UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
|
SERIAL NO: 76/577011
APPLICANT: Marcon, Robert Victor
|
|
|
CORRESPONDENT ADDRESS: |
RETURN ADDRESS: Commissioner for Trademarks 2900 Crystal Drive Arlington, VA 22202-3514
|
|
MARK: EVIAN
|
|
|
CORRESPONDENT’S REFERENCE/DOCKET NO: Mark-18
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 76/577011
The assigned examining attorney has reviewed the referenced application and determined the following.
REFUSAL BECAUSE A SEARCH OF THE OFFICE RECORDS REVEALED A CONFUSINGLY SIMILAR REGISTERED MARK
The examining attorney refuses registration under Trademark Act Section 2(d), 15 U.S.C. Section 1052(d), because the applicant's mark, when used on or in connection with the identified goods, so resembles the mark in U.S. Registration Nos. 848,243; 1,155,024; 1,610,010; and 2,693,340 as to be likely to cause confusion, to cause mistake, or to deceive. TMEP section 1207. See the enclosed registration.
The Court in In re E. I. DuPont de Nemours & Co., 476 F.2d 1357, 177 USPQ 563 (CCPA 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 this case, the following factors are the most relevant: similarity of the marks, similarity of the goods, and similarity of trade channels of the goods.
Applicant’s mark, EVIAN, is confusingly similar to registrant’s marks for EVIAN alone and with other matter. Applicant’ s goods, distilled spirits, namely vodka, gin, and tequila; ice cream; sherbet; and frozen confections, are closely related to registrant’s goods, natural mineral water. If the marks of the respective parties are identical, 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). TMEP §1207.01(a).
IDENTIFICATION OF GOODS
The applicant has classified ice cream; sherbet; and frozen confections in International Class 33. The correct classification is International Class 30. The applicant must either delete ice cream; sherbet; and frozen confections or add International Class 30 to the application. 37 C.F.R. §§2.32(a)(7) and 2.85; TMEP §1401.04(b).
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. Section 2.71(a); TMEP section 804.09. Therefore, the applicant may not amend to include any goods that are not within the scope of goods set forth in the present identification.
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.
Applicant must submit the following standard character claim: “The mark is presented in standard characters without claim to any particular font style, size, or color.” 37 C.F.R. §2.52(a).
The applicant has filed asserting a bona fide intention to use the mark in commerce under Trademark Act Section 1(b), 15 U.S.C. §1051(b), and claiming priority under Section 44(d), 15 U.S.C. §1126(d), based on a foreign application. Under these circumstances, the applicant may rely solely on its intent to use the mark in commerce as the basis for registration and not the expected foreign registration, and still claim the benefit of the priority filing date. If the applicant chooses to do so, this Office will approve the case for publication without waiting for the applicant to submit the foreign registration. Of course, the application must be in condition for publication in all other respects. Moreover, while the application may be approved for publication, the mark will not be registered until an acceptable allegation of use has been filed.
If the applicant wishes to proceed relying on the applicant’s intent to use the mark in commerce as the sole basis for registration, with the claim of priority, the applicant should so advise the examining attorney. TMEP §§806.02(f) and 806.04(b).
If the applicant does not so indicate, this Office will presume that the applicant wishes to rely on the foreign registration as an additional basis for registration and will expect the applicant to submit a true copy, a photocopy, a certification, or a certified copy of the foreign registration and, if appropriate, an English translation. It is customary for the translator to sign the translation. TMEP §§1004.01 and 1004.01(b).
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.
The USPTO Trademark Operations will be moving to the new Alexandria, Virginia campus in October and November 2004. During that time, you are strongly encouraged to communicate with the USPTO through the Trademark Electronic Application System (TEAS) which can be found at www.uspto.gov .
Effective October 4, 2004, all Trademark-related paper mail must be sent to:
Commissioner for Trademarks
P.O. Box 1451
Alexandria, VA 22313-1451
My Law Office will move on November 2, 2004. To reach me by phone after that date call (571) 272-9144.
To submit a fax response to this Office action after that date, send your response to the Law Office fax number, namely (571) 273-9108.
/Robert Clark/
Trademark Attorney
Law Office 108
703-308-9108 ext. 162
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.