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  76/607505

 

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

 

LIKELIHOOD OF CONFUSION REFUSAL

 

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. 2411983 as to be likely to cause confusion, or to cause mistake, or to deceive.  TMEP section 1207.  See the enclosed registration.

 

Section 2(d) of the Trademark Act bars registration where a mark so resembles a registered mark, that it is likely, when applied to the goods or services, to cause confusion, or to cause mistake or to deceive. TMEP section 1207.01.  The Court in In re E. I. DuPont de Nemours & Co., 476 F.2d 1357, 177 USPQ 563 (CCPA 1973), listed the principal factors to consider in determining whether there is a likelihood of confusion.  Among these factors are the similarity of the marks as to appearance, sound, meaning and commercial impression and the similarity of the goods or services.  The overriding concern is to prevent buyer confusion as to the source of the goods or services.  Miss Universe, Inc. v. Miss Teen U.S.A., Inc., 209 USPQ 698 (N.D. Ga. 1980).  Therefore, any doubt as to the existence of a likelihood of confusion must be resolved in favor of the registrant.  Lone Star Mfg. Co. v. Bill Beasley, Inc., 498 F.2d 906, 182 USPQ 368 (CCPA 1974).

 

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).

 

COMPARISON OF THE MARKS

 

The test of likelihood of confusion is not whether the marks can be distinguished when subjected to a side‑by‑side comparison.  The issue is whether the marks create the same overall impression. Visual Information Institute, Inc. v. Vicon Industries 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 section 1207.01(b).

 

The cited registration is the mark and design “USP ULTRA SYSTEM PRODUCTS.”  The applicant’s mark is “USP.”  The marks are compared in their entireties under a Section 2(d) analysis.  Nevertheless, one feature of a mark may be recognized as more significant in creating a commercial impression.  Greater weight is given to that dominant feature in determining whether there is a likelihood of confusion.  In re National Data Corp., 753 F.2d 1056, 224 USPQ 749 (Fed. Cir. 1985); Tektronix, Inc. v. Daktronics, Inc., 534 F.2d 915, 189 USPQ 693 (C.C.P.A. 1976). In re J.M. Originals Inc., 6 USPQ2d 1393 (TTAB 1987); TMEP §1207.01(b)(viii).  The wording “USP” in the registrant’s mark may be recognized as dominant and most significant in creating a commercial impression, because the average purchaser of goods retains only a vague recollection of marks encountered in marketplace, and this recollection may logically be triggered by the first word of a mark, especially if it is word or term not frequently encountered in similar marketing experiences. See Tony Lama Company, Inc. v. Anthony Di Stefano, 206 USPQ 176 (TTAB 1980).  Said dominant wording and the wording “USP” that comprises the applicant’s proposed mark is identical in sound, appearance, meaning and commercial impression.  Similarity in any one of these elements is sufficient to find a likelihood of confusion. In re Mack, 197 USPQ 755 (TTAB 1977).

 

The literal portion, “USP,” of both marks are identical in appearance, sound and commercial impression.  Accordingly, the addition of the design element to the registrant’s mark does not obviate the similarity between the marks.  In re Shell Oil Company, 992 F.2d 1204, 26 USPQ2d 1687 (Fed. Cir. 1993); Coca-Cola Bottling Co. v. Joseph E. Seagram & Sons, Inc., 526 F.2d 556, 188 USPQ 105 (C.C.P.A. 1975); TMEP §§1207.01(b)(viii) and 1207.01(c)(ii).

 

 

COMPARISON OF THE GOODS

 

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).  The goods or 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 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 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).

 

The registered mark is used in connection with “rust preservative in the nature of a coating, for the home and commercial building markets.” The applicant’s proposed mark will be used in connection with “adhesives and coatings for use in roofing applications.”  Likelihood of confusion is determined on the basis of the goods or services as they are identified in the application and the registration.  Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce v. Wells Fargo Bank, 811 F.2d 1490, 1 USPQ2d 1813 (Fed. Cir. 1987); Paula Payne Products Co. v. Johnson Publishing Co., Inc., 473 F.2d 901, 177 USPQ 76 (C.C.P.A. 1973).  Since the identification of the applicant’s goods is very broad, it is presumed that the application encompasses all goods of the type described, including those in the registrant’s more specific identification, that they move in all normal channels of trade and that they are available to all potential customers.  TMEP §1207.01(a)(iii).  Consequently, consumers are likely to be confused as to the source of the registrant’s goods and the applicant’s goods and believe that the goods emanate from a common source.  Based on the foregoing, registration is refused.

 

OTHER ISSUES

 

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 issues.

 

UNACCEPTABLE IDENTIFICATION AND CLASSIFICATION OF GOODS

 

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, 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).

 

The application lists the goods, “adhesives and coatings for use in roofing applications,” and classifies all of such goods in International Class 1. The wording in the identification of goods is unacceptable as indefinite. TMEP section 1402.01.  Further, the goods may be classified in more than one class.  To follow are the examining attorney’s suggestions concerning the applicant’s identification and classification of goods.  The applicant may amend the application pursuant to the examining attorney’s suggestions, if accurate:

 

“Roofing adhesives” in International Class 1.

 

AND

 

“_______________ (specify type of coatings, e.g., asphalt, bituminous) roof coatings” in International Class 19.

 

It is strongly recommended that the applicant review the Office’s Trademark Manual of Acceptable Identifications and Classifications for Goods and Services which is available on-line at http://www.gov.uspto.report/web/offices/tac/doc/gsmanual.

 

APPLICANT MAY NOT EXCEED SCOPE OF PRESENT IDENTIFICATION OF GOODS

 

While an application may be amended to clarify or limit the identification of goods, additions to the identification are not permitted.  37 C.F.R. Section 2.71(b).  TMEP section 1402.06.  Therefore, the applicant may not amend to include any goods that are not within the scope of the present identification.

 

MULTI-CLASS REQUIREMENTS

 

If the applicant prosecutes this application as a combined, or multiple‑class, application, the applicant must comply with each of the following.

 

(1)  The applicant must list the goods by international class with the classes listed in ascending numerical order.  TMEP section 1113.01.

 

(2)  The applicant must submit a filing fee for each international class of goods not covered by the fee already paid.  37 C.F.R. Sections 2.6(a)(1) and 2.86(b); TMEP sections 810.01 and 1113.01.  Currently, the fee for filing a trademark application is $325 per international class if filed electronically using the Trademark Electronic Application System (TEAS) or  (2)   $375 per international class if filed on paper.

 

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.

 

Sonya B. Stephens

 

/Sonya B. Stephens/

Trademark Attorney

Law Office 108

(571) 272-9352 (phone)

(571) 273-9108 (fax)

fax no. for official responses only

 

 

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.