UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
SERIAL NO: 76/526515
APPLICANT: OutStart, LLC
|
|
CORRESPONDENT ADDRESS: PAUL S. OWENS PAUL OWENS & ASSOCIATES P.O. BOX 15310 ATLANTA, GEORGIA 30333-0310
|
RETURN ADDRESS: Commissioner for Trademarks 2900 Crystal Drive Arlington, VA 22202-3514 ecom111@uspto.gov
|
MARK: ELM
|
|
CORRESPONDENT’S REFERENCE/DOCKET NO: N/A
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 76/526515
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. Section 1052(d), because the applicant's mark, when used on or in connection with the identified goods, so resembles the mark in U.S. Registration No. 1803647 as to be likely to cause confusion, to cause mistake, or to deceive. TMEP section 1207. 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 (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 applicant’s mark is ELM for computer programs for use by individuals and organizations to manage and track the progress of training and learning programs, and to manage related educational materials, in the fields of technology products training, business skill education and professional development. The registered mark is ELM for computer programs and manuals sold as a unit for use in a network messaging systems to interface with outside communications systems, such as facsimile. The marks are similar in commercial impression because of their identical appearance. Here, both marks consist of the term ELM.
In terms of the relatedness of the goods, the goods 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 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). TMEP §1207.01(a)(i). Here, the relatedness of the goods nexus is satisfied because the goods are related software programs.
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
Applicant must change the “Applicant’s Name” and “Applicant’s Entity Type” sections of the application to the following, if accurate: OutStart, LLC, a limited liability company organized under the laws of Florida.” TMEP §803.03(h).
CONCLUSION
If the applicant has any questions or needs assistance in responding to this Office action, please telephone the assigned examining attorney.
/IngridCEulin/
Ingrid C. Eulin
Law Office 111
(703) 308-9111 ext 424
(703) 308-7191 fax
(703) 746-8111 alternate fax
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.