Offc Action Outgoing

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  76/636774

 

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

 

Section 2(d) - Likelihood of Confusion Refusal

 

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/services, so resembles the mark in U.S. Registration No. 1451566 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. 

 

The applicant’s mark and the registant’s mark are identical, namely, MODELER.  If the marks of the respective parties are identical or highly similar, the examining attorney must consider the commercial relationship between the goods or services of the respective parties carefully to determine whether there is a likelihood of confusion.  In re Concordia International Forwarding Corp., 222 USPQ 355 (TTAB 1983).  TMEP §1207.01(a). 

 

The goods/services of the parties need not be identical or directly competitive to find a likelihood of confusion.  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/services come from a common source.  In re Martin’s Famous Pastry Shoppe, Inc., 748 F.2d 1565, 223 USPQ 1289 (Fed. Cir. 1984); In re Corning Glass Works, 229 USPQ 65 (TTAB 1985); In re Rexel Inc., 223 USPQ 830 (TTAB 1984); Guardian Products Co., Inc. v. Scott Paper Co., 200 USPQ 738 (TTAB 1978); In re International Telephone & Telegraph Corp., 197 USPQ 910 (TTAB 1978).  TMEP §1207.01(a)(i). 

 

The applicant’s goods are identified as “computer programs for network simulation and program manuals sold therewith as a unit.”  The registrant’s goods are “computer programs and program user manual all sold as a unit.”  The registrant’s identification of goods encompasses the applicant’s identification of goods.  Therefore, use of identical marks on the applicant’s computer program and the registrant’s computer program is likely to cause confusion.

 

 

 

Section 2(e)(1) - Descriptive Refusal

 

The examining attorney refuses registration on the Principal Register because the proposed mark merely describes the goods/services.  Trademark Act Section 2(e)(1), 15 U.S.C. §1052(e)(1); TMEP §§1209 et seq.

 

A mark is merely descriptive under Trademark Act Section 2(e)(1), 15 U.S.C. §1052(e)(1), if it describes an ingredient, quality, characteristic, function, feature, purpose or use of the relevant goods/services.  In re Gyulay, 820 F.2d 1216, 3 USPQ2d 1009 (Fed. Cir. 1987);  In re Bed & Breakfast Registry, 791 F.2d 157, 229 USPQ 818 (Fed. Cir. 1986); In re MetPath Inc., 223 USPQ 88 (TTAB 1984); In re Bright‑Crest, Ltd., 204 USPQ 591 (TTAB 1979); TMEP §1209.01(b).

 

The applicant’s seeks to register MODELER for use on computer programs for network simulation and program manuals sold as a unit therewith.  As evidenced by the attached definitions, representative third party registrations and Internet evidence, the term MODELER is descriptive of the function of the computer program, because it immediately identifies computer simulation software that “models.”  Therefore, the mark does not function as an indicator of source for the goods.

 

 

 

Distinctiveness under Section 2(f)

 

If the applicant believes that the mark has acquired distinctiveness, that is, that it has become a distinctive indicator of source for the goods/services, the applicant may amend to seek registration under Trademark Act Section 2(f), 15 U.S.C. §1052(f).  This Office will decide each case on its own merits.  The examining attorney will consider the following principal factors in this decision: (1) how long the applicant has used the mark; (2) the type and amount of advertising of the mark; and (3) the applicant’s efforts to associate the mark with the goods/services.  See Ralston Purina Co. v. Thomas J. Lipton, Inc., 341 F. Supp. 129, 173 USPQ 820 (S.D.N.Y. 1972); In re Packaging Specialists, Inc., 221 USPQ 917 (TTAB 1984); 37 C.F.R. §2.41; TMEP §§1212, 1212.01 and 1212.06.  This evidence may include specific dollar sales under the mark, advertising figures, samples of advertising, consumer or dealer statements of recognition of the mark, and any other evidence that establishes the distinctiveness of the mark as an indicator of source. 

 

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 informality.

 

Drawing-Standard Character Claim

 

The applicant must submit the following standard character claim:  “The mark is presented in standard characters without claim to any particular font style, size, or color.”  37 C.F.R. §2.52(a).

 

 

 

 

/Patty Evanko/

Trademark Attorney

Law Office 112

571-272-9404

patty.evanko@uspto.gov (questions only)

 

 

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 has been 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.