Offc Action Outgoing

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.

MAILING/E-MAILING DATE INFORMATION: If the mailing or e-mailing date of this Office action does not appear above, this information can be obtained by visiting the USPTO website at http://tarr.gov.uspto.report/, inserting the application serial number, and viewing the prosecution history for the mailing date of the most recently issued Office communication.

Serial Number 76/635888

This letter responds to applicant’s communication filed on May 10, 2006.

STATUS OF APPLICATION

In the original Office Action, applicant’s mark was refused registration under Section 2(d) because of a likelihood of confusion with U.S. Registration No. 1955884. In its response to the original Office Action, applicant requested suspension of its application for six months, pending an outcome of its investigation concerning U.S. Registration No. 1955884.

REQUEST FOR SUSPENSION DENIED

Under 37 C.F.R. §2.67, an examining attorney has the discretion to suspend an application "for good and sufficient cause." TMEP §716.02. The most common reasons for suspension of an application are: (1) applicant’s petition to cancel cited registration, (2) submission of a copy of a foreign registration in a §44(d) application, (3) conflicting marks in pending applications, (4) Inter Partes or court proceeding, and (5) suspension pending cancellation or expiration of cited registration. TMEP §§716.02(a) - 716.02(e). In the present case, applicant has not asserted any of these bases as a reason for suspending the application. Instead, applicant only requests the suspension on the basis of further investigation concerning whether the Section 2(d) likelihood of confusion refusal can be overcome. This basis is not “good and sufficient cause” for suspension.

LIKELIHOOD OF CONFUSION REFUSAL MAINTAINED AND MADE FINAL

In its response, applicant failed to make any arguments in response to the Section 2(d) likelihood of confusion refusal. Thus, the refusal to register under Section 2(d) for a likelihood of confusion with U.S. Registration No. 1955884 is hereby maintained and made FINAL.

Trademark Act Section 2(d) bars registration where an applied-for mark so resembles a registered mark that it is likely, when applied to the goods and/or services, to cause confusion, mistake or to deceive the potential consumer as to the source of the goods and/or services. TMEP §1207.01. The Court in In re E. I. DuPont de Nemours & Co., 476 F.2d 1357, 177 USPQ 563 (C.C.P.A. 1973), listed the principal factors to consider in determining whether there is a likelihood of confusion. Among these factors are the similarity of the marks as to appearance, sound, meaning and commercial impression, and the relatedness of the goods and/or services. The overriding concern is to prevent buyer confusion as to the source of the goods and/or services. In re Shell Oil Co., 992 F.2d 1204, 1208, 26 USPQ2d 1687, 1690 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Therefore, any doubt as to the existence of a likelihood of confusion must be resolved in favor of the registrant. In re Hyper Shoppes (Ohio), Inc., 837 F.2d 463, 6 USPQ2d 1025 (Fed. Cir. 1988); Lone Star Mfg. Co. v. Bill Beasley, Inc., 498 F.2d 906, 182 USPQ 368 (C.C.P.A. 1974).

Similarity of Marks

Marks may be confusingly similar in appearance where there are similar terms or phrases or similar parts of terms or phrases appearing in both applicant’s and registrant’s mark. See e.g., Crocker Nat’l Bank v. Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce, 228 USPQ 689 (TTAB 1986), aff’d 1 USPQ2d 1813 (Fed. Cir. 1987) (COMMCASH and COMMUNICASH); In re Phillips-Van Heusen Corp., 228 USPQ 949 (TTAB 1986) (21 CLUB and “21” CLUB (stylized)); In re Corning Glass Works, 229 USPQ 65 (TTAB 1985) (CONFIRM and CONFIRMCELLS); In re Collegian Sportswear Inc., 224 USPQ 174 (TTAB 1984) (COLLEGIAN OF CALIFORNIA and COLLEGIENNE); In re Pellerin Milnor Corp., 221 USPQ 558 (TTAB 1983) (MILTRON and MILLTRONICS); In re BASF A.G., 189 USPQ 424 (TTAB 1975) (LUTEXAL and LUTEX); TMEP §§1207.01(b)(ii) and (b)(iii).

The marks are compared in their entireties under a Section 2(d) analysis. Nevertheless, one feature of a mark may be recognized as more significant in creating a commercial impression. Greater weight is given to that dominant feature in determining whether there is a likelihood of confusion. In re National Data Corp., 753 F.2d 1056, 224 USPQ 749 (Fed. Cir. 1985); Tektronix, Inc. v. Daktronics, Inc., 534 F.2d 915, 189 USPQ 693 (C.C.P.A. 1976). In re J.M. Originals Inc., 6 USPQ2d 1393 (TTAB 1987); TMEP §1207.01(b)(viii).

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, 40, 108 USPQ 161 (D.C. Cir. 1956) (internal citation omitted).

The literal portions of applicant’s mark and U.S. Registration No. 1955884 are identical. The only difference in the marks is the addition of a design element in applicant’s mark. The addition of a design element does not change the commercial impression.

Moreover, registration of a mark in typed or standard character form means that the mark may be displayed in any lettering style. 37 C.F.R. §2.52(a). The rights associated with a mark in typed or standard character form reside in the wording itself, and registrant is free to adopt any style of lettering, including lettering identical to that used by applicant. Therefore, applicant’s presentation of its mark in special form will not avoid likelihood of confusion with a mark that is registered in typed or standard character form because the marks could be used in the same manner of display. See In re Melville Corp., 18 USPQ2d 1386, 1387-88 (TTAB 1991); In re Pollio Dairy Prods. Corp., 8 USPQ2d 2012, 2015 (TTAB 1988); Sunnen Prods. Co. v. Sunex Int’l Inc., 1 USPQ2d 1744, 1747 (TTAB 1987); In re Hester Indus., Inc., 231 USPQ 881, 882, n.6 (TTAB 1986); United Rum Merchants, Ltd. v. Fregal, Inc., 216 USPQ 217, 220 (TTAB 1982); Frances Denney, Inc. v. Vive Parfums, Ltd., 190 USPQ 302, 303-04 (TTAB 1976); TMEP §1207.01(c)(iii).

Similarity of Services

The goods and/or services of the parties need not be identical or directly competitive to find a likelihood of confusion. Instead, they need only be related in some manner, or the conditions surrounding their marketing be such that they could be encountered by the same purchasers under circumstances that could give rise to the mistaken belief that the goods and/or services come from a common source. On-line Careline Inc. v. America Online Inc., 229 F.3d 1080, 56 USPQ2d 1471 (Fed. Cir. 2000); In re Martin’s Famous Pastry Shoppe, Inc., 748 F.2d 1565, 223 USPQ 1289 (Fed. Cir. 1984); In re Melville Corp., 18 USPQ2d 1386, 1388 (TTAB 1991); In re Corning Glass Works, 229 USPQ 65 (TTAB 1985); In re Rexel Inc., 223 USPQ 830 (TTAB 1984); Guardian Prods. Co., Inc. v. Scott Paper Co., 200 USPQ 738 (TTAB 1978); In re Int’l Tel. & Tel. Corp., 197 USPQ 910 (TTAB 1978); TMEP §1207.01(a)(i).

Likelihood of confusion is determined on the basis of the goods or services as they are identified in the application and the registration. Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Packard Press Inc., 281 F.3d 1261, 62 USPQ2d 1001 (Fed. Cir. 2002); In re Shell Oil Co., 992 F.2d 1204, 26 USPQ2d 1687, 1690 n.4 (Fed. Cir. 1993); J & J Snack Foods Corp. v. McDonald’s Corp., 932 F.2d 1460, 18 USPQ2d 1889 (Fed. Cir. 1991); Octocom Systems Inc. v. Houston Computer Services Inc., 918 F.2d 937, 16 USPQ2d 1783 (Fed. Cir. 1990).

The registered mark, CARELINK, U.S. Registration No. 1955884, covers “provision and coordination of integrated, managed healthcare insurance benefits” while applicant identified “managed health care services, namely, coordinating health care, mental health, behavioral health, disability and dental care for others.” Registrant’s and applicant’s services both involve managed health care related services and coordination services for others. Thus, applicant’s mark is likely to cause confusion as to the source of the goods. Moreover, applicant’s specimens make it clear that the managed health care services relate to and/or include insurance coverage, with the use of the wording “an attractive new solution for health care coverage” and “CareLink offers insured and self-funded open access health plan products.”

PROPER RESPONSE TO FINAL REFUSAL

If applicant fails to respond to this final action within six months of the mailing date, the application will be abandoned. 15 U.S.C. §1062(b); 37 C.F.R. §2.65(a). Applicant may respond to this final action by:

(1) submitting a response that fully satisfies all outstanding requirements, if feasible (37 C.F.R. §2.64(a)); and/or

(2) filing an appeal to the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board, with an appeal fee of $100 per class (37 C.F.R. §§2.6(a)(18) and 2.64(a); TMEP §§715.01 and 1501 et seq.; TBMP Chapter 1200).

In certain circumstances, a petition to the Director may be filed to review a final action that is limited to procedural issues, pursuant to 37 C.F.R. §2.63(b)(2). 37 C.F.R. §2.64(a). See 37 C.F.R. §2.146(b), TMEP §1704, and TBMP Chapter 1201.05 for an explanation of petitionable matter. The petition fee is $100. 37 C.F.R. §2.6(a)(15).

/Jay C Besch/

Trademark Examining Attorney

Law Office 108

(571) 272-8606 voice

(571) 273-9108 official fax

jay.besch@uspto.gov

HOW TO RESPOND TO THIS OFFICE ACTION:

ONLINE RESPONSE: You may respond using the Office’s Trademark Electronic Application System (TEAS) Response to Office action form available on our website at http://www.gov.uspto.report/teas/index.html. If the Office action issued via e-mail, you must wait 72 hours after receipt of the Office action to respond via TEAS. NOTE: Do not respond by e-mail. THE USPTO WILL NOT ACCEPT AN E-MAILED RESPONSE.
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. NOTE: The filing date of the response will be the date of receipt in the Office, not the postmarked date. To ensure your response is timely, use a certificate of mailing. 37 C.F.R. §2.197.

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.