UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
|
SERIAL NO: 76/630887
APPLICANT: Structural Integrity Property Services, ETC.
|
|
|
CORRESPONDENT ADDRESS: THOMAS J. NIKOLAI |
RETURN ADDRESS: Commissioner for Trademarks P.O. Box 1451 Alexandria, VA 22313-1451
|
|
MARK: FLICKER WITHOUT THE FLAME
|
|
|
CORRESPONDENT’S REFERENCE/DOCKET NO: 20041317
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 76/630887
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 marks in U.S. Registration Nos. 0782726, 2377554, and 2612747. Trademark Act Section 2(d), 15 U.S.C. §1052(d); TMEP §§1207.01 et seq. See the enclosed registrations.
The Court in In re E. I. Du Pont de Nemours & Co., 476 F.2d 1357, 177 USPQ 563 (C.C.P.A. 1973), listed the principal factors to be considered in determining whether there is a likelihood of confusion under Section 2(d). Any one of the factors listed may be dominant in any given case, depending upon the evidence of record. In re Dixie Restaurants, Inc., 105 F.3d 1405, 41 USPQ2d 1531, 1533 (Fed. Cir. 1997); In this case, the following factors are the most relevant: similarity of the marks, similarity of the goods and/or services, and similarity of trade channels of the goods and/or services. See In re Opus One, Inc., 60 USPQ2d 1812 (TTAB 2001); In re Dakin’s Miniatures Inc., 59 USPQ2d 1593 (TTAB 1999); In re Azteca Restaurant Enterprises, Inc., 50 USPQ2d 1209 (TTAB 1999); In re L.C. Licensing Inc., 49 USPQ2d 1379 (TTAB 1998); TMEP §§1207.01 et seq.
When determining whether there is a likelihood of confusion under Section 2(d), the question is not whether people will confuse the marks, but rather whether the marks will confuse the people into believing that the goods they identify emanate 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. 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 applicant’s mark, FLICKER WITHOUT THE FLAME is similar to the registrants’ marks, FLICKER FLAME, FLAME FLICKER, and FLICKER FLAME GAS FIRE LOGS and will lead to consumer confusion. Specifically, the marks are similar in sound. Although the marks are not identical, they share a similar commercial impression because of the dominant elements that encompass the marks, namely FLICKER and FLAME.
Despite the addition of GAS FIRE LOGS to Reg. No. 2612747, disclaimed matter is typically less significant or less dominant when comparing marks. Although a disclaimed portion of a mark certainly cannot be ignored, and the marks must be compared in their entireties, one feature of a mark may be more significant in creating a commercial impression. In re Dixie Restaurants Inc., 105 F.3d 1405, 41 USPQ2d 1531 (Fed. Cir. 1997); In re National Data Corporation, 753 F.2d 1056, 224 USPQ 749 (Fed. Cir. 1985); and In re Appetito Provisions Co. Inc., 3 USPQ2d 1553 (TTAB 1987). See also Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Packard Press Inc., 281 F.3d 1261, 62 USPQ 2d 1001 (Fed. Cir. 2002); Tektronix, Inc. v. Daktronics, Inc., 534 F.2d 915, 189 USPQ 693 (C.C.P.A. 1976); In re El Torito Rests. Inc., 9 USPQ2d 2002 (TTAB 1988); In re Equitable Bancorporation, 229 USPQ 709 (TTAB 1986).
Reg. No. 2612747 also contains a design element. When a mark consists of a word portion and a design portion, the word portion is more likely to be impressed upon a purchaser’s memory and to be used in calling for the goods or services. Therefore, the word portion is normally accorded greater weight in determining likelihood of confusion. In re Dakin’s Miniatures Inc., 59 USPQ2d 1593, 1596 (TTAB 1999); In re Appetito Provisions Co., 3 USPQ2d 1553 (TTAB 1987); Amoco Oil Co. v. Amerco, Inc., 192 USPQ 729 (TTAB 1976); TMEP §1207.01(c)(ii).
Where the marks of the respective parties are identical or highly similar, then the commercial relationship between the goods or services of the respective parties must be analyzed carefully to determine whether there is a likelihood of confusion. In re Opus One Inc., 60 USPQ2d 1812, 1815 (TTAB 2001); In re Concordia Int’l Forwarding Corp., 222 USPQ 355 (TTAB 1983); TMEP §1207.01(a).
When determining whether there is a likelihood of confusion, all circumstances surrounding the sale of the goods and/or services are considered. Industrial Nucleonics Corp. v. Hinde, 475 F.2d 1197, 177 USPQ 386 (C.C.P.A. 1973). These circumstances include the marketing channels, the identity of the prospective purchasers and the degree of similarity between the marks and between the goods and/or services. In comparing the marks, similarity in any one of the elements of sound, appearance or meaning is sufficient to find a likelihood of confusion. In comparing the goods and/or services, it is necessary to show that they are related in some manner. In re Mack, 197 USPQ 755, 757 (TTAB 1977); TMEP §§1207.01 et seq.
The applicant has applied to register FLICKER WITHOUT THE FLAME for “battery-operated electronic controlled light that simulates the flame of a wax candle.” The registered mark, FLICKER FLAME, is for “electrical glow lamps”, the registered mark, FLAME FLICKER, is for “disposable lighters for grills, fireplaces, stoves and furnaces.” And the registered mark, FLICKER FLAME GAS FIRE LOGS is for “ gas or propane fired simulated fireplace logs.” Although the goods are not identical, they still share a similarity because they are used for lighting and illuminating. Consumers may believe that these goods emanate from a common source. It is also possible that these goods they are likely to travel along similar avenues of trade and to be marketed together. Accordingly, because confusion as to source is likely, registration is refused under Trademark Act Section 2 (d) based on likelihood of confusion.
Although the trademark examining attorney has refused registration, applicant may respond to the refusal to register by submitting evidence and arguments in support of registration.
If applicant chooses to respond to the refusal(s) to register, then applicant must also respond to the following requirement(s).
Specimen
Applicant must submit (1) a substitute specimen showing the mark as it is used in commerce on the goods or on packaging for the goods, and (2) a statement that “the substitute specimen was in use in commerce at least as early as the filing date of the application,” verified with a notarized affidavit or a signed declaration under 37 C.F.R. §2.20. 37 C.F.R. §§2.56 and 2.59(a); TMEP §§904.01 et seq. and 904.09.
The nature of the current specimen of record is unclear and is unacceptable as evidence of actual trademark use because the examining attorney cannot determine what it is. Examples of acceptable specimens for goods are tags, labels, instruction manuals, containers, photographs that show the mark on the goods or packaging, or displays associated with the goods at their point of sale. TMEP §§904.04 et seq.
Pending an adequate response to the above, registration is refused because the specimen of record does not show use of the proposed mark as a trademark. Trademark Act Sections 1, 2 and 45, 15 U.S.C. §§1051, 1052 and 1127; TMEP §§904.11 and 1202 et seq.
Sample Declaration for Substitue Specimen
The following is a sample declaration under 37 C.F.R. §2.20 with a supporting statement for a substitute specimen:
The undersigned being warned that willful false statements and the like are punishable by fine or imprisonment, or both, under 18 U.S.C. §1001, and that such willful false statements and the like may jeopardize the validity of the application or document or any registration resulting there from, declares that the substitute specimen was in use in commerce at least as early as the filing date of the application; all statements made of his/her own knowledge are true; and all statements made on information and belief are believed to be true.
_____________________________
(Signature)
_____________________________
(Print or Type Name and Position)
_____________________________
(Date)
Classification of Goods
Applicant must correct the classification of the goods in the application and amend the application to classify them in International Class 11. 37 C.F.R. §§2.32(a)(7) and 2.85; TMEP §§1401.02(a) and 1401.03(b).
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).
/Sani Khouri/
Examining Attroney
Law Office 110
571-272-5884-Phone
571-273-9110-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.