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  76/550169

 

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

 

Section 2(d) - Likelihood of Confusion Refusal

 

Registration of the proposed mark is refused because of a likelihood of confusion with the marks in U.S. Registration Nos. 1431836 and 2610305.  Trademark Act Section 2(d), 15 U.S.C. §1052(d); TMEP §§1207.01 et seq.  See the enclosed registrations.

 

A likelihood of confusion determination requires a two-part analysis.  First the marks are compared 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 goods or services are compared to determine whether they are similar or related or whether 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 Int’l Tel. and Tel. Corp., 197 USPQ 910 (TTAB 1978); Guardian Prods. Co., v. Scott Paper Co., 200 USPQ 738 (TTAB 1978); TMEP §§1207.01 et seq.

 

Comparison of the Marks

 

When determining whether there is a likelihood of confusion, all circumstances surrounding the sale of the goods and/or services are considered.  Industrial Nucleonics Corp. v. Hinde, 475 F.2d 1197, 177 USPQ 386 (C.C.P.A. 1973).  These circumstances include the marketing channels, the identity of the prospective purchasers and the degree of similarity between the marks and between the goods and/or services.  In comparing the marks, similarity in any one of the elements of sound, appearance or meaning is sufficient to find a likelihood of confusion.  In comparing the goods and/or services, it is necessary to show that they are related in some manner.  In re Mack, 197 USPQ 755, 757 (TTAB 1977); TMEP §§1207.01 et seq.

 

The applicant’s mark, GATEGUARD is nearly identical to the mark in Registration No. 1431836, GATE GUARD and will lead to consumer confusion.  Specifically, but for the space between the words “gate” and “guard,” the marks are identical.  Small changes in words (e.g. hyphenation or spacing changes, pluralization, phonetic substitution) are insufficient alone to distinguish marks.  Thymo Borine Laboratory v. Winthrop Chemical Company, Inc., 69 USPQ 512 (CCPA 1946); Steinway & Sons v. Robert Demars & Friends, et al., 210 USPQ 954 (C.D. Cal. 1981).

 

Similarly, the applicant’s mark is essentially the translation of the registrant’s mark in Registration No. 2610305 for MONBAN.  According to the well‑established doctrine of foreign equivalents, an applicant may not register foreign words or terms if the English‑language equivalent has been previously registered for related products or services.  In re Perez, 21 USPQ2d 1075 (TTAB 1991); In re American Safety Razor Co., 2 USPQ2d 1459 (TTAB 1987); In re Ithaca Indus., Inc., 230 USPQ 702 (TTAB 1986); In re Hub Distributing, Inc., 218 USPQ 284 (TTAB 1983); TMEP §1207.01(b)(vi).

 

Where the marks of the respective parties are identical or highly similar, then the commercial relationship between the goods or services of the respective parties must be analyzed carefully to determine whether there is a likelihood of confusion.  In re Opus One Inc., 60 USPQ2d 1812, 1815 (TTAB 2001); In re Concordia Int’l Forwarding Corp., 222 USPQ 355 (TTAB 1983); TMEP §1207.01(a).

 

Comparison of the Goods and Services

 

When determining whether there is a likelihood of confusion under Section 2(d), the question is not whether people will confuse the marks, but rather whether the marks will confuse the people into believing that the goods they identify emanate from the same source.  In re West Point-Pepperell, Inc., 468 F.2d 200, 175 USPQ 558 (C.C.P.A. 1972).  For that reason, the test of likelihood of confusion is not whether the marks can be distinguished when subjected to a side-by-side comparison.  The question is whether the marks create the same overall impression.  Visual Information Inst., Inc. v. Vicon Indus. Inc., 209 USPQ 179 (TTAB 1980).  The focus is on the recollection of the average purchaser who normally retains a general rather than specific impression of trademarks.  Chemetron Corp. v. Morris Coupling & Clamp Co., 203 USPQ 537 (TTAB 1979); Sealed Air Corp. v. Scott Paper Co., 190 USPQ 106 (TTAB 1975); TMEP §1207.01(b).

 

The applicant has applied to register GATEGUARD for “wireless voice communication and remote control system.”

 

Registration No. 1431836, GATE GUARD, is for “electrical switches, magnetically operated electrical switches.”

 

Registration No. 2610305, MONBAN, is for, “fingerprint security access system, namely, a security system comprised of a biometric access control system which identifies fingerprints for unlocking doors and preventing unauthorized entry.”

 

Because the applicant’s identification is so broad, the cited registrants’ goods could be included in the applicant’s “systems.”  Likelihood of confusion is determined on the basis of the goods or services as they are identified in the application and the registration.  Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce v. Wells Fargo Bank, 811 F.2d 1490, 1 USPQ2d 1813 (Fed. Cir. 1987); Paula Payne Products Co. v. Johnson Publishing Co., Inc., 473 F.2d 901, 177 USPQ 76 (C.C.P.A. 1973).  Since the identification of the applicant’s goods and/or services is very broad, it is presumed that the application encompasses all goods and/or services of the type described, including those in the registrant’s more specific identification, that they move in all normal channels of trade and that they are available to all potential customers.  TMEP §1207.01(a)(iii).

 

Although the trademark examining attorney has refused registration, applicant may respond to the refusal to register by submitting evidence and arguments in support of registration.

 

If applicant chooses to respond to the refusal(s) to register, then applicant must also respond to the following requirement(s).

 

Requirements

 

Identification of Goods

 

The current wording used to describe the goods needs clarification because the term “systems” is overly broad and must be specified by the component parts of the systems. Applicant may adopt the following identification of goods, if accurate: 

 

Class 009:                        “Wireless voice communication and remote control system comprised of                                                  [please specify the components of the system by their common commercial name, e.g. transceivers, transmitters, receivers].” 

 

TMEP §1402.01.

 

Please note that, while the identification of goods may be amended to clarify or limit the goods, adding to the goods or broadening the scope of the goods is not permitted.  37 C.F.R. §2.71(a); TMEP §1402.06.  Therefore, applicant may not amend the identification to include goods that are not within the scope of the goods set forth in the present identification.

 

For your assistance and convenience, the “Acceptable Identifications of Goods and Services Manual” may be searched at the Office’s global network computer website address of  http://www.gov.uspto.report/web/menu/tm.html.

 

For Applicant’s Information Only

 

Current status and status date information is available, via push button telephone, for all federal trademark registration and application records maintained in the automated Trademark Reporting and Monitoring (TRAM) system.  The information may be accessed by calling (703) 305‑8747 from 6:30 a.m. until midnight, Eastern Time, Monday through Friday, and entering a seven‑digit registration number or eight‑digit application number, followed by the "#" symbol, after the welcoming message and tone.  Callers may request information for up to five registration number or application number records per call.

 

If the applicant has any questions or needs assistance in responding to this Office action, please telephone the assigned examining attorney.

 

/Susan C. Hayash/

Examining Attorney, LO 110

Office:  (703) 308-9110 x.144

Fax:      (703) 746-8110

susan.hayash@uspto.gov (INFORMAL responses)

 

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.