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  76/541407

 

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

 

REGISTRATION

 

Likelihood of Confusion

 

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 mark in U.S. Registration No. 1327436 as to be likely to cause confusion, to cause mistake, or to deceive.  TMEP §§1207.01 et seq.  See the enclosed registration.

 

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 proposed mark is closely related to the prior registered mark in each of the five factors listed above in the DuPont case.  The sound, commercial meaning, and impression of the marks are identical.

 

In addition the goods/services of the parties are closely related.  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).  The applicant offers electrical intracommunications systems comprising base stations, short-range beltpack receiver/transmitters, tranceiver antennas and tranceiver antenna splitters; the registrant offers mobile telephone equipment leasing services.  The applicant’s goods are worded so broadly that the goods could be telephones.  As such, it is possible that the goods such as the applicant’s are leased by the registrant. Consumers, therefore, are likely to believe that the goods/services of the parties originate from the same source.

 

Registration of the proposed mark must therefore be refused.  The applicant may, however, offer evidence in support of registration.

 

Prior Pending Application

 

The examining attorney encloses information regarding pending Application Serial No. 76-172819.  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.

 

If the applicant believes that there is no potential conflict between this application and the earlier-filed application, the applicant may present arguments relevant to the issue.  The election to file or not to file arguments at this time in no way limits the applicant’s right to address this issue at a later point.

 

INFORMALITY

 

If the applicant chooses to respond to the refusal to register, the applicant must also respond to the following informality:

 

Identification of Goods

 

The identification of goods is unacceptable as indefinite.  The applicant must specify the type of transmission, e.g. radio, audio, cellular.  The applicant may adopt the following identification, if accurate:  Electrical radio intracommunications systems comprising base stations, short-range beltpack receiver/transmitters, tranceiver antennas and tranceiver antenna splitters (in International Class 9).  TMEP §1402.01.

 

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

 

Applicant’s Response

 

No set form is required for response to this Office action.  The applicant must respond to each point raised.  Additional information is available on-line at the Patent and Trademark Office site on the global computer network.  The site is located at WWW.USPTO.GOV.

 

/wgb/

William Breckenfeld

Trademark Attorney

Law Office 113

703-308-9113 x158

631-329-0175 (all calls forward to this number)

703-746-9127 Faxx

 

 

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.

 

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.