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  76/590701

 

The following authorities govern the processing of trademark and service mark applications:  The Trademark Act, 15 U.S.C. Section 1051 et seq., the Trademark Rules of Practice, 37 C.F.R. Part 2, and the Trademark Manual of Examining Procedure (TMEP).

 

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

 

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. 1700570 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 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 (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).

 

The registered mark is MOJAVE WHEAT for “hardwood flooring” and the applicant is seeking to register the mark MOJAVE for “hardwood flooring”.  The applicant’s mark shares its entire mark with the dominant part of registrant’s mark, namely, the word “MOJAVE.”  When the applicant's mark is compared to the registered mark, "the points of similarity are of greater importance than the points of difference."  Esso Standard Oil Co. v. Sun Oil Co., 229 F.2d 37, 108 USPQ 161 (D.C. Cir.), cert. denied, 351 U.S. 973, 109 USPQ 517 (1956).

 

In addition to the marks being confusingly similar, the goods are identical.  If the goods of the respective parties are identical, the degree of similarity between marks required to support a finding of likelihood of confusion is not as great as would apply with diverse goods.  ECI Division of E Systems, Inc. v. Environmental Communications Inc., 207 USPQ 443 (TTAB 1980).  TMEP §1207.01(b).  Consumers would likely believe that the goods emanate from one common source and associate the goods with the same producer.

 

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

 

Names and National Citizenship of General Partners Omitted

Applicant must specify the names and national citizenship (for individuals) or the U.S. state or foreign country of incorporation of the general partners.  37 C.F.R. §2.32(a)(3)(iii); TMEP §§803.03(b) and 803.04.

 

Standard Character Claim

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).

 

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

 

NOTICE:  TRADEMARK OPERATION RELOCATION

 

The Trademark Operation has relocated to Alexandria, Virginia.  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, attorneys and other Trademark customers are strongly encouraged to correspond with the USPTO online via the Trademark Electronic Application System (TEAS), at http://www.gov.uspto.report/teas/index.html.

 

 

/AMY GEARIN/

Trademark Attorney

L0 115

United States Patent and Trademark Office

571/272-9473

 

 

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.