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  76/638531

 

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

 

Refusal based on 2(d) – Likelihood of Confusion

 

The examining attorney refuses registration under Trademark Act Section 2(d), 15 U.S.C. Section 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. 2660351  as to be likely to cause confusion, to cause mistake, or to deceive.  TMEP section 1207.  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 for similarities in appearance, sound, connotation and commercial impression.  In re E. I. DuPont de Nemours & Co., 476 F.2d 1357, 177 USPQ 563 (CCPA 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).

 

Comparing the Marks

 

The examining attorney must compare the marks for similarities in sound, appearance, meaning or connotation.  In re E. I. DuPont de Nemours & Co., 476 F.2d 1357, 177 USPQ 563 (CCPA 1973).  Similarity in any one of these elements is sufficient to find a likelihood of confusion. In re Mack, 197 USPQ 755 (TTAB 1977).

 

The applicant’s mark is VIADUCT with a design element and the registrant’s mark is VIADUCT.  The marks of the parties are similar in appearance, sound, connotation, and commercial impression, because the literal component of the applicant’s mark is identical to the registrant’s mark.  The applicant’s mark also contains a design, but it does not change the appearance and commercial impression sufficiently to avoid the likelihood of confusion.  Therefore the similarities in the elements that exist are sufficient to find a likelihood of confusion.

 

Goods Need Not be Identical or Competing

 

The goods 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 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).

 

The applicant’s goods are “medical device and surgical instrument for use in diagnosis and surgery involving the gastrointestinal tract, including the common bile duct and pancreatic duct of the biliary system” and the registrant’s goods are “medical diagnostic, surgical and treatment apparatus for use in microendoscopic procedures.”  The goods are related because the registrant’s identification of goods encompasses goods of the same sort as those offered by the applicant.  Further, the goods are likely to travel in the same channels of trade.  The conditions surrounding the marketing of the goods may be such that they could be encountered by the same purchasers under circumstances that could give rise to the mistaken belief that the goods come from a common source.

 

Because of the similarities between the marks and the goods of the parties, a likelihood of confusion is created.  The examining attorney must resolve any doubt regarding a likelihood of confusion in favor of the prior registrant.  In re Hyper Shoppes (Ohio), Inc., 837 F.2d 463, 6 USPQ2d 1025 (Fed. Cir., 1988).

 

If the applicant chooses to respond to the refusal to register, the applicant must also respond to the following informality.

 

Identification of Goods

 

The identification of goods needs clarification because applicant uses the wording “including.”  The identification of goods must be specific and all-inclusive.  Please note that applicant may amend the identification to list only those items that are within the scope of the goods set forth in the application.  37 C.F.R. §2.71(a); TMEP §§1402.01 and 1402.03(a).

 

For assistance with identifying and classifying goods and/or services in trademark applications, please see the online searchable Manual of Acceptable Identifications of Goods and Services at http://tess2.gov.uspto.report/netahtml/tidm.html.

 

The applicant may adopt the following identification of goods, if accurate: 

 

Medical device and surgical instrument for use in diagnosis and surgery involving the gastrointestinal tract, the common bile duct and pancreatic duct of the biliary system, in International Class 10.

 

Please note that, while the identification of goods may be amended to clarify or limit the goods, adding to the goods or broadening the scope of the goods is not permitted.  37 C.F.R. §2.71(a); TMEP §1402.06.  Therefore, applicant may not amend the identification to include goods that are not within the scope of the goods set forth in the present identification.

 

Applicant’s Response

 

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.

 

The Trademark Applications and Registrations Retrieval (TARR) database on the USPTO website at http://tarr.uspto.gov provides detailed, up to the minute information about the status and prosecution history of trademark applications and registrations.  The TARR database is available 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.  Status and status date information is also available via push-button telephone at (703) 305‑8747 from 6:30 a.m. until midnight, Eastern Time, Monday through Friday. 

 

 

/Michael J. Souders/

Trademark Examining Attorney

Law Office 115

(571) 272-9483

 

 

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.