Offc Action Outgoing

PERFORMAX

COMPLEMENTARY COATINGS CORP.

Offc Action Outgoing

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE

 

    SERIAL NO: 76/524989

 

    APPLICANT:                          INSL-X PRODUCTS CORPORATION

 

 

        

 

    CORRESPONDENT ADDRESS:

    DAVID S. ABRAMS

    ROYLANCE, ABRAMS, BERDO & GOODMAN

    1300 19TH STREET, N.W., SUITE 600

    WASHINGTON, D.C. 20036

   

RETURN ADDRESS: 

Commissioner for Trademarks

2900 Crystal Drive

Arlington, VA 22202-3514

ecom111@uspto.gov

 

 

 

    MARK:          PERFORMAX

 

 

 

    CORRESPONDENT’S REFERENCE/DOCKET NO:   45311

 

    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.

 

 

 

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  76/524989

 

The assigned trademark examining attorney has reviewed the referenced application filed on June 23, 2003, and has determined the following.

 

Section 2(d) - Likelihood of Confusion Refusal

Registration of the proposed mark is refused because of a likelihood of confusion with the mark in U.S. Registration No. 2,061,889.  Both marks include the wording “perform” and “maximum” or their derivatives or equivalents for building paint.  See attached evidence from an on-line abbreviations dictionary that “max” means “maximum”.  Trademark Act Section 2(d), 15 U.S.C. §1052(d); 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. 

 

If applicant chooses to respond to the refusal to register, then applicant must also respond to the following requirement.

 

Identification of Goods

The identification of goods needs clarification because applicant uses the wording “including.”  The identification of goods must be specific and all-inclusive.  Applicant should amend the identification to replace this wording with "namely."  Please note that applicant may amend the identification to list only those items that are within the scope of the goods set forth in the application.  37 C.F.R. §2.71(a); TMEP §§1402.01 and 1402.03(a).

 

Please note that, while the identification of goods may be amended to clarify or limit the goods, adding to the goods or broadening the scope of the goods is not permitted.  37 C.F.R. §2.71(a); TMEP §1402.06.  Therefore, applicant may not amend the identification to include goods that are not within the scope of the goods set forth in the present identification.

 

Fee Increase

Fee increase effective January 1, 2003

Effective January 1, 2003, the fee for filing an application for trademark registration will be increased to $335.00 per International Class.  The USPTO will not accord a filing date to applications that are filed on or after that date that are not accompanied by a minimum of $335.00. 

 

Additionally, the fee for amending an existing application to add an additional class or classes of goods/services will be $335.00 per class for classes added on or after January 1, 2003.

 

 

 

/Hannah Fisher/

Trademark Examining Attorney

Law Office 111

(703) 308-9110 x 171 or (301) 610-5388

ecom111@uspto.gov

Fax: (703) 746-8111

 

 

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.

 

Offc Action Outgoing [image/jpeg]

Offc Action Outgoing [image/jpeg]


uspto.report is an independent third-party trademark research tool that is not affiliated, endorsed, or sponsored by the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) or any other governmental organization. The information provided by uspto.report is based on publicly available data at the time of writing and is intended for informational purposes only.

While we strive to provide accurate and up-to-date information, we do not guarantee the accuracy, completeness, reliability, or suitability of the information displayed on this site. The use of this site is at your own risk. Any reliance you place on such information is therefore strictly at your own risk.

All official trademark data, including owner information, should be verified by visiting the official USPTO website at www.uspto.gov. This site is not intended to replace professional legal advice and should not be used as a substitute for consulting with a legal professional who is knowledgeable about trademark law.

© 2024 USPTO.report | Privacy Policy | Resources | RSS Feed of Trademarks | Trademark Filings Twitter Feed