UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
SERIAL NO: 76/524989
APPLICANT: INSL-X PRODUCTS CORPORATION
|
*76524989* |
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
|
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.
|
Serial Number 76/524989
Responsive to the communication filed March 11, 2004.
The amended description of goods has been noted.
The refusal of registration under Section 2(d) of the Trademark Act is made FINAL. Applicant’s mark and cited Registration No. 2,061,889 contain similar wording for the same goods, structural paint. If the goods or services of the respective parties are closely related, the degree of similarity between marks required to support a finding of likelihood of confusion is not as great as would apply with diverse goods or services. ECI Division of E Systems, Inc. v. Environmental Communications Inc., 207 USPQ 443 (TTAB 1980). TMEP §1207.01(b).
The examining attorney must consider the marks in their entireties in determining whether there is likelihood of confusion. A disclaimer does not remove the disclaimed portion from the mark for the purposes of this analysis. In re National Data Corp., 753 F.2d 1056, 224 USPQ 749 (Fed. Cir. 1985); Specialty Brands, Inc. v. Coffee Bean Distributors, Inc., 748 F.2d 669, 223 USPQ 1281 (Fed. Cir. 1984); In re MCI Communications Corp., 21 USPQ2d 1535 (Comm’r Pats. 1991).
Applicant’s mark, PERFORMAX, incorporates two-thirds of the registered one, MAXIMUM PERFORMANCE DISTINCTION, merely shortening it and reversing word order. The applicant’s mark is essentially a transposition of the registrant’s mark. Such a transposition does not create a different overall commercial impression that would negate the likelihood of confusion. In re Wine Society of America Inc., 12 USPQ2d 1139 (TTAB 1989); In re Nationwide Industries Inc., 6 USPQ2d 1882 (TTAB 1988); In re General Tire & Rubber Co., 213 USPQ 870 (TTAB 1982). TMEP §1207.01(b)(vii). The meaning of the mark is not changed, since, as shown by evidence already of record, “max” is the abbreviation for “maximum”.
When the applicant’s mark is compared to a registered mark, “the points of similarity are of greater importance than the points of difference.” Esso Standard Oil Co. v. Sun Oil Co., 229 F.2d 37, 108 USPQ 161 (D.C. Cir.), cert. denied, 351 U.S. 973, 109 USPQ 517 (1956). TMEP §1207.01(b).
The examining attorney must resolve any doubt as to the issue of likelihood of confusion in favor of the registrant and against the applicant who has a legal duty to select a mark which is totally dissimilar to trademarks already being used. Burroughs Wellcome Co. v. Warner‑Lambert Co., 203 USPQ 191 (TTAB 1979).
If applicant fails to respond to this final action within six months of the mailing date, the application will be abandoned. 15 U.S.C. §1062(b); 37 C.F.R. §2.65(a). Applicant may respond to this final action by:
(1) submitting a response that fully satisfies all outstanding requirements, if feasible (37 C.F.R. §2.64(a)); and/or
(2) filing an appeal to the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board, with an appeal fee of $100 per class (37 C.F.R. §§2.6(a)(18) and 2.64(a); TMEP §§715.01 and 1501 et seq.; TBMP Chapter 1200).
In certain circumstances, a petition to the Director may be filed to review a final action that is limited to procedural issues, pursuant to 37 C.F.R. §2.63(b)(2). 37 C.F.R. §2.64(a). See 37 C.F.R. §2.146(b), TMEP §1704, and TBMP Chapter 1201.05 for an explanation of petitionable matter. The petition fee is $100. 37 C.F.R. §2.6(a)(15).
/Hannah M. Fisher/
Trademark Examining Attorney
Law Office 111
(301) 610-5388 or
(703) 308-9110 ext. 171
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 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.