Offc Action Outgoing

RESOLUTION

OAO HEALTHCARE SOLUTIONS, INC.

Offc Action Outgoing

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE

 

    SERIAL NO: 76/564339

 

    APPLICANT:                          OAO Technology Solutions, Inc.

 

 

        

*76564339*

    CORRESPONDENT ADDRESS:

    THOMAS W. BROOKE

    HOLLAND & KNIGHT LLP

    2099 PENNSYLVANIA AVE NW STE 100

    WASHINGTON DC 20006

   

RETURN ADDRESS: 

Commissioner for Trademarks

2900 Crystal Drive

Arlington, VA 22202-3514

 

 

 

 

    MARK:          RESOLUTION

 

 

 

    CORRESPONDENT’S REFERENCE/DOCKET NO:   069430.00004

 

    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.

 

 

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  76/564339

 

The assigned trademark examining attorney has reviewed the referenced application filed on December 9, 2003, and has 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 mark in U.S. Registration No. 2,348,420.  The marks at issue both contain the word “resolution” for related software services, design and engineering.  Trademark Act Section 2(d), 15 U.S.C. §1052(d); 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. 

 

If applicant chooses to respond to the refusal to register, then applicant must also respond to the following requiremens.

 

Drawing

Applicant must specify the colors that are claimed as a feature of the mark using the following format:  “The colors red and gray are claimed as a feature of the mark.”  37 C.F.R. §2.52(b)(1).  Common color names should be used to describe the colors in the mark, e.g., red, yellow, blue.  Exam Guide 01-03, section I.B.1.  Applicant also must specify where the colors appear in the mark.  For example, the bars in the foreground are red, while the one in the background is gray.

 

Applicant must clarify whether the gray tones in the drawing are intended to indicate the color gray.

 

(1)   If the color gray is a feature of the mark, then applicant must submit a color claim and description as follows:  “The color gray is a feature of the mark.  The color gray appears in <specify where color gray appears>.”  37 C.F.R. §§2.52(b) and (b)(1).

 

(2)   If the color gray is intended to indicate shading only, then applicant must submit a new drawing showing the mark in black and white only, with the gray tones deleted.

 

Applicant must submit a new drawing showing the entire mark clearly and conforming to 37 C.F.R. §2.52.  The current drawing is not acceptable because it is too large and it will not reproduce satisfactorily.  TMEP §807.07(a).

 

The requirements for a special-form drawing are as follows:

 

·        The drawing must appear in black and white if color is not claimed as a feature of the mark, or in color if color is claimed as a feature of the mark.

 

·        Drawings must be typed or made with a pen or by a process that will provide high definition when copied.  A photolithographic, printer’s proof copy, or other high quality reproduction of the mark may be used.  All lines must be clean, sharp and solid, and must not be fine or crowded.

 

·        The image must be no larger than 3.15 inches (8 cm) high by 3.15 inches (8cm) wide.

 

·        If reduction of the mark to the required size renders any details illegible, then applicant may insert a statement in the application to describe the mark and these details.

 

37 C.F.R. §§2.52(b); See TMEP §§807.01(b) and 807.07(a).

 

If submitted on paper, the Office prefers that the drawing be depicted on a separate sheet of non-shiny, white paper that is 8 to 8.5 inches wide and 11 to 11.69 inches long (20.3 to 21.6 cm. wide and 27.9 to 29.7 cm. long).  One of the shorter sides of the sheet should be regarded as its top edge. In addition, the drawing should include the caption “DRAWING PAGE” at the top of the drawing beginning one-inch (2.5 cm) from the top edge.  37 C.F.R. §2.54.

 

The Office strictly enforces these drawing requirements.

 

To submit a special form drawing electronically, applicant must attach a digitized image of the mark to the submission.  The Office will only accept an image in .jpg format.  The image must be formatted at no less than 300 dots per inch and no more than 350 dots per inch; and with a length and width of no less than 250 pixels and no more than 944 pixels.  All lines in the image must be clean, sharp and solid, and not fine or crowded, and produce a high quality image when copied.  37 C.F.R. §2.53.

 

Fee Increase

Fee increase effective January 1, 2003

Effective January 1, 2003, the fee for filing an application for trademark registration will be increased to $335.00 per International Class.  The USPTO will not accord a filing date to applications that are filed on or after that date that are not accompanied by a minimum of $335.00. 

 

Additionally, the fee for amending an existing application to add an additional class or classes of goods/services will be $335.00 per class for classes added on or after January 1, 2003.

 

 

 

/Hannah M. Fisher/

Trademark Examining Attorney

Law Office 111

(301) 610-5388 or

(703) 308-9110 ext. 171

FAX: (703) 746-8111

 

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.

 

Offc Action Outgoing [image/jpeg]

Offc Action Outgoing [image/jpeg]


uspto.report is an independent third-party trademark research tool that is not affiliated, endorsed, or sponsored by the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) or any other governmental organization. The information provided by uspto.report is based on publicly available data at the time of writing and is intended for informational purposes only.

While we strive to provide accurate and up-to-date information, we do not guarantee the accuracy, completeness, reliability, or suitability of the information displayed on this site. The use of this site is at your own risk. Any reliance you place on such information is therefore strictly at your own risk.

All official trademark data, including owner information, should be verified by visiting the official USPTO website at www.uspto.gov. This site is not intended to replace professional legal advice and should not be used as a substitute for consulting with a legal professional who is knowledgeable about trademark law.

© 2024 USPTO.report | Privacy Policy | Resources | RSS Feed of Trademarks | Trademark Filings Twitter Feed