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  76/530957

 

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

 

 

SECTION 2(D) REFUSAL

 

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 goods/services, so resembles the marks in U.S. Registration Nos. 1947728 and 2403380, owned by a common registrant, as to be likely to cause confusion, to cause mistake, or to deceive.  TMEP §§1207.01 et seq.  See the enclosed registrations.

 

Section 2(d) of the Trademark Act bars registration where a mark so resembles a registered mark, that it is likely, when applied to the goods/services, to cause confusion, or to cause mistake or to deceive. TMEP §1207.01.  The Court in In re E. I. DuPont de Nemours & Co., 476 F.2d 1357, 177 USPQ 563 (C.C.P.A. 1973), listed the principal factors to consider in determining whether there is a likelihood of confusion.  Among these factors are the similarity of the marks as to appearance, sound, meaning and commercial impression and the similarity of the goods/services.  The overriding concern is to prevent buyer confusion as to the source of the goods/services.  Miss Universe, Inc. v. Miss Teen U.S.A., Inc., 209 USPQ 698 (N.D. Ga. 1980).  Therefore, any doubt as to the existence of a likelihood of confusion must be resolved in favor of the registrant.  Lone Star Mfg. Co. v. Bill Beasley, Inc., 498 F.2d 906, 182 USPQ 368 (C.C.P.A. 1974). 

 

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 examining attorney must compare the marks for similarities in sound, appearance, meaning or connotation.  In re E. I. DuPont de Nemours & Co., 476 F.2d 1357, 177 USPQ 563 (C.C.P.A. 1973).  Similarity in any one of these elements is sufficient to find a likelihood of confusion. In re Mack, 197 USPQ 755 (TTAB 1977).  TMEP §§1207.01(b) et seq. 

 

The applicant’s mark is FIREWIRE.  The registrant’s marks are each FIREWIRE.  The marks are a strong coined terms which are identical in sound, appearance and commercial impression.  

 

The goods/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/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).  TMEP §1207.01(a)(i).  If the marks of the respective parties are identical, the relationship between the goods or services of the respective parties need not be as close to support a finding of likelihood of confusion as might apply where differences exist between the marks.  Amcor, Inc. v. Amcor Industries, Inc., 210 USPQ 70 (TTAB 1981).  TMEP §1207.01(a). 

 

The applicant’s services are internet and telecommunications access, applications and electronic mail services.  The registrants goods are a wide range of computers, software, and electronic goods and accessories used in providing and using such services.   The applicant’s services are provided and the registrant’s goods are manufactured by the same companies, often under the same marks.  Attached are sample registrations, owned by the cited registrant, as evidence of the same.  Accordingly, the goods/services will be found in the same channels of trade such that consumer confusion is likely to result.   Accordingly, the second prong of the likelihood of confusion test is met.

 

 

In, sum the similarity of the marks and the relatedness of the goods/services are such that consumer confusion is likely to result, and therefore registration is presently refused under Trademark Act Section 2(d), 15 U.S.C. §1052(d).

 

PRIOR PENDING APPLICATION

 

The examining attorney further encloses information regarding pending Application Serial No. 78-136007 (owned by the same registrant cited in the section 2(d) refusal).  The filing date of the referenced application precedes the applicant’s filing date.  There may be a likelihood of confusion between the two marks under Trademark Act Section 2(d), 15 U.S.C. §1052(d).  If the referenced application matures into a registration, the examining attorney may refuse registration in this case under Section 2(d).  37 C.F.R. §2.83; TMEP §1208.01.

 

RECITATION AND CLASSIFICATION OF SERVICES

 

The recitation of services is unacceptable as indefinite.  Moreover, the items listed recite services that may be properly classified into more than one international class of services.  Therefore, the applicant may amend the identification to substitute any or all of the following if accurate:

 

International Class 38; Telecommunication services, namely, local and long distance transmission of voice, data, graphics by means of telephone, wireless telephone, telegraphic, cable, optical cable, and satellite transmissions; electronic mail services;

 

International Class 42; Computer service, namely, acting as an application service provider in the field of knowledge management to host computer application software for the collection, editing organizing, modifying, book marking, transmission, storage and sharing of data and information;   Application service provider (ASP), namely, hosting computer software applications of others; Computer service, namely, acting as an application service provider in the field of knowledge management to host computer application software for creating searchable databases of in formation and data;

 

To the extent the suggested recitation is incomplete or inaccurate, the applicant is further advised that the Trademark Acceptable Identification of Goods and Services Manual is accessible via the PTO website at http://www.uspto.gov under the heading Trademark Manuals in the Trademark index page.

 

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 services that are not within the scope of the services recited in the present identification.

 

If the applicant prosecutes this application as a combined, or multiple‑class, application, the applicant must comply with each of the following.

 

(1)  The applicant must list the goods/services by international class with the classes listed in ascending numerical order.  TMEP §1403.01.

 

(2)  The applicant must submit a filing fee for each international class of goods/services not covered by the fee already paid.  37 C.F.R. §§2.6(a)(1) and 2.86(a); TMEP §§810.01 and 1403.01.  Effective January 1, 2003, the fee for filing a trademark application is $335 for each class.  This applies to classes added to pending applications as well as to new applications filed on or after that date.  

 

Please feel free to contact the undersigned attorney if you wish to discuss this application.

 

/John S. Yard/

Trademark Examining Attorney

Law Office 115

(703) 308-9115 x209

ecom115@uspto.gov

ecom115@uspto.gov

 

 

 

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.