UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
SERIAL NO: 76/616100
APPLICANT: Schaerer Mayfield USA, Inc.
|
|
CORRESPONDENT ADDRESS: |
RETURN ADDRESS: Commissioner for Trademarks P.O. Box 1451 Alexandria, VA 22313-1451
|
MARK: SCANMATE
|
|
CORRESPONDENT’S REFERENCE/DOCKET NO: OHM-186-116
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 76/616100
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. 1971720. Trademark Act Section 2(d), 15 U.S.C. §1052(d); TMEP §§1207.01 et seq. See the enclosed registration.
Regarding the issue of likelihood of confusion, the question is not whether people will confuse the marks, but whether the marks will confuse people into believing that the goods they identify come from the same source. In re West Point-Pepperell, Inc., 468 F.2d 200, 175 USPQ 558 (C.C.P.A. 1972). For that reason, the test of likelihood of confusion is not whether the marks can be distinguished when subjected to a side-by-side comparison. The question is whether the marks create the same overall impression. Recot, Inc. v. M.C. Becton, 214 F.2d 1322, 54 USPQ2d 1894, 1890 (Fed. Cir. 2000); Visual Information Inst., Inc. v. Vicon Indus. 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 §1207.01(b).
Applicant’s mark, SCANMATE, is similar in appearance to registrant’s mark, SCANMATEPRO. The slight difference between the marks is with the additional wording “pro” at the end of registrant’s mark. This difference does not alter the commercial impression that the marks are similar or related. Consumers would likely believe that applicant’s goods were a different version or from the same line of products as registrant’s goods. Registrant’s goods, medical apparatus and instruments, would encompass applicant’s medical scanning device. Because consumers seeking out the goods would likely be confused as to the source, registration is refused based on Trademark Act Section 2(d).
If applicant chooses to respond to the refusal(s) to register, then applicant must also respond to the following requirement(s).
Drawing
Applicant must submit the following standard character claim: “The mark consists of standard characters without claim to any particular font style, size, or color.” 37 C.F.R. §2.52(a); TMEP §807.03(a).
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.
/Tejbir Singh/
Trademark Attorney
Law Office 106
(571) 272-5878
(571) 273-9106 (fax)
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.