UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE

 

 

 

OFFICE ACTION

 

TO AVOID ABANDONMENT, THE OFFICE MUST RECEIVE A PROPER RESPONSE TO THIS OFFICE ACTION WITHIN 6 MONTHS OF THE ISSUE/MAILING DATE.

 

ISSUE/MAILING DATE:

 

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

 

On December 26, 2006, applicant was advised that action on this application was suspended pending the disposition of Application Serial No. 78721249.  Please note, the referenced pending application have since registered.  Therefore, registration is now refused as follows.

 

Section 2(d) - Likelihood of Confusion Refusal

 

Registration of the proposed mark is refused because of a likelihood of confusion with the mark in U.S. Registration No. 3370388.  Trademark Act Section 2(d), 15 U.S.C. §1052(d); TMEP §§1207.01 et seq.  See the enclosed registration.

 

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 following provides a detailed analysis of the 2(d) refusal.

 

Similarity of the Marks

 

In the instant case, there is a likelihood of confusion because both the applicant’s and registrant’s marks are “SECUREX.”  The only difference between the marks is that applicant’s mark is stylized and registrant’s mark is standard character.  Registration of a mark in typed or standard character form means that the mark may be displayed in any lettering style.  37 C.F.R. §2.52(a).  The rights associated with a mark in typed or standard character form reside in the wording itself, and registrant is free to adopt any style of lettering, including lettering identical to that used by applicant.  Therefore, applicant’s presentation of its mark in special form will not avoid likelihood of confusion with a mark that is registered in typed or standard character form because the marks could be used in the same manner of display.  See In re Melville Corp., 18 USPQ2d 1386, 1387-88 (TTAB 1991); In re Pollio Dairy Prods. Corp., 8 USPQ2d 2012, 2015 (TTAB 1988); Sunnen Prods. Co. v. Sunex Int’l Inc., 1 USPQ2d 1744, 1747 (TTAB 1987); In re Hester Indus., Inc., 231 USPQ 881, 882, n.6 (TTAB 1986); United Rum Merchants, Ltd. v. Fregal, Inc., 216 USPQ 217, 220 (TTAB 1982); Frances Denney, Inc. v. Vive Parfums, Ltd., 190 USPQ 302, 303-04 (TTAB 1976); TMEP §1207.01(c)(iii).  As such, the marks are essentially identical in their appearance, sound, connotation and commercial impression.  Therefore, the similarity prong of the test to determine likelihood of confusion is satisfied.

 

Relatedness of the Goods

 

The goods 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 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).

 

Based on the aforementioned standard, the applicant’s goods are closely related to the registrant’s goods because it is likely that they would be sold and/or marketed together in the same channels of trade.  Specifically, registrant uses the mark in part, for “battery-operated locks and keypad controllers therefor; automatic door operators; key pads; key pad-operated locks; solenoid-operated locks; electrified and electromechanical exit devices for providing ingress and egress to facilities.”  Applicant proposes to use its mark for “security fencing systems, namely, metal gates and fencing panels.”  Both applicant’s and registrant’s marks are in the field of security alarm devices and apparatus.  Indeed, registrant’s “automatic door operators” and “electrified and electromechanical exit devices for providing ingress and egress to facilities” could include metal fences.

 

Accordingly, because confusion as to source is likely, registration is refused under Trademark Act Section 2(d) based on a likelihood of confusion.

 

Please see attached Internet website evidence showing the goods of the parties sold and referenced together by manufacturers and stores.

 

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 trademark examining attorney has refused registration, applicant may respond to the refusal to register by submitting evidence and arguments in support of registration.

 

Section 2(d) Refusals Maintained and Continued

 

The following refusals are continued and maintained:   2(d) - likelihood of confusion with the marks in U.S. Registration Nos. 2658850 and 2607266.

 

Conclusion

 

If applicant has questions about its application or needs assistance in responding to this Office action, please telephone the assigned trademark examining attorney directly at the number below.

 

 

/tfrazier/

Tamara G. Frazier

Trademark Examining Attorney

Law Office 116

Phone: (571) 272-8256

Fax:  (571) 273-8256

 

 

RESPOND TO THIS ACTION: If there are any questions about the Office action, please contact the assigned examining attorney. A response to this Office action should be filed using the form available at http://www.gov.uspto.report/teas/eTEASpageD.htm. If notification of this Office action was received via e-mail, no response using this form may be filed for 72 hours after receipt of the notification. Do not attempt to respond by e-mail as the USPTO does not accept e-mailed responses.

 

If responding by paper mail, please include the following information: the application serial number, the mark, the filing date and the name, title/position, telephone number and e-mail address of the person signing the response.  Please use the following address: Commissioner for Trademarks, P.O. Box 1451, Alexandria, VA 22313-1451.

 

STATUS CHECK: Check the status of the application at least once every six months from the initial filing date using the USPTO Trademark Applications and Registrations Retrieval (TARR) online system at http://tarr.uspto.gov.  When conducting an online status check, print and maintain a copy of the complete TARR screen.  If the status of your application has not changed for more than six months, please contact the assigned examining attorney.