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  76/518435

 

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

 

REFUSAL TO REGISTER ON THE GROUNDS OF LIKELIHOOD OF CONFUSION WITH PRIOR REGISTRATION

 

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 services, so resembles the mark in U.S. Registration No. 2175199 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. 

 

The applicant has applied to register ALL STAR and Design for “restaurant services.”  The registrant owns a registration for ALL STAR GRILLE, also for “restaurant services.”  The marks are similar in appearance, sound, connotation and commercial impression. The wording in the applicant’s mark and the first two words in the registrant’s mark are identical.   The fact that the registrant’s mark includes the additional word GRILLE does not overcome the likelihood of confusion:  this term is merely descriptive as applied to the services and therefore exclusive rights thereto have been disclaimed apart from the mark as shown.  While the examining attorney cannot ignore a disclaimed portion of a mark and must view marks in their entireties, one feature of a mark may be more significant in creating a commercial impression.  Tektronix, Inc. v. Daktronics, Inc., 534 F.2d 915, 189 USPQ 693 (C.C.P.A. 1976); In re El Torito Restaurants Inc., 9 USPQ2d 2002 (TTAB 1988); In re Equitable Bancorporation, 229 USPQ 709 (TTAB 1986).  Disclaimed matter is typically less significant or less dominant.  Furthermore, the fact that the applicant’s mark includes a design while the registrant’s mark does not include a design does not overcome the likelihood of confusion:  clients calling for the applicant’s services would be more likely to rely on the word portion of the mark than on the design portion of the mark in doing so.   Finally, the services in conjunction with which the marks are used are identical.  In view of the foregoing, confusion is likely and registration must be refused.

 

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 informality:

INFORMALITY

 

SPECIMEN UNACCEPTABLE/SUBSTITUTE SPECIMEN AND DECLARATION IN SUPPORT REQUIRED

 

The specimen does not show use of the mark for any of the services identified in the application.  While the specimen shows use of the mark for “dining facility equipment and maintenance”, these services do not equate to restaurant services.  “Dining facility equipment and maintenance” suggests that the applicant maintains the equipment in dining facilities, cleans the facilities, etc., but does not indicate that the applicant provides food services in the nature of restaurant services.

 

The applicant must submit a specimen showing use of the mark for the services specified.  37 C.F.R. §2.56; TMEP §904.  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.  A suitable declaration would read:

 

DECLARATION

 

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 the substitute specimen submitted herewith was in use in commerce at least as early as the filing date of the application; that the facts set forth in this application are true; 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)

 

If the applicant has questions about the status of its application, it may also call the Trademark Status Line at (703) 305-8747.

 

 

 

 

Nancy Clarke

/nancy clarke/

Trademark Examining Attorney

Law Office 102

Tel. (703) 308-9102, Ext. 212

Fax (703) 746-8102

ecom102@uspto

 

 

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.