Offc Action Outgoing

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  76/567692

 

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

 

Section 2(d) - Likelihood of Confusion Refusal

The examining attorney refuses registration under Trademark Act Section 2(d), 15 U.S.C. §1052(d), because the applicant’s mark, DIALOG+, when used on or in connection with the identified goods, so resembles the mark in U.S. Registration No. 2459595 as to be likely to cause confusion, to cause mistake, or to deceive.  TMEP §§1207.01 et seq.  See the enclosed registration.

 

If the mark in the cited registration has been assigned to applicant, then applicant must prove ownership of that mark.  TMEP §812.01.  Applicant may record the assignment with the Assignment Services Division of the Office.  Trademark Act Section 10, 15 U.S.C. §1060; 37 C.F.R. §3.25; TMEP §§503 et seq.  Applicant should then notify the trademark examining attorney when the assignment has been recorded.

 

In the alternative, applicant may submit evidence of the assignment of the mark to applicant, such as: (1) documents evidencing the chain of title; or (2) an explanation of the chain of title (specifying each party in the chain, the nature of each conveyance, and the relevant dates), supported by a notarized affidavit or a signed declaration under 37 C.F.R. §2.20.  37 C.F.R. §3.73; TMEP §502.01.

 

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. 

 

U.S. Registration No. 2459595

The applicant has applied to register the mark DIALOG+.  The mark DIALOG is already registered under U.S. Registration No. 2459595.  There is a likelihood of confusion between the registered mark and the applicant’s mark because the marks are confusingly similar and the goods are highly related.  Therefore, the applicant’s mark cannot be registered. 

 

The test of likelihood of confusion is not whether the marks can be distinguished when subjected to a side‑by‑side comparison.  The issue is whether the marks create the same overall impression. Visual Information Institute, Inc. v. Vicon Industries 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).  Here, the average consumer will remember the term “Dialog” when considering both the registered mark and the applicant’s proposed mark, creating a likelihood of confusion. 

 

The applicant has applied to register the mark DIALOG+ for “haemo-dialysis devices.”  The mark DIALOG is registered for “dialysis machines.”  The applicant’s goods are related to the goods of the registrant in that they are the types of goods that originate from the same source under the same mark.  The goods are also related in that they flow in the same channels of trade and are directed to the same class of purchasers.  Moreover, if the marks of the respective parties are identical or highly similar, the examining attorney must consider the commercial relationship between the goods or services of the respective parties carefully to determine whether there is a likelihood of confusion.  In re Concordia International Forwarding Corp., 222 USPQ 355 (TTAB 1983).  In sum, the applicant’s mark cannot be registered, as there is a likelihood of confusion with the mark of the registrant. 

 

The applicant’s proposed mark is confusingly similar to the registered mark.  And the goods of the applicant and the registrant are highly related.  The examining attorney must resolve any doubt regarding a likelihood of confusion in favor of the prior registrant or registrants.  In re Hyper Shoppes (Ohio), Inc., 837 F.2d 463, 6 USPQ2d 1025 (Fed. Cir., 1988).  Therefore, registration of the proposed mark is refused. 

 

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.

 

Identification of Goods/Services

The current wording used to describe the goods needs clarification because the term devices is indefinite. Applicant may adopt the following identification of goods, if accurate:  “haemo-dialysis machines,” in International Class 010.  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.

 

NOTICE:  TRADEMARK OPERATION RELOCATING OCTOBER AND NOVEMBER  2004

The Trademark Operation is relocating to Alexandria, Virginia, in October and November 2004.  Effective October 4, 2004, all Trademark-related paper mail (except documents sent to the Assignment Services Division for recordation, certain documents filed under the Madrid Protocol, and requests for copies of trademark documents) must be sent to:

 

Commissioner for Trademarks

P.O. Box 1451

Alexandria, VA  22313-1451

 

Applicants, registration owners, attorneys and other Trademark customers are strongly encouraged to correspond with the USPTO online via the Trademark Electronic Application System (TEAS), at www.uspto.gov.

 

My Law Office is scheduled to move on October 19, 2004.  To reach me by telephone after that date, please call (571) 272-9282.  To submit a fax response to this Office action after that date, please send your response to the Law Office fax number - (571) 273-9103.

 

Response

If the applicant has any questions or needs assistance in responding to this Office action, please telephone the assigned examining attorney.  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. Section 2.65(a).

 

 

Jeffrey S. Molinoff

/Jeff Molinoff/

Law Office 103

703-308-9103 ext. 247

703-746-8103 fax

 

 

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.