UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE

 

 

 

OFFICE ACTION

 

RESPONSE TIME LIMIT:  TO AVOID ABANDONMENT, THE OFFICE MUST RECEIVE A PROPER RESPONSE TO THIS OFFICE ACTION WITHIN 6 MONTHS OF THE MAILING OR E-MAILING DATE. 

 

 

Serial Number  76/615615

 

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

 

Section 2(d) - Likelihood of Confusion Refusal

Registration of the proposed mark is refused because of a likelihood of confusion with the mark in U.S. Registration No. 2,948,856.  Both marks include the word “smart” and derivatives of the root term “navigat” for goods or services related to global positioning systems.  See attached evidence from an on-line acronym dictionary, showing the meaning of ‘nav”.  Trademark Act Section 2(d), 15 U.S.C. §1052(d); TMEP §§1207.01 et seq.  See the enclosed registration.

 

Taking into account the relevant DuPont factors, a likelihood of confusion determination in this case involves a two-part analysis.  First, the marks are compared 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 goods or services are compared to determine whether they are similar or related or whether the activities surrounding their marketing are such that confusion as to origin is likely.  In re National Novice Hockey League, Inc., 222 USPQ 638 (TTAB 1984); In re August Storck KG, 218 USPQ 823 (TTAB 1983); In re Int’l Tel. and Tel. Corp., 197 USPQ 910 (TTAB 1978); Guardian Prods. Co., v. Scott Paper Co., 200 USPQ 738 (TTAB 1978); TMEP §§1207.01 et seq.

 

When 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).

 

Section 2(e)(1) - Descriptive Refusal

Registration is refused because the proposed mark merely describes the medium and function of applicant’s goods and/or services.  Trademark Act Section 2(e)(1), 15 U.S.C. §1052(e)(1); TMEP §§1209 et seq.

 

The term “smart” has been held merely descriptive of automated devices.  See In re Cryomedical Sciences Inc., 32 USPQ2d 1377, 1378 (TTAB 1994) (SMARTPROBE merely descriptive of disposable cryosurgical probes); See also In re Tower Tech, Inc., 64 USPQ2d 1314 (TTAB 2002) (SMARTTOWER merely descriptive of “commercial and industrial cooling towers and accessories therefor, sold as a unit”).

 

Terms that describe the function or purpose of a product or service may be merely descriptive or generic under 15 U.S.C. §1051(e)(1).  In re Gould Paper Corp., 834 F.2d 1017, 5 USPQ2d 1110 (Fed. Cir. 1987) (SCREENWIPE held generic for an anti-static cloth used for cleaning computer and television screens); In re Central Sprinkler Co., 49 USPQ2d 1194 (TTAB 1998) (ATTIC generic for sprinklers installed primarily in attics); In re Reckitt & Colman, North America Inc., 18 USPQ2d 1389 (TTAB 1991) (PERMA PRESS generic for soil and stain removers for use on permanent press products); In re Wallyball, Inc., 222 USPQ 87 (TTAB 1984) (WALLYBALL held descriptive of sports clothing and game equipment); In re National Presto Industries, Inc., 197 USPQ 188 (TTAB 1977) (BURGER held merely descriptive of cooking utensils); In re Orleans Wines, Ltd., 196 USPQ 516 (TTAB 1977) (BREADSPRED held merely descriptive of jams and jellies).

 

A mark that combines descriptive terms is generally not registrable unless the composite creates a unitary mark with a unique, non-descriptive meaning or commercial impression.  In re Tower Tech, Inc., 64 USPQ2d 1314 (TTAB 2002) (SMARTTOWER merely descriptive of “commercial and industrial cooling towers and accessories therefor, sold as a unit”); In re Sun Microsystems Inc., 59 USPQ2d 1084 (TTAB 2001) (AGENTBEANS held merely descriptive of “computer software for use in the development and deployment of application programs on a global computer network”); In re Shiva Corp., 48 USPQ2d 1957 (TTAB 1998) (TARIFF MANAGEMENT held merely descriptive for “computer hardware and computer programs to control, reduce and render more efficient wide area network (WAN) usage and printed user manuals sold therewith”); In re Putnam Publishing Co., 39 USPQ2d 2021 (TTAB 1996) (FOOD & BEVERAGE ON-LINE merely descriptive of “a news and information service updated daily for the food processing industry, contained in a database”); In re Copytele, Inc., 31 USPQ2d 1540 (TTAB 1994) (SCREEN FAX PHONE merely descriptive of “facsimile terminals employing electrophoretic displays”); In re Digital Research Inc., 4 USPQ2d 1242 (TTAB 1987) (CONCURRENT DOS and CONCURRENT PC-DOS held merely descriptive of “computer programs recorded on disk”).

 

If applicant chooses to respond to the refusals to register, then applicant must also respond to the following requirements.

 

Identification of Goods and Services

Applicant is required to delete parentheses, now in Class 9, from the description of goods and services.  The Office currently uses brackets only in the post-registration process.  Applicant indicates the function of its goods but does not list them by generic designation.  This is required, if possible.  For example, electrical and electronic apparatus and instruments, namely remote controls, for immobilizing automotive vehicles. 

 

Locating, tracking and monitoring vehicles is in Class 35, rather than 39.

 

At the beginning of Class 42, the word “advice” should be amended to “consulting” to comply with the Office’s on-line classification manual.   

 

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

 

Combined Applications

If applicant prosecutes this application as a combined, or multiple-class application, then applicant must comply with each of the following for those goods and/or services based on Section(s) 1(b) and/or 44(e):

 

(1)   Applicant must list the goods and/or services by international class with the classes listed in ascending numerical order.  TMEP § 1403.01; and

 

(2)   Applicant must submit a filing fee for each international class of goods and/or services not covered by the fee already paid (current fee information should be confirmed at http://www.uspto.gov).  37 C.F.R. §2.86(a)(2); TMEP §§810 and 1403.01.

 

Certificate Required

Applicant must submit a copy of the foreign registration to satisfy the requirement of Trademark Act Section 44(e).  15 U.S.C. §1126(e).  If the foreign certificate of registration is not written in English, then applicant must provide an English translation signed by the translator.  See TMEP §§1004.01 and 1004.01(b).

 

The application does not presently contain a copy of the foreign registration.  An application filed under Section 44(e) must include a true copy, photocopy, certification or certified copy of a foreign registration or a registered extension of protection of an international registration from the applicant’s country of origin.  If applicant’s country of origin does not issue registrations or certificates of extension of protection, applicant may submit a copy of the international registration, showing that protection of the international registration has been extended to applicant’s country of origin.  TMEP §§1004 et seq. and 1016.

 

Applicant’s country of origin must either be a party to a convention or treaty relating to trademarks to which the United States is also a party, or must extend reciprocal registration rights to nationals of the United States by law.  See TMEP §§1002.01 and 1004.

 

Option to Delete Basis

Applicant must advise the trademark examining attorney whether applicant intends to rely solely on the foreign registration as the basis for registration.  The foreign registration alone may serve as the basis for obtaining a U.S. registration resulting from this application.

 

Unless applicant indicates otherwise, this Office will presume that the applicant wishes to rely on both Section 1(b) and Section 44(e) as the bases for registration.  In this case, although the application may be approved for publication, the mark will not register until an acceptable allegation of use has been filed.

 

Signed Declaration Required

Applicant must submit a statement attesting to the facts set forth in the application, dated and signed by a person authorized to sign under 37 C.F.R. §2.33(a), and verified with a notarized affidavit or signed declaration under 37 C.F.R. §2.20.  37 C.F.R. §§2.32(b) and 2.33.  No signed verification was provided with the application.

 

If the application is based on Trademark Act Section 1(b) or 44, 15 U.S.C. §1051(b) or §1126, the verified statement must include an allegation that “applicant had a bona fide intention to use the mark in commerce on or in connection with the goods or services listed in the application as of the application filing date.”  15 U.S.C. §1051(b)(3)(B); 37 C.F.R. §§2.34(a)(2)(i), 2.34(a)(3)(i) and 2.34(a)(4)(ii); TMEP §§804.02, 806.01(b), 806.01(c), 806.01(d) and 1101.

 

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.

 

 

/Hannah Fisher/

Trademark Examining Attorney

Law Office 111

Phone: (301) 610-5388 or (571) 272-9160

Fax: (571) 273-9111

 

 

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.