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  76/605044

 

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

 

2(d) Likelihood of Confusion

 

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 and services, so resembles the mark in U.S. Registration No. 2911579 as to be likely to cause confusion, or to cause mistake, or to deceive.  TMEP §§1207.01 et seq.  See the attached 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. 

 

When a mark consists of a word portion and a design portion, the word portion is more likely to be impressed upon a purchaser’s memory and to be used in calling for the goods or services.  Therefore, the word portion is normally accorded greater weight in determining likelihood of confusion.  In re Dakin’s Miniatures Inc., 59 USPQ2d 1593, 1596 (TTAB 1999); In re Appetito Provisions Co., 3 USPQ2d 1553 (TTAB 1987); Amoco Oil Co. v. Amerco, Inc., 192 USPQ 729 (TTAB 1976); TMEP §1207.01(c)(ii).

 

Disclaimed matter is typically less significant or less dominant when comparing marks.  Although a disclaimed portion of a mark certainly cannot be ignored, and the marks must be compared in their entireties, one feature of a mark may be more significant in creating a commercial impression.  In re Dixie Restaurants Inc., 105 F.3d 1405, 41 USPQ2d 1531 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (holding that DELTA is the dominant portion of the mark THE DELTA CAFÉ where the disclaimed word “café” is descriptive of applicant’s services); In re National Data Corporation, 753 F.2d 1056, 224 USPQ 749 (Fed. Cir. 1985); and In re Appetito Provisions Co. Inc., 3 USPQ2d 1553 (TTAB 1987).  See also Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Packard Press Inc., 281 F.3d 1261, 62 USPQ 2d 1001 (Fed. Cir. 2002); Tektronix, Inc. v. Daktronics, Inc., 534 F.2d 915, 189 USPQ 693 (C.C.P.A. 1976); In re El Torito Rests. Inc., 9 USPQ2d 2002 (TTAB 1988); In re Equitable Bancorporation, 229 USPQ 709 (TTAB 1986).

 

In this case, the applicant’s mark BREAKTHRU FITNESS (and design) is similar in sound and commercial impression to the mark BREAKTHRU in the above-cited registration.  The word portion BREAKTHRU FITNESS of the applicant’s mark (and not the design portion) is more likely to be impressed upon a purchaser’s memory and to be used in calling for the goods and services and, therefore, is accorded greater weight in determining likelihood of confusion.  Also, both marks share the identical and dominant word BREAKTHRU.  The word BREAKTHRU in the applicant’s mark is more significant in creating a commercial impression because the word FITNESS is less significant as descriptive, disclaimed matter.  See discussion below about the requirement of a disclaimer of the word “fitness.” 

 

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.  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).

 

The registrant cited above is using its mark on sports drinks.  The applicant intends to use its mark on video recordings for physical fitness, educational books and manuals on physical fitness, and physical fitness consultation services.  The applicant’s goods and services and cited registrant’s goods are related because all are health and fitness products and services, and they are likely to be marketed in the same channels of trade.  See attached evidence from the Google on-line searchable database and the X-SEARCH Database which demonstrates that these products and services are marketed such that they could be encountered by the same purchasers under circumstances that could give rise to the mistaken belief that the goods and services emanate from a single source.  Therefore, the similarities of the marks and the relatedness of the goods and services create a substantial likelihood that consumers may be confused as to the source of the goods and services.

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.

Prior Pending Application

         

The examining attorney also attaches information regarding pending Application Serial No. 76/411386.  The filing date of the referenced application precedes the applicant’s filing date.  There may be a likelihood of confusion between the two marks under Trademark Act Section 2(d), 15 U.S.C. §1052(d).  If the referenced application registers, registration may be refused in this case under Section 2(d).  37 C.F.R. §2.83; TMEP §1208.01.

Identification of Goods

 

The Class 016 identification of goods and the Class 041 recitation of services are acceptable.

 

However, the wording “video recordings for physical fitness” in the Class 009 identification of goods needs clarification because the subject matter of the goods is somewhat ambiguous. 

 

The applicant must amend the identification to specify the common commercial name of the goods. If there is no common commercial name for the products, the applicant must describe the products and their intended uses.  TMEP §1402.01.

 

The applicant may adopt the following identification of goods, if accurate: 

 

“video recordings in the field of physical fitness, in International Class 009.”

 

TMEP §1402.01.

 

For assistance with identifying goods and/or services in trademark applications, please see the online searchable Manual of Acceptable Identifications of Goods and Services at http://tess2.gov.uspto.report/netahtml/tidm.html.

 

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 or services that are not within the scope of the goods or services recited in the present identification.

Delete Standard Character Claim

 

The applicant must delete the standard character drawing claim from the application because the drawing of the mark contains a design element.  The drawing of the mark will be processed as a special form drawing, pursuant to 37 C.F.R. §2.52(b).  Exam Guide 01-03, section I.A.3, 5 and 6.

Color Claim and Color Description of the Mark - Omitted

 

The applicant must specify the colors that are claimed as a feature of the mark using the following format:  “The color(s) <specify> <is/are> claimed as a feature of the mark.”  37 C.F.R. §2.52(b)(1).  Common color names should be used to describe the colors in the mark, e.g., red, yellow, blue.  Exam Guide 01-03, section I.B.1.

 

The applicant must provide a description of where the colors appear in the mark.  37 C.F.R. §2.52(b)(1).  The following description is suggested:  “The color(s) <name of color(s)> appear in <specify portion of the mark on which color(s) appear>.”  Common color names should be used to describe the colors in the mark, e.g., red, yellow, blue.  Exam Guide 01-03, section I.B.1.

 

If accurate, the applicant may submit the following color claim statement:  “the color red is claimed as a feature of the mark.”

 

If accurate, the applicant may submit the following color description of the mark statement:  “the color red appears in the triangular design portion of the mark.”

New Drawing Required - Special-Form Drawing on Paper Requirements

 

The applicant must submit a new drawing that depicts the mark on white paper.  The current drawing is unacceptable because the mark is shown on gray paper.

 

The requirements for a special-form drawing are as follows:

 

·        The drawing must appear in black and white if color is not claimed as a feature of the mark, or in color if color is claimed as a feature of the mark.

 

·        Drawings must be typed or made with a pen or by a process that will provide high definition when copied.  A photolithographic, printer’s proof copy, or other high quality reproduction of the mark may be used.  All lines must be clean, sharp and solid, and must not be fine or crowded.

 

·        The image must be no larger than 3.15 inches (8 cm) high by 3.15 inches (8cm) wide.

 

·        If reduction of the mark to the required size renders any details illegible, then applicant may insert a statement in the application to describe the mark and these details.

 

37 C.F.R. §§2.52(b); See TMEP §§807.01(b) and 807.07(a).

 

If submitted on paper, the Office prefers that the drawing be depicted on a separate sheet of non-shiny, white paper that is 8 to 8.5 inches wide and 11 to 11.69 inches long (20.3 to 21.6 cm. wide and 27.9 to 29.7 cm. long).  One of the shorter sides of the sheet should be regarded as its top edge. In addition, the drawing should include the caption “DRAWING PAGE” at the top of the drawing beginning one-inch (2.5 cm) from the top edge.  37 C.F.R. §2.54.

 

The Office strictly enforces these drawing requirements.

Disclaimer

 

The applicant must disclaim the descriptive wording “FITNESS” apart from the mark as shown. Trademark Act Section 6, 15 U.S.C. §1056; TMEP §§1213 and 1213.03(a).  The wording is merely descriptive because it describes a characteristic or feature of the applicant’s goods and services.

 

The computerized printing format for the Trademark Official Gazette requires a standard form for a disclaimer.   TMEP §1213.08(a)(i).  A properly worded disclaimer should read as follows:

 

No claim is made to the exclusive right to use “FITNESS” apart from the mark as shown.

 

See In re Owatonna Tool Co., 231 USPQ 493 (Comm’r Pats. 1983).

 

 

NOTICE:  FEE CHANGE   

 

Effective January 31, 2005 and pursuant to the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2005, Pub. L. 108-447, the following are the fees that will be charged for filing a trademark application:

 

(1) $325 per international class if filed electronically using the Trademark Electronic Application System (TEAS); or 

 

(2)   $375 per international class if filed on paper

 

These fees will be charged not only when a new application is filed, but also when payments are made to add classes to an existing application. If such payments are submitted with a TEAS response, the fee will be  $325 per class, and if such payments are made with a paper response, the fee will be $375 per class.

 

The new fee requirements will apply to any fees filed on or after January 31, 2005.

 

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.

 

 

/Andrew Rhim/

Attorney-Adviser

Law Office 106

phone (571) 272-9711

fax (571) 273-9106

 

 

 

HOW TO RESPOND TO THIS OFFICE ACTION:

• ONLINE RESPONSE:  You may respond formally using the Office’s Trademark Electronic Application System (TEAS) Response to Office Action form (visit http://www.gov.uspto.report/teas/index.html and follow the instructions, but if the Office Action issued via email you must wait 72 hours after receipt of the Office Action to respond via TEAS).
• REGULAR MAIL RESPONSE:  To respond by regular mail, your response should be sent to the mailing return address above and include the serial number, law office number and examining attorney’s name in your response.

 

STATUS OF APPLICATION: To check the status of your application, visit the Office’s Trademark Applications and Registrations Retrieval (TARR) system at http://tarr.uspto.gov.

 

VIEW APPLICATION DOCUMENTS ONLINE: Documents in the electronic file for pending applications can be viewed and downloaded online at http://portal.gov.uspto.report/external/portal/tow.

 

GENERAL TRADEMARK INFORMATION: For general information about trademarks, please visit the Office’s website at http://www.gov.uspto.report/main/trademarks.htm

 

FOR INQUIRIES OR QUESTIONS ABOUT THIS OFFICE ACTION, PLEASE CONTACT THE ASSIGNED EXAMINING ATTORNEY SPECIFIED ABOVE.