Offc Action Outgoing

RESPONSE TIME LIMIT: TO AVOID ABANDONMENT, THE OFFICE MUST RECEIVE A PROPER RESPONSE TO THIS OFFICE ACTION WITHIN 6 MONTHS OF THE MAILING OR E-MAILING DATE.

MAILING/E-MAILING DATE INFORMATION: If the mailing or e-mailing date of this Office action does not appear above, this information can be obtained by visiting the USPTO website at http://tarr.gov.uspto.report/, inserting the application serial number, and viewing the prosecution history for the mailing date of the most recently issued Office communication.

Serial Number 76/567171

This Office Action responds to the applicant’s letter dated February 2, 2006.

Registration was refused under Trademark Act Section 2(d), 15 U.S.C. §1052(d), because the mark for which registration is sought so resembles the mark shown in U.S. Registration No. 2901949 as to be likely, when used on the identified goods, to cause confusion, or to cause mistake, or to deceive.

The examining attorney has considered the applicant’s arguments carefully but has found them unpersuasive. For the reasons below, the refusal under Section 2(d) is maintained and made FINAL.

The Court in In re E. I. Du Pont de Nemours & Co., 476 F.2d 1357, 177 USPQ 563 (C.C.P.A. 1973), listed the principal factors to be considered in determining whether there is a likelihood of confusion under Section 2(d). Any one of the factors listed may be dominant in any given case, depending upon the evidence of record. In re Dixie Restaurants, Inc., 105 F.3d 1405, 41 USPQ2d 1531, 1533 (Fed. Cir. 1997); In this case, the following factors are the most relevant: similarity of the marks, similarity of the goods and/or services, and similarity of trade channels of the goods and/or services. See In re Opus One, Inc., 60 USPQ2d 1812 (TTAB 2001); In re Dakin’s Miniatures Inc., 59 USPQ2d 1593 (TTAB 1999); In re Azteca Restaurant Enterprises, Inc., 50 USPQ2d 1209 (TTAB 1999); In re L.C. Licensing Inc., 49 USPQ2d 1379 (TTAB 1998); TMEP §§1207.01 et seq.

Taking into account the relevant Du Pont factors, a likelihood of confusion determination in this case involves a two-part analysis. First, the marks are compared for similarities in appearance, sound, connotation and commercial impression. In re E .I. du Pont 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 National Novice Hockey League, Inc., 222 USPQ 638 (TTAB 1984); 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.

Turning to the respective marks, applicant’s mark is ENERGY WISE. The registrant’s mark is ENERGY WISE WINDOWS, with the term WINDOWS disclaimed. These marks are similar because they both contain the dominant wording ENERGY WISE.

The applicant argues that the respective marks are weak. The examining attorney respectfully disagrees. Even if applicant has shown that the cited mark is “weak,” such marks are still entitled to protection against registration by a subsequent user of the same or similar mark for the same or closely related goods or services. See Hollister Incorporated v. Ident A Pet, Inc., 193 USPQ 439 (TTAB 1976) and cases cited therein.

Turning to the parties’ respective goods, the applicant intends to provide building insulation and the registrant provides nonmetallic windows. The goods of the parties need not be identical or directly competitive to find a likelihood of confusion. Instead, 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 come from a common source. On-line Careline Inc. v. America Online Inc., 229 F.3d 1080, 56 USPQ2d 1471 (Fed. Cir. 2000); In re Martin’s Famous Pastry Shoppe, Inc., 748 F.2d 1565, 223 USPQ 1289 (Fed. Cir. 1984); In re Melville Corp., 18 USPQ2d 1386, 1388 (TTAB 1991); In re Corning Glass Works, 229 USPQ 65 (TTAB 1985); In re Rexel Inc., 223 USPQ 830 (TTAB 1984); Guardian Prods. Co., Inc. v. Scott Paper Co., 200 USPQ 738 (TTAB 1978); In re Int’l Tel. & Tel. Corp., 197 USPQ 910 (TTAB 1978); TMEP §1207.01(a)(i).

Often times, building insulation and windows emanate from the same manufacturer under the same mark. See the previously attached registrations. Those printouts from the USPTO X-Search database show third-party registrations of marks used in connection with the same or similar goods 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 listed therein, namely building insulation and windows, are of a kind that can and do emanate from a single source. See In re Infinity Broad. Corp., 60 USPQ2d 1214, 1217-1218 (TTAB 2001); In re Albert Trostel & Sons Co., 29 USPQ2d 1783, 1785-86 (TTAB 1993); In re Mucky Duck Mustard Co., Inc., 6 USPQ2d 1467, 1470 at n.6 (TTAB 1988). As such, the goods are related.

Finally, the applicant claims that its consumers are of a sophisticated lot. No evidence was presented in support of this assertion. Nevertheless, the fact that purchasers are sophisticated or knowledgeable in a particular field does not necessarily mean that they are sophisticated or knowledgeable in the field of trademarks or immune from source confusion. See In re Decombe, 9 USPQ2d 1812 (TTAB 1988); In re Pellerin Milnor Corp., 221 USPQ 558 (TTAB 1983); TMEP §1207.01(d)(vii).

The refusal under Section 2(d) is maintained and made FINAL.

Please note that the only appropriate responses to a final action are either (1) compliance with the outstanding requirements, if feasible, or (2) filing of an appeal to the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board. 37 C.F.R. §2.64(a). If the applicant fails to respond within six months of the mailing date of this refusal, this Office will declare the application abandoned. 37 C.F.R. §2.65(a).

In certain circumstances, a petition to the Director may be filed to review a final action that is limited to procedural issues, pursuant to 37 C.F.R. §2.63(b)(2). 37 C.F.R. §2.64(a). See 37 C.F.R. §2.146(b), TMEP §1704, and TBMP Chapter 1201.05 for an explanation of petitionable matter. The petition fee is $100. 37 C.F.R. §2.6(a)(15).

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.

In all correspondence to the Patent and Trademark Office, the applicant should list the name and law office of the examining attorney, the serial number of this application, the mailing date of this Office action, and the applicant's telephone number.

If the applicant has any questions or needs assistance in responding to this Office Action, please telephone the assigned examining attorney. However, you may be able to can receive a response faster by sending me an email at john.dalier@uspto.gov with any questions regarding this Office Action. Note that this email address is not for responses to Office Actions, just questions about Office Actions.

Copies of Documents

The applicant may view and download any or all documents contained in the electronic file wrapper of all pending trademark applications, as well as many registrations via the Trademark Document Retrieval (TDR) system available online at: <http://portal.gov.uspto.report/external/portal/tow>. Currently, you can access all pending applications and all Madrid Protocol filings, and also many registrations, via TDR. The USPTO is in the process of converting all remaining registrations into a digital format, to permit future TDR access. This conversion process is expected to take several years.

Downloads are converted into PDF format and may be viewed with any PDF viewer, including the free Adobe Reader.

/John D. Dalier/

Trademark Examining Attorney

Law Office 106; 571 272 9150

Fax (571) 273-9106

HOW TO RESPOND TO THIS OFFICE ACTION:

ONLINE RESPONSE: You may respond using the Office’s Trademark Electronic Application System (TEAS) Response to Office action form available on our website at http://www.gov.uspto.report/teas/index.html. If the Office action issued via e-mail, you must wait 72 hours after receipt of the Office action to respond via TEAS. NOTE: Do not respond by e-mail. THE USPTO WILL NOT ACCEPT AN E-MAILED RESPONSE.
REGULAR MAIL RESPONSE: To respond by regular mail, your response should be sent to the mailing return address above, and include the serial number, law office number, and examining attorney’s name. NOTE: The filing date of the response will be the date of receipt in the Office, not the postmarked date. To ensure your response is timely, use a certificate of mailing. 37 C.F.R. §2.197.

STATUS OF APPLICATION: To check the status of your application, visit the Office’s Trademark Applications and Registrations Retrieval (TARR) system at http://tarr.uspto.gov.

VIEW APPLICATION DOCUMENTS ONLINE: Documents in the electronic file for pending applications can be viewed and downloaded online at http://portal.gov.uspto.report/external/portal/tow.

GENERAL TRADEMARK INFORMATION: For general information about trademarks, please visit the Office’s website at http://www.gov.uspto.report/main/trademarks.htm

FOR INQUIRIES OR QUESTIONS ABOUT THIS OFFICE ACTION, PLEASE CONTACT THE ASSIGNED EXAMINING ATTORNEY SPECIFIED ABOVE.