Trademark Act Section 2(e)(1), 15 U.S.C. 1052(e)(1), if it describes an ingredient, quality, characteristic, function, feature, purpose or use of the relevant goods/services.  In re Gyulay, 820 F.2d 1216, 3 USPQ2d 1009 (Fed. Cir. 1987);  In re Bed & Breakfast Registry, 791 F.2d 157, 229 USPQ 818 (Fed. Cir. 1986); In re MetPath Inc., 223 USPQ 88 (TTAB 1984); In re Bright‑Crest, Ltd., 204 USPQ 591 (TTAB 1979); TMEP §1209.01(b).

 

The examining attorney must consider whether a mark is merely descriptive in relation to the identified goods/services, not in the abstract.  In re Omaha National Corp., 819 F.2d 1117, 2 USPQ2d 1859 (Fed. Cir. 1987); In re Abcor Development Corp., 588 F.2d 811, 200 USPQ 215 (C.C.P.A. 1978); In re Venture Lending Associates, 226 USPQ 285 (TTAB 1985); In re American Greetings Corp., 226 USPQ 365 (TTAB 1985).  TMEP §1209.01(b). 

 

It is not necessary that a term describe all of the purposes, functions, characteristics or features of the goods/services to be merely descriptive.  It is enough if the term describes one attribute of the goods/services.  In re H.U.D.D.L.E., 216 USPQ 358 (TTAB 1982); In re MBAssociates, 180 USPQ 338 (TTAB 1973).  TMEP §1209.01(b). 

 

In this case, the proposed mark, ENABLE, identifies the function of the applicant’s goods.  As evidenced by the attached dictionary definition, ENABLE means to “make operational,” or “activate.”  The term is descriptive of computer software that makes XML technology operational, or “enables” XML technology. 

 

APPLICANT MAY RESPOND

 

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 requirement.

 

AMENDED IDENTIFICATION REQUIRED

 

The identification of goods is unacceptable as indefinite.  The applicant must amend the identification to specify the function of the software and its field of use.  TMEP §1402.01.

 

The applicant may adopt the following identification of goods in International Class 9, if accurate:  Computer software for use by the general public to allow users without any computer programming skills to develop personalized software by creating XML data.

 

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.

 

POTENTIAL LIKELIHOOD OF CONFUSION

 

The examining attorney also encloses information regarding pending Application Serial Nos. 75-783739, 76-521263 and 78-199720.  37 C.F.R. Section 2.83.  There may be a likelihood of confusion between the applicant's mark and any or all of the marks in the above noted applications under Section 2(d) of the Act.  The filing dates or priority dates of the referenced applications precede the applicant's filing date.  If the earlier‑filed application matures into a registration, the examining attorney may refuse registration under Section 2(d).

 

If the applicant believes that there is no potential conflict between this application and any or all of the earlier-filed applications, the applicant may present arguments relevant to the issue.  The election to file or not to file such a response at this time in no way limits the applicant's right to address this issue at a later point.

 

The Trademark Applications and Registrations Retrieval (TARR) database on the USPTO website at http://tarr.uspto.gov provides detailed, up to the minute information about the status and prosecution history of trademark applications and registrations.  The TARR database is available 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.  Status and status date information is also available via push-button telephone at (703) 305‑8747 from 6:30 a.m. until midnight, Eastern Time, Monday through Friday. 

 

RESPONSE GUIDELINES

 

No set form is required for response to this Office action.  The applicant must respond to each point raised.  The applicant should simply set forth the required changes or statements and request that the Office enter them.  The applicant must sign the response.  In addition to the identifying information required at the beginning of this letter, the applicant should provide a telephone number to speed up further processing.

 

The applicant may wish to hire a trademark attorney because of the technicalities involved in the application.  The Patent and Trademark Office cannot aid in the selection of an attorney.

 

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

 

 

/Verna Beth Ririe/

Trademark Attorney

Law Office 105

(703) 308-9105 ext. 176

(703) 872-9825 (office fax)

ecom105@uspto.gov (office e-mail)

 

 

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.

en·a·ble

 
en·a·ble (è-nâ¹bel) verb, transitive

en·a·bled, en·a·bling, en·a·bles

1.    a. To supply with the means, knowledge, or opportunity; make able: a hole in the fence that enabled us to watch; techniques that enable surgeons to open and repair the heart. b. To make feasible or possible: funds that will enable construction of new schools.

2.    To give legal power, capacity, or sanction to: a law enabling the new federal agency.

3.    To make operational; activate: enabled the computer's modem; enable a nuclear warhead.

— en·a¹bler noun[1]