UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
SERIAL NO: 76/610967
APPLICANT: Continental Aktiengesellschaft
|
|
CORRESPONDENT ADDRESS: |
RETURN ADDRESS: Commissioner for Trademarks P.O. Box 1451 Alexandria, VA 22313-1451
|
MARK: LEADER
|
|
CORRESPONDENT’S REFERENCE/DOCKET NO: N/A
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 76/610967
The assigned examining attorney has reviewed the referenced application and determined the following.
REGISTRATION REFUSED - 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/services, so resembles the marks in U.S. Registration No. 1316857 as to be likely to cause confusion, to cause mistake, or to deceive. TMEP §§1207.01 et seq. See the enclosed registrations.
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 the applicant's mark is compared to a registered mark, "the points of similarity are of greater importance than the points of difference." Esso Standard Oil Co. v. Sun Oil Co., 229 F.2d 37, 108 USPQ 161 (D.C. Cir.), cert. denied, 351 U.S. 973, 109 USPQ 517 (1956). The applicant wishes to register the mark LEADER for tires and related goods, in Class 12. The registrant’s mark is FLIGHT LEADER for tires, in Class 12. To the registrant’s mark, the applicant merely dropped the descriptive term FLIGHT The applicant’s modification to the registrant’s mark does not change the commercial impression of the mark.[1] The marks of the parties are very similar.
As to the second part of the test, the goods are identical, namely, tires or they are very related goods, e.g. tire rims. As such, the goods will pass through the same trade channels. Therefore there is a likelihood of confusion and registration must be refused.
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.
INFORMALITY
If the applicant chooses to respond to the refusal to register, the applicant must also respond to the following informal issue.
The wording in the identification of goods is unacceptable as indefinite. The applicant may amend this wording to “Class 12 – tires, solid tires, inner tubes for automobile tires and automobile parts, namely, wheels and wheel rims ” if accurate. TMEP §1402.01.
In the identification, the applicant must use the common commercial names for the goods, be as complete and specific as possible and avoid the use of indefinite words and phrases. If the applicant chooses to use indefinite terms, such as “accessories,” “components,” “devices,” “equipment,” “materials,” “parts,” “systems” and “products,” then those words must be followed by the word “namely” and the goods listed by their common commercial names. TMEP §§1402.01 and 1402.03(a).
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.
For assistance regarding an acceptable listing of goods and/or services, please see the on‑line searchable Manual of Acceptable Identifications of Goods and Services, at http://www.gov.uspto.report/web/offices/tac/doc/gsmanual/.
NOTE:
If the applicant has any questions or needs assistance in responding to this Office action, please telephone the assigned examining attorney.
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.
/WILLIAM H. DAWE III/
Trademark Attorney
Law Office 108
(571) 272-9337
HOW TO RESPOND TO THIS OFFICE ACTION:
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.
[1] The mere deletion of wording from a registered mark is not sufficient to overcome a likelihood of confusion under Section 2(d). See In re Optical Int’l, 196 USPQ 775 (TTAB 1977) (where applicant filed to register the mark OPTIQUE for optical wear, deletion of the term BOUTIQUE is insufficient to distinguish the mark, per se, from the registered mark OPTIQUE BOUTIQUE when used in connection with competing optical wear). In the present case, applicant’s mark does not create a distinct commercial impression because it contains the same common wording as registrant’s mark, and there is no other wording to distinguish it from registrant’s mark.