UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
SERIAL NO: 76/581467
APPLICANT: Woven Electronics Corporation
|
|
CORRESPONDENT ADDRESS: |
RETURN ADDRESS: Commissioner for Trademarks P.O. Box 1451 Alexandria, VA 22313-1451
|
MARK: LIGHTLOC
|
|
CORRESPONDENT’S REFERENCE/DOCKET NO: 032893.00060
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 76/581467 LIGHTLOC
The assigned examining attorney has reviewed the referenced application and determined the following.
Registration Refusal –Likelihood of Confusion 2(d)
The examining attorney refuses registration under Trademark Act Section 2(d), 15 U.S.C. §1052(d), because the applicant’s mark, when used on or in connection with the identified goods/services, so resembles the mark in U.S. Registration No. 1620804 as to be likely to cause confusion, to cause mistake, or to deceive. 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 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 (C.C.P.A. 1973). Similarity in any one of these elements is sufficient to find a likelihood of confusion. In re Mack, 197 USPQ 755 (TTAB 1977). TMEP §§1207.01(b) et seq. The applicant’s mark is LIGHTLOC. The registrant’s mark is LITE LOCK. The marks are similar because they are similar in sound and commercial impression.
The goods 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 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). The applicant’s goods are “security systems for manhole covers, hatches, utility tunnel doors, security doors, and critical equipment access lids”. The registrant’s goods are “switch locks”. The goods are related because they would be marketed and sold to the same consumers using the same channels of trade.
Accordingly, registration is refused under Trademark Act Section 2(d), 15 U.S.C. §1052(d).
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.
If the applicant chooses to respond to the refusal to register, the applicant must also respond to the following informalities.
INFORMALITIES
Identification of Goods Unacceptable
The identification of goods is unacceptable as indefinite because the term "system" in the identification of goods is unclear and requires clarification. The applicant must rewrite the goods by listing the major parts or components of the system and describing the nature, purpose and use of the system. The applicant should use common generic terms when specifying the parts and/or components of the system. TMEP §1402.03.
The applicant may adopt the following identification, if accurate:
Security systems comprised of [specify components of the system] for manhole covers, hatches, utility tunnel doors, security doors, and critical equipment access lids, in International Class [to be determined by the nature of the components]. TMEP §1402.01.
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.
Standard Character Drawing (advisory)
Trademark Rule 2.52, 37 C.F.R. § 2.52, has been amended to replace "typed" drawings with "standard character" drawings. Applicants who seek to register a mark without any claim as to the manner of display must submit a standard character drawing that complies with the requirements of the amended rule. Exam Guide 01-03, Section I.A.9.
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).
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 will move on October 21, 2004. To reach me by phone after that date please call (571) 272- 9468.
To submit a fax response to this Office action after that date, send your response to the Law Office fax number, namely (571) 273-9115.
If the applicant has any questions or needs assistance in responding to this Office action, please telephone the assigned examining attorney.
/Kathryn E. Coward/
Trademark Examining Attorney
United States Patent and Trademark Office
Law Office 115
(703) 308-9115 ext. 161
How to respond to this Office Action:
You may respond formally using the Office's Trademark Electronic Application System (TEAS) Response to Office Action form (visit http://eteas.gov.uspto.report/V2.0/oa242/WIZARD.htm and follow the instructions therein, but you must wait until at least 72 hours after receipt if the office action issued via e-mail). PLEASE NOTE: Responses to Office Actions on applications filed under the Madrid Protocol (Section 66(a)) CANNOT currently be filed via TEAS.
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.