UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
SERIAL NO: 76/543781
APPLICANT: GMCA PTY LTD.
|
|
CORRESPONDENT ADDRESS: BREWSTER TAYLOR LARSON & TAYLOR, PLC 1199 NORTH FAIRFAX STREET SUITE 900 ALEXANDRIA, VIRGINIA 22314 |
RETURN ADDRESS: Commissioner for Trademarks 2900 Crystal Drive Arlington, VA 22202-3514
|
MARK: SWITCHBLADE
|
|
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 76/543781
The assigned examining attorney has reviewed the referenced application and determined the following.
LIKELIHOOD OF CONFUSION
The examining attorney refuses registration under Trademark Act Section 2(d), 15 U.S.C. §1052(d), because the applicant’s proposed mark, SWITCHBLADE, when used on or in connection with the identified goods/services, so resembles the mark in U.S. Registration No. 1869242, SWITCHBLADE, as to be likely to cause confusion, to cause mistake, or to deceive. TMEP §§1207.01 et seq. See the enclosed registration. The following principles are applied.
The parties’ respective marks are considered 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). The parties’ respective goods or services are considered 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.
In this case, the parties’ marks are identical. When, as here, the marks of the respective parties are identical or highly similar, 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); In re Concordia International Forwarding Corp., 222 USPQ 355 (TTAB 1983); TMEP §1207.01(a).
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).
A determination of whether there is a likelihood of confusion is made solely on the basis of the goods and/or services identified in the application and registration, without limitations or restrictions that are not reflected therein. In re Dakin’s Miniatures Inc., 59 USPQ2d 1593 (TTAB 1999). If the identification describes the goods and/or services broadly and there are no limitations as to their nature, type, channels of trade or classes of purchasers, then it is presumed that the identification encompasses all goods and/or services of the type described, that they move in all normal channels of trade, and that they are available to all potential customers. In re Linkvest S.A., 24 USPQ2d 1716 (TTAB 1992); In re Elbaum, 211 USPQ 639 (TTAB 1981); TMEP §1207.01(a)(iii).
Attached are copies of printouts from the USPTO X-Search database, which show third-party registrations of marks used in connection with the same or similar goods and/or services as those of applicant and registrant in this case. These printouts have probative value to the extent that they serve to suggest that the goods and/or services listed therein, namely jigsaw parts and utility knives, are of a kind that may emanate from a single source. In re Infinity Broadcasting Corp. of Dallas, 60 USPQ2d 1214, 1218 (TTAB 2001), citing In re Albert Trostel & Sons Co., 29 USPQ2d 1783, 1785-86 (TTAB 1993); and In re Mucky Duck Mustard Co., Inc., 6 USPQ2d 1467, 1470 at n.6 (TTAB 1988).
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.
SIGNIFICANCE
The applicant must indicate whether the wording “SWITCHBLADE” or “SWITCH BLADE” has any significance in the relevant trade or industry or as applied to the goods/services. 37 C.F.R. §2.61(b).
IDENTIFICATION AND CLASSIFICATION OF GOODS
The identification of goods is unacceptable because it is indefinite and also too broad as it could include items classified in other classes. The applicant must amend the identification to clearly specify whether the jigsaws are electric-operated or power-operated jigsaws (in which case, Class 7 is the appropriate class) or whether the jigsaws are hand-operated (in which case, Class 8 is the appropriate class) AND to list part by its common commercial name. TMEP §§1401.04(a) and (b), 1402.01 and 1402.03.
In the identification, the applicant must use the common commercial names for the goods, be as complete and specific as possible and avoid the use of indefinite words and phrases. If the applicant chooses to use indefinite terms, such as “accessories,” “components,” “devices,” “equipment,” “materials,” “parts,” “systems” and “products,” then those words must be followed by the word “namely” and the goods listed by their common commercial names. TMEP §§1402.01 and 1402.03(a).
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 that are not within the scope of goods set forth in the present identification.
For assistance regarding an acceptable listing of goods and/or services, please see the on‑line searchable Manual of Acceptable Identifications of Goods and Services, at http://www.gov.uspto.report/web/offices/tac/doc/gsmanual/.
The applicant must rewrite the identification and classification of goods in its entirety because of the nature and extent of the amendment. 37 C.F.R. §2.74(b). If accurate, applicant may amend the identification and classification of goods to one OR more of the following:
Class 7
Parts for electric-operated and power-operated jigsaws, namely, [specify, e.g., blades, guide bars, depth gauges, etc.]; OR
Class 8
Parts for hand-operated jigsaws, namely, [specify, e.g., blades, guide bars, depth gauges, etc.].
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.
/Mary Rossman/, Trademark Attorney
Law Office 108
703 308 9108 x 298; Fax: 703 746 8108
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.