UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE

 

 

EXAMINER’S AMENDMENT/PRIORITY 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.  If applicant responds to the issues below within two months of the above mailing or e-mailing date, this case will be given priority handling. 

 

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.

 

QUESTIONS:  Please contact the assigned trademark examining attorney with any questions.

 

 

Serial Number 76/647417

 

EXAMINER'S AMENDMENT

 

In accordance with the authorization granted pursuant to TMEP §707.02, the application has been AMENDED as indicated below.  No response is necessary unless there is an objection to the amendment.

 

STANDARD CHARACTER DRAWING CLAIM

 

The mark consists of standard characters without claim to any particular font style, size, or color.

 

37 C.F.R. §2.52(a); TMEP §807.03(a).

 

 

PRIORITY ACTION

 

Applicant must respond to each refusal and/or requirement raised below.  If applicant responds to the issues below within two months of the above mailing or e-mailing date, this case will be given priority handling.  TMEP §§708.01 and 708.05.

 

LIKELIHOOD OF CONFUSION

 

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 services, so resembles the mark in U.S. Registration No. 2524051 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 applied to register the mark WALLTEK for “services related to engineering, designing, and construction of retaining walls, screen walls, mechanically stabilized earth structures, poured concrete and ail related construction services.”  The registered mark is WALL TECHNOLOGIES (and design) for “land development and building construction services, namely, installing structures for retaining earth and supporting improvements, including but not limited to roads and buildings.”

 

I.                    Comparison of 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 (C.C.P.A. 1973).  Similarity in any one of these elements is sufficient to find a likelihood of confusion. In re Mack, 197 USPQ 755 (TTAB 1977).  TMEP §§1207.01(b) et seq. 

 

The test of likelihood of confusion is not whether the marks can be distinguished when subjected to a side‑by‑side comparison.  The issue is whether the marks create the same overall impression. Visual Information Institute, Inc. v. Vicon Industries Inc., 209 USPQ 179 (TTAB 1980).  The focus is on the recollection of the average purchaser who normally retains a general rather than specific impression of trademarks.  Chemetron Corp. v. Morris Coupling & Clamp Co., 203 USPQ 537 (TTAB 1979); Sealed Air Corp. v. Scott Paper Co., 190 USPQ 106 (TTAB 1975); TMEP §1207.01(b).

 

The marks under consideration are very similar in sound and connotation.  Specifically, the marks share the term “WALL” and the sound “TECH.”  When the 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, 108 USPQ 161 (D.C. Cir.), cert. denied, 351 U.S. 973, 109 USPQ 517 (1956).  TMEP §1207.01(b). 

 

When a mark consists of a word portion and a design portion, the word portion is more likely to be impressed upon a purchaser’s memory and to be used in calling for the goods or services.  Therefore, the word portion is normally accorded greater weight in determining likelihood of confusion.  In re Dakin’s Miniatures Inc., 59 USPQ2d 1593, 1596 (TTAB 1999); In re Appetito Provisions Co., 3 USPQ2d 1553 (TTAB 1987); Amoco Oil Co. v. Amerco, Inc., 192 USPQ 729 (TTAB 1976); TMEP §1207.01(c)(ii).  Thus, the design in the registered mark does not obviate the similarity between the marks.

 

II.                 Comparison of Services

 

The 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 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). 

 

Here, the services are virtually identical.

 

Therefore, because of the similarities between the marks and services of the parties, a likelihood of confusion as to the source of these services must be found to exist.

 

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 requirements.

 

RECITATION OF SERVICES

 

In the identification, the applicant should use the common commercial designation for the services, be as complete and specific as possible and avoid the use of indefinite words and phrases.  The applicant may not include broad wording such as “services in connection with...” or “such as” or “including” or “and like services” or “systems” or “products” or “concepts” or “not limited to....”  TMEP §§1402.03(a) and 1402.11.

 

Moreover, the recitation of services is too broad because it could include services classified in other classes.  The applicant must amend the identification to list each service by its common commercial name.  TMEP §1402.11.  The applicant may adopt the following recitation of services, if accurate: 

 

Construction of retaining walls, screen walls, mechanically stabilized earth structures and poured concrete, in International Class 37.

 

Design for others in the field of retaining walls, screen walls, mechanically stabilized earth structures and poured concrete, in International Class 42.

 

Engineering in the field of retaining walls, screen walls, mechanically stabilized earth structures and poured concrete, in International Class 42.

 

For assistance regarding an acceptable listing of goods and/or services, please see the on‑line searchable Manual of Acceptable Identifications of Goods and Services, at http://www.gov.uspto.report/web/offices/tac/doc/gsmanual/.

 

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 services that are not within the scope of the services recited in the present identification.

 

REQUIREMENTS FOR A MULTIPLE-CLASS APPLICATION

 

If applicant prosecutes this application as a combined, or multiple-class application, then applicant must comply with each of the requirements below for those services based on actual use in commerce under Trademark Act Section 1(a):

 

(1)   Applicant must list the services by international class with the classes listed in ascending numerical order;

 

(2)   Applicant must submit a filing fee for each international class of services not covered by the fee already paid (current fee information should be confirmed at http://www.uspto.gov); and

 

(3)   For each additional class of services, applicant must submit:

 

(a)    dates of first use of the mark anywhere and dates of first use of the mark in commerce, or a statement that the dates of use in the initial application apply to that class; the dates of use, both anywhere and in commerce, must be at least as early as the filing date of the application;

 

(b)   one specimen showing use of the mark for each class of services; the specimen must have been in use in commerce at least as early as the filing date of the application;

 

(c)    a statement that “the specimen was in use in commerce on or in connection with the goods and/or services listed in the application at least as early as the filing date of the application;” and

 

(d)   verification of the statements in 3(a) and 3(c) in an affidavit or a signed declaration under 37 C.F.R. §2.20.  (NOTE:  Verification is not required where (1) the dates of use for the added class are stated to be the same as the dates of use specified in the initial application, or (2) the original specimens are acceptable for the added class.)

 

37 C.F.R. §§2.6, 2.34(a), 2.59, 2.71(c), and 2.86(a); TMEP §§810, 904.09, 1403.01 and 1403.02(c).

 

Please note that the specimen of record is acceptable for both suggested classes.

 

POTENTIAL CITATION OF PRIOR-FILED APPLICATION

 

Information regarding pending Application Serial No. 78/592028 is enclosed.  The filing date of the referenced application precedes applicant’s filing date.  There may be a likelihood of confusion between the two marks under Trademark Act Section 2(d), 15 U.S.C. §1052(d).  If the referenced application registers, registration may be refused in this case under Section 2(d).  37 C.F.R. §2.83; TMEP §§1208 et seq.  Therefore, upon entry of a response to this Office action, action on this case may be suspended pending final disposition of the earlier-filed application.

 

If applicant believes there is no potential conflict between this application and the earlier-filed application, then applicant may present arguments relevant to the issue in a response to this Office action.  The election not to submit arguments at this time in no way limits applicant’s right to address this issue at a later point.

 

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

 

 

/Maria-Victoria Suarez/

Trademark Attorney

Law Office 102

571-272-9264

maria-victoria.suarez@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