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  76/577971

 

The assigned trademark examining attorney has reviewed the referenced application filed on February 26, 2004, 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. 2319710.  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. 

 

The applicant applied to register TSR and design for "sale and distribution of computer equipment and computer software."

 

The registered mark is TSR for "computer hardware, namely, routers."

 

The marks are highly similar in that both marks contain TSR. 

 

The goods/services of the parties need not be identical or directly competitive to find a likelihood of confusion.  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/services come from a common source.  In re Martin’s Famous Pastry Shoppe, Inc., 748 F.2d 1565, 223 USPQ 1289 (Fed. Cir. 1984); In re Corning Glass Works, 229 USPQ 65 (TTAB 1985); In re Rexel Inc., 223 USPQ 830 (TTAB 1984); Guardian Products Co., Inc. v. Scott Paper Co., 200 USPQ 738 (TTAB 1978); In re International Telephone & Telegraph Corp., 197 USPQ 910 (TTAB 1978).  TMEP §1207.01(a)(i). 

 

Both of the marks are used to identify computer hardware or the sale and distribution of computer hardware.  The same consumers will be exposed to the goods/services identified with both of the marks.  The similarities among the marks and the goods/services of the parties are so great as to create a likelihood of confusion.  The examining attorney must resolve any doubt as to the issue of likelihood of confusion in favor of the registrant and against the applicant who has a legal duty to select a mark which is totally dissimilar to trademarks already being used.  Burroughs Wellcome Co. v. Warner‑Lambert Co., 203 USPQ 191 (TTAB 1979).

 

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.

 

Prior Pending Application

The examining attorney encloses information regarding pending Application Serial No. 78/193453.  The filing date of the referenced application precedes the applicant’s filing date.  There may be a likelihood of confusion between the two marks under Trademark Act Section 2(d), 15 U.S.C. §1052(d).  If the referenced application matures into a registration, the examining attorney may refuse registration in this case under Section 2(d).  37 C.F.R. §2.83; TMEP §1208.01.

 

Action on this application will be suspended pending the disposition of Application Serial No. 78/193453, upon receipt of the applicant's response resolving the following informalities.

 

Identification of Goods/Services

The wording “sale and distribution of computer equipment and computer software” in the identification of goods/services needs clarification because the wording “sales” is indefinite and may include more than one International Class.  Applicant may change this wording to:

 

“Computer software [specify the function of the programs, e.g., for use in database management, for use as a spreadsheet, for word processing, etc. and, if software is content- or field-specific, the field of use] that may be downloaded from a global computer network; computers” in International Class 9; and/or

 

“Retail store services in the field of computers and a variety of computer software; distributorships in the field of computers and a variety of computer software” in International Class 35.

 

 if accurate.  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.

 

Classification

Because of the broad language used by applicant in the identification of goods/services, applicant may have to add an additional international class(es) as indicated above upon the applicant’s amending the identification of goods/services to specify the goods/services.

 

Additional Classes

If the applicant prosecutes this application as a combined, or multiple‑class, application based on use in commerce under Trademark Act Section 1(a), 15 U.S.C. §1051(a), the applicant must comply with each of the following:

 

(1)  The applicant must specifically identify the goods/services in each class and 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(b); 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.  

 

(3)  The applicant must submit: 

 

(a) dates of first use and first use in commerce and one specimen for each class that includes goods or services based on use in commerce under Trademark Act Section 1(a).  The dates of use must be at least as early as the filing date of this application, 37 C.F.R. §§2.34(a)(1) and 2.86(a), and the specimen(s) must have been in use in commerce at least as early as the filing date of the application, and/or

 

(b) a statement of a bona fide intention to use the mark in commerce on or in connection with all the goods or services specified in each class that includes goods or services based on a bona fide intention to use the mark in commerce under Trademark Act Section 1(b), where such statement was not included for the goods or services in the original application.

 

(4)  The applicant must submit an affidavit or a declaration under 37 C.F.R. §2.20 signed by the applicant to verify (3) above.  37 C.F.R. §§2.59(a) and 2.71(c).

 

Significance of Mark

The applicant must indicate whether TSR has any significance in the computer or software trade or industry.  37 C.F.R. Section 2.61(b).

 

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.

 

 

 

 

 

 

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.

 

 

 

/Carol Spils/

Carol Spils

Law Office 105

(703)308-9105 ext. 154

 

 

How to respond to this Office Action:

 

You may respond using the Office's Trademark Electronic Application System (TEAS) (visit http://www.gov.uspto.report/teas/index.html and follow the instructions therein), but you must wait until at least 72 hours after receipt of the e-mailed office action. PLEASE NOTE:  For those with applications filed pursuant to Section 66(a) of the Trademark Act, all responses to Office actions that include amendments to the identifications of goods and/or services must be filed on paper, using regular mail (or hand delivery) to submit such response. TEAS cannot be used under these circumstances. If the response does not include an amendment to the goods and/or services, then TEAS can be used to respond to the Office action.

 

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.