Suspension Letter

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE

 

 

Serial Number   76/595694             

 

NOTICE OF SUSPENSION

 

Please note that the Trademark Act Section 2(e)(1) refusal is WITHDRAWN.

 

The standard character claim is accepted and entered into the record.

 

Action on this application is suspended pending the disposition of:

 

                - Application Serial Nos. 78396266 and 78396273

 

Since applicant's effective filing date is subsequent to the effective filing date of the above-identified applications, the latter, if and when they register, may be cited against this application.  See 37 C.F.R. §2.83.  A copy of information relevant to the pending applications was sent previously.  The applicant may request that the application be removed from suspension by presenting arguments related to the potential conflict between the relevant applications or other arguments related to the ground for suspension.  The applicant's election to present or not to present arguments at this time will not affect the applicant's right to present arguments later.

 

Please note that the applicant’s arguments regarding the potential refusal under Section 2(d) have been considered.  In response to the applicant’s arguments regarding the differences between the goods and services it is noted that the goods and/or services of the parties need not be identical or directly competitive to find a likelihood of confusion.  Instead, 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 and/or services come from a common source.  On-line Careline Inc. v. America Online Inc., 229 F.3d 1080, 56 USPQ2d 1471 (Fed. Cir. 2000); In re Martin’s Famous Pastry Shoppe, Inc., 748 F.2d 1565, 223 USPQ 1289 (Fed. Cir. 1984); In re Melville Corp., 18 USPQ2d 1386, 1388 (TTAB 1991); In re Corning Glass Works, 229 USPQ 65 (TTAB 1985); In re Rexel Inc., 223 USPQ 830 (TTAB 1984); Guardian Prods. Co., Inc. v. Scott Paper Co., 200 USPQ 738 (TTAB 1978); In re Int’l Tel. & Tel. Corp., 197 USPQ 910 (TTAB 1978); TMEP §1207.01(a)(i). 

 

In addition, with respect to the marks, the question is not whether people will confuse the marks, but whether the marks will confuse people into believing that the goods they identify come from the same source.  In re West Point-Pepperell, Inc., 468 F.2d 200, 175 USPQ 558 (C.C.P.A. 1972).  For that reason, the test of likelihood of confusion is not whether the marks can be distinguished when subjected to a side-by-side comparison.  The question is whether the marks create the same overall impression.  Recot, Inc. v. M.C. Becton, 214 F.2d 1322, 54 USPQ2d 1894, 1890 (Fed. Cir. 2000); Visual Information Inst., Inc. v. Vicon Indus. Inc., 209 USPQ 179 (TTAB 1980).  The focus is on the recollection of the average purchaser who normally retains a general rather than specific impression of trademarks.  Chemetron Corp. v. Morris Coupling & Clamp Co., 203 USPQ 537 (TTAB 1979); Sealed Air Corp. v. Scott Paper Co., 190 USPQ 106 (TTAB 1975); TMEP §1207.01(b).

 

Finally, in response to the applicant’s arguments regarding the sophistication of the purchasers, the fact that purchasers are sophisticated or knowledgeable in a particular field does not necessarily mean that they are sophisticated or knowledgeable in the field of trademarks or immune from source confusion.  See In re Decombe, 9 USPQ2d 1812 (TTAB 1988); In re Pellerin Milnor Corp., 221 USPQ 558 (TTAB 1983); TMEP §1207.01(d)(vii).

 

 

 

/Martha L. Fromm/

Martha L. Fromm

Trademark Attorney

Law Office 106

Phone:  (571) 272-9320

Fax: (571) 273-9106 (formal responses)