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.

 

ADVISORY – AMENDMENTS TO GOODS/SERVICES:  If the identification of goods and/or services has been amended below, any future amendments must be in accordance with 37 C.F.R. §2.71(a) and TMEP §1402.07(e).

 

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

 

Serial Number 76/655421

 

EXAMINER'S AMENDMENT

 

AMENDMENT(S) AUTHORIZED:  As authorized by Bernard Klosowski on August 22, 2006, the application is amended as noted below.  If applicant disagrees with or objects to any of the amendments below, please notify the undersigned trademark examining attorney immediately.  Otherwise, no response is necessary.  TMEP §707.   

 

AMENDMENT OF IDENTIFICATION OF GOODS AND SERVICES

 

The identification of goods and services is amended to read as follows: 

 

            Optical computing products, namely, an optical spectroscopy inspection system comprised of a light source and sensors in communication with computer software and hardware, in International Class 9.

 

            Optical computing services, namely, testing, analysis and evaluation of the goods and services of others for the purpose of quality control, in International Class 42.

 

TMEP §1402.01(e).

 

PRIORITY ACTION

 

Applicant must respond to each refusal 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.

 

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

 

SECTION 2(d) REFUSAL – CLASS 42 ONLY

 

Registration of the proposed mark is refused because of a likelihood of confusion with the mark in U.S. Registration No. 2750718.  Trademark Act Section 2(d), 15 U.S.C. §1052(d); TMEP §§1207.01 et seq.  See the enclosed registration.

 

Trademark Act Section 2(d) bars registration where an applied-for mark so resembles a registered mark that it is likely, when applied to the goods and/or services, to cause confusion, mistake or to deceive the potential consumer as to the source of the goods and/or services.  TMEP §1207.01.  The Court in In re E. I. DuPont de Nemours & Co., 476 F.2d 1357, 177 USPQ 563 (C.C.P.A. 1973), listed the principal factors to consider in determining whether there is a likelihood of confusion.  Among these factors are the similarity of the marks as to appearance, sound, meaning and commercial impression, and the relatedness of the goods and/or services.  The overriding concern is to prevent buyer confusion as to the source of the goods and/or services.  Miss Universe, Inc. v. Miss Teen U.S.A., Inc., 209 USPQ 698 (N.D. Ga. 1980).  Therefore, any doubt as to the existence of a likelihood of confusion must be resolved in favor of the registrant.  In re Hyper Shoppes (Ohio), Inc., 837 F.2d 463, 6 USPQ2d 1025 (Fed. Cir. 1988); Lone Star Mfg. Co. v. Bill Beasley, Inc., 498 F.2d 906, 182 USPQ 368 (C.C.P.A. 1974).

 

A likelihood of confusion determination requires a two-part analysis.  First the marks are compared 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 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 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.

 

Comparison of Marks

 

Applicant's proposed mark, OMETRIC, is highly similar in sound, appearance and meaning to registrant's mark, O-METRIC.  Similarity in any one of these elements may be sufficient to find a likelihood of confusion.  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 (TTAB 1977); TMEP §1207.01(b). When 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, 40, 108 USPQ 161 (D.C. Cir. 1956) (internal citation omitted).

 

In the instant case, the marks share the same arbitrary wording, “OMETRIC.” The only difference between the marks is registrant’s separation of the letter “O” from “METRIC.” However, this difference fails to obviate the similarities between the marks. Please note, there is no correct spelling or pronunciation of a trademark.  Kabushiki Kaisha Hattori Tokeiten v. Scuotto, 228 USPQ 461 (TTAB 1985); In re Great Lakes Canning, Inc., 227 USPQ 483 (TTAB 1985); In re Teradata Corp., 223 USPQ 361, 362 (TTAB 1984); In re Mack, 197 USPQ 755 (TTAB 1977); TMEP §1207.01(b)(iv).  The marks in question could clearly be pronounced the same.  Similarity in sound alone may be sufficient to support a finding of likelihood of confusion.  RE/MAX of America, Inc. v. Realty Mart, Inc., 207 USPQ 960, 964 (TTAB 1980); Molenaar, Inc. v. Happy Toys Inc., 188 USPQ 469 (TTAB 1975); In re Cresco Mfg. Co., 138 USPQ 401 (TTAB 1963); TMEP §1207.01(b)(iv).

 

Furthermore, 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 effect, the marks in the instant case employ the same arbitrary wording. Thus the commercial impression created by applicant's proposed mark is the same as that created by registrant's mark.

 

Please note, if the marks of the respective parties are practically identical, the relationship between the goods or services of the respective parties need not be as close to support a finding of likelihood of confusion as might apply where differences exist between the marks.  Century 21 Real Estate Corp. v. Century Life of America, 970 F.2d 874, 877, 23 USPQ2d 1698, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 1992), cert. denied 506 U.S. 1034 (1992); In re Opus One Inc., 60 USPQ2d 1812, 1815 (TTAB 2001); Amcor, Inc. v. Amcor Industries, Inc., 210 USPQ 70 (TTAB 1981); TMEP §1207.01(a).

 

Comparison of Services

 

Applicant seeks to register OMETRIC for “Optical computing services, namely, testing, analysis and evaluation of the goods and services of others for the purpose of quality control.” Registrant uses its mark on “Computer consultation and computer diagnostic services in the field of functionability, usability and effectiveness of web-based applications; monitoring of computer systems in the field of functionability, usability and effectiveness of web-based applications.”  The respective services are highly related and are commonly found in the same trade channels because involve computer diagnostic and evaluation services. The average consumer who encounters these marks on such highly related services would mistakenly believe that a common source provided the services. Thus, there is a likelihood of confusion, and registration must be refused pursuant to Section 2(d) of the Trademark Act.

 

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.

 

PARTIAL ABANDONMENT ADVISORY

 

If applicant should fail to respond to this Office action within the six month time limit, then Class 42 will be deleted from the application and the application will proceed forward for Class 9 only.  37 C.F.R. §2.65(a).

 

/Roberto Ledesma/

Trademark Examining Attorney

Law Office 113

Phone: (571) 272-8848

Fax: (571) 273-9113

 

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