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  76/605115

 

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

SECTION 2(D) - LIKELIHOOD OF CONFUSION REFUSAL

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, so resembles the marks in U.S. Registration Nos. 2823697 and 1415675 as to be likely to cause confusion, or to cause mistake, or to deceive.  TMEP §§1207.01 et seq.  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 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 registered marks are OCULUS covering “computer software, namely, software in the field of secure peer-to-peer data exchange and modeling in a distributed object-based modeling environment” (Reg. No. 282369) and OCULUS for “interface board, namely, frame grabbers for computers” (Reg. No. 1415675).  

In this case, the applicant’s mark OCULUS is highly similar to the cited marks visually and phonetically.  The addition of the generic top-level domain “.NET” to the applicant’s mark does not significantly affect a comparison of the marks, since the suffix merely signifies the online/internet aspect of the applicant’s goods or services. 

 

In addition, the applicant’s identification of goods and services encompasses products and activities which are the same or closely related to those covered by the cited registrations.  In particular, applicant’s “data visualization software” could include or be used in conjunction with frame grabbing programs used to digitize images or documents and software used to convert data into digital models.  Moreover, the applicant’s identified services conceivably encompass development of any type of software, including the software identified in the cited registrations.  In this regard, the examining attorney must determine whether there is a likelihood of confusion on the basis of the goods/services identified in the application and registration.  If the application describes the goods/services broadly and there are no limitations as to their nature, type, channels of trade or classes of purchasers, it is presumed that the application encompasses all goods/services of the type described, that they move in all normal channels of trade, and that they are available to all potential customers.  TMEP §1207.01(a)(iii).  Accordingly, because confusion is likely, registration is refused under Trademark Act Section 2(d) based on a likelihood of confusion.

 

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 informality.

 

IDENTIFICATION OF GOODS IN CLASS 9

 

The wording “data visualization software products for commercial and government sale that support data analysis and reporting” in the identification of goods is unacceptable as indefinite.  The applicant must clarify whether the term “products” relates to goods other than software.  The applicant also must amend the wording “commercial and government sale” to clarify whether the wording relates to the function of the goods or merely their intended users.  For example, the identification may be amended in the following manner, if accurate:

 

“Data visualization software for commercial and government use that supports data analysis and reporting,” in Class 9.

 

Please note that, while the identification of goods may be amended to clarify or limit the goods, adding to the goods or broadening the scope of the goods is not permitted.  37 C.F.R. §2.71(a); TMEP §1402.06.  Therefore, applicant may not amend the identification to include goods that are not within the scope of the goods set forth in the present identification.

 

The identification for Class 42 is acceptable as written.

 

DRAWING

 

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).

 

SPECIMEN FOR CLASS 42

 

The specimen is unacceptable as evidence of actual service mark use because use of the subject mark appears only in reference to applicant’s software goods.  A specimen is unacceptable if it does not show use of the service mark in relation to the identified service.  Intermed Communications, Inc. v. Chaney, 197 USPQ 501 (TTAB 1977).  The specimen must show use of the mark “in the sale or advertising of services.”  Trademark Act Section 45, 15 U.S.C. §1127; In re Universal Oil Products Co., 476 F.2d 653, 177 USPQ 456 (C.C.P.A. 1973); TMEP §§1301.04 et seq.  Therefore, the specimen must show the mark in reference to the particular services identified, namely, software development services for others.

 

The applicant must submit a specimen showing the mark as it is actually used in commerce.  37 C.F.R. §2.56.  Examples of acceptable specimens are signs, photographs, brochures or advertisements that show the mark used in the sale or advertising of the services.  TMEP §§1301.04 et seq.  The applicant must verify, with an affidavit or a declaration under 37 C.F.R. §2.20, that the substitute specimen was in use in commerce at least as early as the filing date of the application.  37 C.F.R. §2.59(a); TMEP §904.09.

 

The following is a sample declaration under 37 C.F.R. §2.20 with a supporting statement for a substitute specimen:

 

The undersigned being warned that willful false statements and the like are punishable by fine or imprisonment, or both, under 18 U.S.C. §1001, and that such willful false statements and the like may jeopardize the validity of the application or document or any registration resulting there from, declares that the substitute specimen was in use in commerce at least as early as the filing date of the application; all statements made of his/her own knowledge are true; and all statements made on information and belief are believed to be true.

 

 

_____________________________

(Signature)

 

_____________________________

(Print or Type Name and Position)

 

_____________________________

(Date)

 

Pending an adequate response to the above, the examining attorney refuses registration under Trademark Act Sections 1, 2, 3 and 45, 15 U.S.C. §§1051, 1052, 1053 and 1127, because the record does not show use of the proposed mark as a service mark.  TMEP §§904.11 and 1301.02 et seq.

 

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.

 

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

 

 

/Steven M. Perez/

Trademark Attorney

Law Office 112

(571) 272-5888

steven.perez@uspto.gov         

 

 

 

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.