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. 

 

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  76/639581

 

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

 

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 and services, so resembles the marks in U.S. Registration Nos. 2887800, 2552825 and 2887800 as to be likely to cause confusion, or to cause mistake, or to deceive.  TMEP section 1207.  See the enclosed registration.

 

The Court in In re E. I. DuPont de Nemours & Co., 476 F.2d 1357, 177 USPQ 563 (CCPA 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 this case, the following factors are the most relevant:  similarity of the marks, similarity of the goods and services, and similarity of trade channels of the goods and services.

 

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 (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).

 

Comparison of the Marks

The examining attorney must look at the marks in their entireties under Section 2(d). 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., 224 USPQ 749 (Fed. Cir. 1985); Tektronix, Inc. v. Daktronics, Inc., 534 F.2d 915, 189 USPQ 693 (CCPA 1976). In re J.M. Originals Inc., 6 USPQ2d 1393 (TTAB 1988).

 

The applicant’s mark is DATAPOINT.  The conflicting similar marks are  DATAPOINT and CMD DATAPOINT.  The applicant’s mark is highly similar to the registered marks in sound and appearance.  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).

 

Comparisons of Goods and Services

The goods and 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 and 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 goods and services in the instant case are system for collating data from disparate legacy computer systems in a call center environment.  The goods and services for the registered marks are Providing temporary use of on-line, non-downloadable software for use to collect, manage, query, analyze, graph or report pertinent data and information for each phase of a school improvement planning process, CD-ROMS featuring information for tracking and monitoring construction projects for manufacturers, contractors and building professionals and School improvement software tools for knowledge management and data-driven decision making, namely, a comprehensive set of tools to collect, manage, query, analyze, graph and report pertinent data and information for each phase of a school improvement planning process.  Applicant’s goods and services are highly similar to registrant’s goods and services, are likely to be sold in the same commercial market as that of the registrant’s goods and services, and are likely to cause confusion, or to cause mistake, or to deceive as to the source of the goods and services.  Thus, the mark DATAPOINT must be refused.

 

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 requirement(s).

 

IDENTIFICATION OF GOODS

In the identification of services applicant must use the common commercial or generic names for the services, be as complete and specific as possible, and avoid the use of indefinite words and phrases.  If applicant chooses to use indefinite words and phrases such as "services in connection with," "such as," "including," "and like services," "systems," "products," "concepts," or "not limited to," then such terms must be followed by the word "namely" and a list of the specific services identified by their common commercial or generic names.  TMEP §§1402.01 and 1402.03(a).  The wording “system for collating data from disparate legacy computer systems in a call center environment” in the identification of goods is unacceptable as indefinite.  The applicant must amend the identification to specify the commercial name of the goods.  If there is no common commercial name for the product, the applicant must describe the product and its intended uses. TMEP §1402.01. The applicant may adopt the following identification, if accurate:

 

Call management system comprised of computer hardware and software for collating data from disparate legacy computer systems in a call center environment, and, if software is content- or field-specific, the field of use], in International Class 9.

 

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

 

The applicant may wish to consult the on-line identification manual on the PTO homepage for a searchable database of acceptable identifications for goods and services.  The manual is available at http://tess2.gov.uspto.report/netahtml/tidm.html 

 

 

//sio//

Stanley I. Osborne, Jr.

Trademark Attorney

Law Office 102

(571) 272-9205

(571) 273-9205 (fax)

 

 

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.