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  76/580517

 

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

 

Refusal based on 2(d) – Likelihood of Confusion

 

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 No. 2388311  as to be likely to cause confusion, to cause mistake, or to deceive.  TMEP section 1207.  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 for similarities in appearance, sound, connotation and commercial impression.  In re E. I. DuPont de Nemours & Co., 476 F.2d 1357, 177 USPQ 563 (CCPA 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).

 

Comparing the Marks

 

The examining attorney must compare the marks for similarities in sound, appearance, meaning or connotation.  In re E. I. DuPont de Nemours & Co., 476 F.2d 1357, 177 USPQ 563 (CCPA 1973).  Similarity in any one of these elements is sufficient to find a likelihood of confusion. In re Mack, 197 USPQ 755 (TTAB 1977).

 

The applicant’s mark is TEXAR A-1 and the registrant’s mark is TEXARBORIO.  The marks of the parties are similar in appearance, sound, connotation, and commercial impression, because the applicant’s mark begins with the term “TEXAR” which also comprises the first five letters in the registrant’s mark.  The applicant’s mark also contains the descriptive term “A-1” and the registrant’s mark ends with the letters “B-O-R-I-O” but these do not overcome the similarity in appearance, sound and commercial impression created by the shared elements.  Therefore the similarities in the elements that exist are sufficient to find a likelihood of confusion.

 

Goods are the Same

 

The applicant’s goods are “rice and beans” and the registrant’s goods are “rice.”  The goods are related because they both offer “rice.”  Further, the goods are likely to travel in the same channels of trade.  The conditions surrounding the marketing of the goods may 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.

 

Because of the similarities between the marks and the goods of the parties, a likelihood of confusion is created.  The examining attorney must resolve any doubt regarding a likelihood of confusion in favor of the prior registrant.  In re Hyper Shoppes (Ohio), Inc., 837 F.2d 463, 6 USPQ2d 1025 (Fed. Cir., 1988).

 

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

 

Identification of Goods

 

The wording “75 rice and beans” in the identification of goods needs clarification because it is too broad and includes goods classified in other international classes.  Specifically, “rice” is classified in International Class 30 and “beans” are classified in several different classes depending on the type of beans.  TMEP §§1402.01 and 1402.03.  The number “75” in the identification of goods does not appear to indicate any goods and should be deleted from the identification.

 

For assistance with identifying goods and/or services in trademark applications, please see the online searchable Manual of Acceptable Identifications of Goods and Services at http://tess2.gov.uspto.report/netahtml/tidm.html.

 

The applicant may adopt the following identification of goods, if accurate: 

 

Rice; coffee beans, in International Class 30; and/or

 

Fresh beans; raw beans, in International Class 31.

 

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. §2.71(a); TMEP §1402.06.  Therefore, the applicant may not amend to include any goods that are not within the scope of goods set forth in the present identification.

 

Multiple-Class Application Requirements

 

The application identifies goods that may be classified in several international classes.  Therefore, the applicant must either:  (1) restrict the application to the number of class(es) covered by the fee already paid, or (2) pay the required fee for each additional class(es).  37 C.F.R. §2.86(a)(2); TMEP §§810.01, 1401.04, 1401.04(b) 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.  37 C.F.R. §2.6(a)(1). 

 

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 in each class and list the goods 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 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).

 

Standard Character Drawing Claim

 

The 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).

 

Disclaimer

 

The applicant must insert a disclaimer of “A-1” in the application because it is a laudatory term that attributes quality or excellence to the applicant’s goods.  Trademark Act Section 6, 15 U.S.C. §1056; TMEP §§1213 and 1213.08(a)(i). 

 

Laudatory terms, i.e., those terms that attribute quality or excellence to goods or services, are considered descriptive terms under Trademark Act Section 2(e)(1), 15 U.S.C. §1052(e)(1); TMEP §1209.03(k).  That is, laudatory terms, phrases and slogans are nondistinctive and unregistrable without proof of acquired distinctiveness.  In re Nett Designs Inc., 236 F.3d 1339, 57 USPQ2d 1564 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (THE ULTIMATE BIKE RACK); In re Best Software Inc., 58 USPQ2d 1314 (TTAB 2001) (BEST and PREMIER); In re Dos Padres Inc., 49 USPQ2d 1860 (TTAB 1998) (QUESO QUESADILLA SUPREME); In re Consolidated Cigar Co., 35 USPQ2d 1290 (TTAB 1995) (SUPER BUY); General Foods Corp. v. Ralston Purina Co., 220 USPQ 990 (TTAB 1984) (ORIGINAL BLEND).

 

The examining attorney refers to the following definition of “A-1”

 

A-one also A-1 (â¹wùn¹)  adjective

Informal.

First-class; excellent.[1]

 

 

The following is the accepted standard format for a disclaimer:

 

No claim is made to the exclusive right to use “A-1” apart from the mark as shown.

 

 

Applicant’s Response

 

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.

 

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.

 

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

 

The Trademark Applications and Registrations Retrieval (TARR) database on the USPTO website at http://tarr.uspto.gov provides detailed, up to the minute information about the status and prosecution history of trademark applications and registrations.  The TARR database is available 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.  Status and status date information is also available via push-button telephone at (703) 305‑8747 from 6:30 a.m. until midnight, Eastern Time, Monday through Friday. 

 

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.

 

To reach the undersigned attorney by telephone after October 21, 2004, please call (571) 272 - 9483.  Thank you.

 

 

/Michael J. Souders/

Trademark Attorney

Law Office 115

ecom115@uspto.gov

(703) 308-9115 ext. 208

 

 

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.