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  76/638412

 

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

 

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. 1799981 and 2921608.  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.

 

Taking into account the relevant Du Pont factors, a likelihood of confusion determination in this case involves a two-part analysis.  First, the marks are compared for similarities in appearance, sound, connotation and commercial impression.  In re E .I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., 476 F.2d 1357, 177 USPQ 563 (C.C.P.A. 1973).  Second, the goods or services are compared to determine whether they are similar or related or whether the activities surrounding their marketing are such that confusion as to origin is likely.  In re National Novice Hockey League, Inc., 222 USPQ 638 (TTAB 1984); In re August Storck KG, 218 USPQ 823 (TTAB 1983); In re Int’l Tel. and Tel. Corp., 197 USPQ 910 (TTAB 1978); Guardian Prods. Co., v. Scott Paper Co., 200 USPQ 738 (TTAB 1978); TMEP §§1207.01 et seq.

 

Regarding the issue of 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 White Swan Ltd., 8 USPQ2d 1534, 1536 (TTAB 1988); In re Lamson Oil Co., 6 USPQ2d 1041, 1043 (TTAB 1987); In re Mack, 197 USPQ 755, 757 (TTAB 1977); TMEP §§1207.01 et seq.

 

Applicant’s mark is AQUIRE for computer software for creating and publishing business and hierarchy charts and data for use on local area networks and global computer networks.  Registrant’s marks are ACQUIRE, Registration No. 1799981, for data processing software which creates and manages a data base consisting of reports normally stored on paper and or microfiche and ACCQUIRE (and design element), for computer software used for tracking business opportunities, namely leads featuring prospective students for higher education and continuing education programs.  The marks in question are essentially phonetic equivalents.  Similarity in sound alone is sufficient to find a likelihood of confusion.  Molenaar, Inc. v. Happy Toys Inc., 188 USPQ 469 (TTAB 1975); In re Cresco Mfg. Co., 138 USPQ 401 (TTAB 1963).

 

Providers for software for charts creating also provide software for use in connection with reports and business charts are also used in connection with business related issues, such as business opportunities.  The goods are likely to travel through the same channels of trade and are likely to be encountered by the same consumers.  The average consumer when coming across the goods of the applicant and of the registrant are likely to be confused as to the source of origin of the goods.

 

The examining attorney attaches evidence in the nature of trademark registrations and applications for related goods and services. The Trademark Trial and Appeal Board has held that materials obtained through computerized text searching are competent evidence to show the descriptive use of terms under Trademark Act Section 2(e)(1), 15 U.S.C. Section 1052(e)(1).  In re National Data Corp., 222 USPQ 515, 517 n.3 (TTAB 1984).

 

 

Therefore, for the reasons listed above, registration is refused under section 2(d) of the Trademarks Act.  The examining attorney attaches copies of the cited registrations for your review and consideration. 

 

 

PRIOR PENDING APPLICATION

 

The examining attorney encloses information regarding pending Application Serial No. 78629243.  37 C.F.R. Section 2.83. 

 

There may be a likelihood of confusion between the applicant's mark and the mark in the above noted application under Section 2(d) of the Act.  The filing date of the referenced application precedes the applicant's filing date.  If the earlier‑filed application matures into a registration, the examining attorney may refuse registration under Section 2(d).

 

 

If the applicant has any questions or needs assistance in responding to this Office action, please telephone or e-mail the assigned examining attorney.

 

 

 

 

Florentina Blandu, Esq.

/FBLANDU/

l.o.112

tel. (571) 272-9128

fax (571) 273-9128

e-mail florentina.blandu@uspto.gov (for informal communications)

 

 

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.