UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
SERIAL NO: 76/593142
APPLICANT: David Allen
|
|
CORRESPONDENT ADDRESS: |
RETURN ADDRESS: Commissioner for Trademarks P.O. Box 1451 Alexandria, VA 22313-1451
|
MARK: PROTON
|
|
CORRESPONDENT’S REFERENCE/DOCKET NO: LAUG-2-1003
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 76/593142
The assigned examining attorney has reviewed the referenced application and determined the following.
I. REFUSAL OF REGISTRATION UNDER SECTIN 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. 2621354 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.
Applicant has applied for registration of the mark PROTON. The registered mark is PROTON. Clearly, the marks of the respective parties are identical in appearance, sound and connotation.
If the marks of the respective parties are identical or highly similar, the examining attorney must consider the commercial relationship between the goods or services of the respective parties carefully to determine whether there is a likelihood of confusion. In re Concordia International Forwarding Corp., 222 USPQ 355 (TTAB 1983). TMEP §1207.01(a).
Applicant’s goods are identified as “flashlights and accessories therefore.” The goods named in the registration are “electric lighting fixtures.” 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). In the present case, the goods of the parties are related such that they would be sold in the same stores and purchased by the same class of prospective consumers.
Accordingly, based on the identical nature of the marks and the relatedness of the goods of the parties, confusion as to the source of the goods is likely.
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 requirements.
II. REQUIREMENTS
1.) 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).
2.) CITIZENSHIP OF APPLICANT
Applicant must specify his or her national citizenship for the record. Trademark Act Section 1(a)(2), 15 U.S.C. §1051(a)(2); 37 C.F.R. §2.32(a)(3)(i); TMEP §803.04.
3.) MEANING OF WORDING
Applicant must specify whether the wording “PROTON” has any significance in the lighting or specifically flashlight trade or industry or as applied to the goods/services described in the application. 37 C.F.R. §2.61(b).
4.) IDENTIFICATION OF GOODS
The wording "accessories" in the identification of goods needs clarification because the exact nature of the goods is unclear. In the identification of goods, applicant must use the common commercial or generic names for the goods, be as complete and specific as possible, and avoid the use of indefinite words and phrases. If applicant chooses to use indefinite terms such as "accessories," "components," "devices," "equipment," "materials," "parts," "systems" and "products," then such terms must be followed by the word "namely" and a list of the specific goods identified by their common commercial or generic names. TMEP §§1402.01 and 1402.03(a).
Therefore, for proper classification of the goods, applicant must amend the identification of goods to specify the common commercial or generic name for the accessories. If there is no common commercial or generic name for the product, then applicant must describe the product and intended consumer as well as its main purpose and intended uses. TMEP §1402.01. Applicant may adopt the following wording: “flashlights and accessories therefore, namely [LIST ITEMS by their common commercial names].”
The applicant may wish to consult the on-line identification manual on the PTO homepage for a searchable database of acceptable identifications for goods and services. The manual is available at: http://www.gov.uspto.report/web/offices/tac/doc/gsmanual.
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.
It is noted that the wording “flashlights” is acceptable alone in International Class 11.
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.
/Martha Santomartino/
Trademark Attorney
Law Office 112
(571) 272-9416
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.