UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
SERIAL NO: 76/543617
APPLICANT: DHI Computing Service, Inc.
|
|
CORRESPONDENT ADDRESS: DALE E. HULSE KIRTON & MCCONKIE P.O. BOX 45120 SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84145-0120
|
RETURN ADDRESS: Commissioner for Trademarks 2900 Crystal Drive Arlington, VA 22202-3514
|
MARK: FEDLINK GOLD
|
|
CORRESPONDENT’S REFERENCE/DOCKET NO: 3855.49
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 76/543617
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. §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. 1459563, as to be likely to cause confusion, to cause mistake, or to deceive. 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.
Here, the marks at issue create the same commercial impression via the common usage by both applicant and registrant of FEDLINK. It is by FEDLINK that the public will recall and remember each of the marks at issue. Thus, where the registrant provides for the “electronic transmission of data and documents for banks via computer terminals” and applicant has identified the intended goods as “computer software for use in facilitating transactions in the financial and business management industries” the goods of applicant could very well serve as the source of the data and documents transmitted by registrant. The goods/services have complementary purposes and when identified by such similar marks are likely to be confused by the public.
The applicant must disclaim the descriptive wording “Gold” apart from the mark as shown. Trademark Act Section 6, 15 U.S.C. §1056; TMEP §§1213 and 1213.03(a). The wording is merely descriptive because the transactions could pertain to gold or gold related goods in the financial or business fields.
The computerized printing format for the Trademark Official Gazette requires a standard form for a disclaimer. TMEP §1213.08(a)(i). A properly worded disclaimer should read as follows:
No claim is made to the exclusive right to use Gold, apart from the mark as shown.
See In re Owatonna Tool Co., 231 USPQ 493 (Comm’r Pats. 1983).
No set form is required for response to this Office action. The applicant must respond to each point raised. The applicant should simply set forth the required changes or statements and request that the Office enter them. The applicant must sign the response. In addition to the identifying information required at the beginning of this letter, the applicant should provide a telephone number to speed up further processing.
The following authorities govern the processing of trademark and service mark applications: The Trademark Act, 15 U.S.C. §§1051 et seq., the Trademark Rules of Practice, 37 C.F.R. Part 2, and the Trademark Manual of Examining Procedure (TMEP).
/Edward Nelson/
Examining Attorney
Law Office 106
(703) 308-9106 ext.197
(703)746-8106 (fax no.)
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.