To: | Royce Medical Company (docketla@fulpat.com) |
Subject: | TRADEMARK APPLICATION NO. 76626337 - FAST CAST - ROYCE-70108 |
Sent: | 8/4/2005 12:56:26 PM |
Sent As: | ECOM101@USPTO.GOV |
Attachments: | Attachment - 1 Attachment - 2 |
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
SERIAL NO: 76/626337
APPLICANT: Royce Medical Company
|
|
CORRESPONDENT ADDRESS: |
RETURN ADDRESS: Commissioner for Trademarks P.O. Box 1451 Alexandria, VA 22313-1451
|
MARK: FAST CAST
|
|
CORRESPONDENT’S REFERENCE/DOCKET NO: ROYCE-70108
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 76/626337
The assigned examining attorney has reviewed the referenced application and determined the following.
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 mark in U.S. Registration No. 2,660,086 as to be likely to cause confusion, to cause mistake, or to deceive. TMEP §§1207.01 et seq. See the enclosed registration.
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.
Both marks are dominated by the word “FAST,” which is accompanied by a descriptive or generic term. 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).
The registrant’s “external fixation device for use in orthopedic corrective procedures” could include splints, casts and supports. Even if the goods are specifically different, they are closely related, orthopedic items that would likely be perceived as coming from the same source.
The fact that the goods of the parties differ is not controlling in determining likelihood of confusion. The issue is not likelihood of confusion between particular goods, but likelihood of confusion as to the source of those goods. In re Shell Oil Co., 992 F.2d 1204, 1208, 26 USPQ2d 1687, 1690 (Fed. Cir. 1993), and cases cited therein.
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.
The identification of goods is unacceptable because “orthopedic” is misspelled, and “casts” must be modified as being “plaster.” The applicant may adopt the following identification, if accurate: “Orthopedic plaster casts, splints and supports,” in class 10. TMEP §1402.01.
The applicant must rewrite the identification of goods in its entirety because of the nature and extent of the amendment. 37 C.F.R. §2.74(b).
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.
The applicant must insert a disclaimer of the generic word “CAST” in the application. Trademark Act Section 6, 15 U.S.C. §1056; TMEP §§1213 and 1213.08(a)(i).
A properly worded disclaimer should read as follows:
No claim is made to the exclusive right to use “CAST” apart from the mark as shown.
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).
/Ira Goodsaid/
/Ira Goodsaid/
Law Office 101
571-272-9166
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.