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  76/653241

 

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

 

Refusal Under Section 2(d) – 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 goods, so resembles the marks in U.S. Registration Nos. 2,678,708 and 2,748,689 as to be likely to cause confusion, to cause mistake, or to deceive.  TMEP §§1207.01 et seq.  See the enclosed registrations.

 

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.

 

The applicant has applied to register CYNERGY PL (Standard Character Drawing) for “Pulsed light devices.”  U.S. Registration No. 2,678,708 is SYNERGIE PEEL (Typed) for “Medical devices used for microdermabrasion.”  U.S. Registration No. 2,748,689 is SYNERGY VERSITREL (Typed) for “IMPLANTABLE PULSE GENERATOR FOR PAIN.”

 

The marks are compared in their entireties under a Section 2(d) analysis.  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., 753 F.2d 1056, 224 USPQ 749 (Fed. Cir. 1985); Tektronix, Inc. v. Daktronics, Inc., 534 F.2d 915, 189 USPQ 693 (C.C.P.A. 1976). In re J.M. Originals Inc., 6 USPQ2d 1393 (TTAB 1987); TMEP §1207.01(b)(viii).  In this case, the dominant wording in the marks are phonetic equivalents, CYNERGY v. SYNERGIE and SYNERGY.  The applicant’s mark consists of the word “CYNERGY” followed by the letters “PL.”  The mark in Registration No. 2,678,708 consists of the word “SYNERGIE” followed by the descriptive wording “PEEL.”  The mark in Registration No. 2,748,689 consists of the word “SYNERGY” followed by the wording “VERSITREL.”  “[I]t is often the first part of the mark which is most likely to be impressed upon the mind of the purchaser and remembered.”  Presto Products, Inc. v. Nice-Pak Products, Inc., 9 USPQ2d 1895 (TTAB 1988).

 

Marks may be confusingly similar in appearance where there are similar terms or phrases or similar parts of terms or phrases appearing in both applicant’s and registrant’s mark.  See e.g., Crocker Nat’l Bank v. Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce, 228 USPQ 689 (TTAB 1986), aff’d 1 USPQ2d 1813 (Fed. Cir. 1987) (COMMCASH and COMMUNICASH); In re Phillips-Van Heusen Corp., 228 USPQ 949 (TTAB 1986) (21 CLUB and “21” CLUB (stylized)); In re Corning Glass Works, 229 USPQ 65 (TTAB 1985) (CONFIRM and CONFIRMCELLS); In re Collegian Sportswear Inc., 224 USPQ 174 (TTAB 1984) (COLLEGIAN OF CALIFORNIA and COLLEGIENNE); In re Pellerin Milnor Corp., 221 USPQ 558 (TTAB 1983) (MILTRON and MILLTRONICS); In re BASF A.G., 189 USPQ 424 (TTAB 1975) (LUTEXAL and LUTEX); TMEP §§1207.01(b)(ii) and (b)(iii).

 

With respect to comparison of the applicant’s goods and the registrants’ goods, likelihood of confusion is determined on the basis of the goods or services as they are identified in the application and the registration.  Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Packard Press Inc., 281 F.3d 1261, 62 USPQ2d 1001 (Fed. Cir. 2002); In re Shell Oil Co., 992 F.2d 1204, 26 USPQ2d 1687, 1690 n.4 (Fed. Cir. 1993); J & J Snack Foods Corp. v. McDonald’s Corp., 932 F.2d 1460, 18 USPQ2d 1889 (Fed. Cir. 1991); Octocom Systems Inc. v. Houston Computer Services Inc., 918 F.2d 937, 16 USPQ2d 1783 (Fed. Cir. 1990).  Since the identification of the applicant’s goods is very broad, it is presumed that the application encompasses all goods of the type described, including those in the registrants’ more specific identifications, that they move in all normal channels of trade and that they are available to all potential customers.  TMEP §1207.01(a)(iii).  In this case, it is presumed that the applicant’s “pulsed light devices” include the registrants’ more specific “medical devices used for microdermabrasion” and “implantable pulse generator for pain.”

 

To the extent the goods are not identical, they are presumed to be related.  The goods and/or services of the parties need not be identical or directly competitive to find a likelihood of confusion.  Instead, they need only be related in some manner, or the conditions surrounding their marketing are such that they would be encountered by the same purchasers under circumstances that would give rise to the mistaken belief that the goods and/or services come from a common source.  On-line Careline Inc. v. America Online Inc., 229 F.3d 1080, 56 USPQ2d 1471 (Fed. Cir. 2000); In re Martin’s Famous Pastry Shoppe, Inc., 748 F.2d 1565, 223 USPQ 1289 (Fed. Cir. 1984); In re Melville Corp., 18 USPQ2d 1386, 1388 (TTAB 1991); In re Corning Glass Works, 229 USPQ 65 (TTAB 1985); In re Rexel Inc., 223 USPQ 830 (TTAB 1984); Guardian Prods. Co., Inc. v. Scott Paper Co., 200 USPQ 738 (TTAB 1978); In re Int’l Tel. & Tel. Corp., 197 USPQ 910 (TTAB 1978); TMEP §1207.01(a)(i).  Here the applicant and the registrants manufacture/sell medical devices.

 

The dominant wording in the marks are phonetic equivalents, and the marks are thus similar in sound.  The goods are presumed to be identical or highly related.  The similarities among the marks and the goods are so great as to create a likelihood of confusion among consumers.  Any doubt regarding a likelihood of confusion is resolved in favor of the prior registrant.  Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Packard Press Inc., 281 F.3d 1261, 62 USPQ2d 1001, 1004 (Fed. Cir. 2002); In re Hyper Shoppes (Ohio), Inc., 837 F.2d 463, 6 USPQ2d 1025 (Fed. Cir. 1988); TMEP §§1207.01(d)(i).

 

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.

 

Prior Pending Application

 

Information regarding pending Application Serial No. 79/019918 also 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, the registration may be used as an additional basis for refusing registration 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 chooses to respond to the refusal to register, the applicant must also respond to the following informalities:

 

1.            Identification and Classification of Goods

 

a.         The wording "Pulsed light devices" in the identification of goods needs clarification because it is indefinite and too broad, and it could include goods classified in other classes.  In the identification of goods, applicant must use the common commercial or generic names for the goods, be as complete and specific as possible, and avoid the use of indefinite words and phrases.  If applicant chooses to use indefinite terms such as "accessories," "components," "devices," "equipment," "materials," "parts," "systems" and "products," then such terms must be followed by the word "namely" and a list of the specific goods identified by their common commercial or generic names.  TMEP §§1402.01 and 1402.03(a).

 

b.         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.

 

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

 

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

 

(2)   Applicant must submit a filing fee for each international class of goods and/or 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 goods and/or 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 goods and/or 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 International Class 10 only.

 

d.            Applicant may adopt the following identification of goods in International Class 10, if accurate:  Medical pulsed light device for the cosmetic treatment of the face and skin, vascular treatment, and hair removal.  TMEP §1402.01.

 

e.         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.

 

2.            Standard Character Drawing Claim

 

Applicant must submit the following standard character 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).

 

3.         Mark Differs on Drawing and Specimen

 

The mark as depicted on the drawing does not agree with the mark as it appears on the specimen and clarification is required.  37 C.F.R. §2.51; TMEP §807.12.  Specifically, the drawing displays the mark as CYNERGY PL (two words), and the specimen (photograph of the mark shown on the machine itself) depicts the mark as CYNERGYPL (one word).

 

Applicant must either:

 

(1)   submit a new drawing of the mark that agrees with the mark as it appears on the specimen and that is not a material alteration of the original mark;[1] 37 C.F.R. §2.72(a); TMEP §§807.14 et seq;

 

(2)   submit a substitute specimen that shows use of the mark as it presently appears on the drawing and is accompanied by a statement that “the substitute specimen was in use in commerce at least as early as the filing date of the application,” verified with an affidavit or a signed declaration under 37 C.F.R. §2.20; 37 C.F.R. §§2.59(a) and 2.72(a); TMEP §904.09; or

 

(3)   amend the application basis to intent-to-use under Section 1(b), and satisfy all the requirements for this new basis.  TMEP §806.03(c).

 

4.            Significance of Letters in the Mark

 

Applicant must specify whether the letters “PL” have any significance in the pulsed light medical devices industry or as applied to the goods described in the application.  37 C.F.R. §2.61(b).

 

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

 

A prompt response to this Office action will expedite the handling of this matter.

 

 

 

/Barbara A. Gaynor/

Barbara A. Gaynor

Trademark Examining Attorney

Law Office 115

571-272-9164

 

 

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

 

FOR INQUIRIES OR QUESTIONS ABOUT THIS OFFICE ACTION, PLEASE CONTACT THE ASSIGNED EXAMINING ATTORNEY SPECIFIED ABOVE.