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  76/586734

 

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

 

REFUSAL: 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 marks in U.S. Registration Nos. 1404748 and 1185565 as to be likely to cause confusion, to cause mistake, or to deceive.  TMEP section 1207.  See the enclosed registrations.

 

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).

 

 

Similarity of the Marks

The applicant has applied to register the mark, FLEXI-LIGHTS for non-prescription reading glasses.

 

The registrant’s mark is FLEXOLITE for eyewear, namely spectacles, frames, sunglasses and cases (Reg. No. 1185565) and hinges for spectacle frame (Reg. NO. 1404748).

 

The applicant’s and registrant’s marks create a similar commercial impression because they share the phonetic equivalent, FLEXI-LIGHT / FLEXO LITE.  The only differences are the applicant’s addition of the letter S at the end of LIGHT, and the variant spelling of LIGHT/LITE.  However, slight differences in the sound of similar marks will not avoid a likelihood of confusion.  In re Energy Telecomm. & Electrical Ass’n, 222 USPQ 350 (TTAB 1983).   The marks are essentially phonetic equivalents.  Similarity in sound alone is sufficient to find a likelihood of confusion.  Molenaar, Inc. v. Happy Toys Inc., 188 USPQ 469 (TTAB 1975); In re Cresco Mfg. Co., 138 USPQ 401 (TTAB 1963).  TMEP §1207.01(b)(iv). 

 

Similarity of the Goods

The applicant’s reading glasses are identical to registrant’s eyewear (Reg. No. 1185565).

 

The registrant’s hinges for spectacle frames are highly related to applicant’s reading glasses in that both goods are eyewear goods (Reg. No. 1404748).  Replacement parts, such as registrant’s hinges are normally sold side by side with the actual goods, namely applicant’s/registrant’s glasses.  Both can be found in the same channels of trade such that the average consumer would be likely to believe that the goods come from a common source.  See enclosed third party registrations wherein applicant’s goods are marketed and sold with registrants’ goods under the same trademark.

 

In any event, 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).

 

The marks are highly similar.  The goods are highly related, if not identical.  The similarities of the marks and relatedness of the goods are so great as to create a likelihood of confusion among consumers.  The examining attorney must resolve any doubt regarding a likelihood of confusion in favor of the prior registrants.  In re Hyper Shoppes (Ohio), Inc., 837 F.2d 463, 6 USPQ2d 1025 (Fed. Cir. 1988). Accordingly, the mark is refused registration on the Principal Register under Section 2(d).

 

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. 

 

 

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.

 

If applicant has any questions or needs assistance in responding, applicant is encouraged to telephone or email the assigned examining attorney.

 

 

 

 

Kelly A Choe

/KAC/

Trademark Attorney

USPTO Law Office 113

Tel. 571. 272.9429

Response. www.gov.uspto.report/teas

 

 

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.

 

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.