Offc Action Outgoing

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:

 

 

On August 23, 2007, the office action noted pending Application Serial No(s). 77143278.  The referenced applications have matured into registrations.

 

The examining attorney has determined that the maturation of the pending applications has resulted in registration being refused on additional grounds, as follows:

 

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, so resembles the mark in U.S. Registration No. 3375197 as to be likely to cause confusion, to cause mistake, or to deceive.  TMEP section 1207.  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 their self 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).

 

The applicant has applied to register the mark MICRON for plastic composite material in the form of powder and rubber pellets for use in manufacturing. The registered mark is MIKRON for Extruded plastics in linear form for use in the manufacture of building component.

 

The marks are essentially phonetic equivalents. The applicant should note that there is no correct 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 Mack, 197 USPQ 755 (TTAB 1977).  The marks MICRON and MIKRON clearly could be pronounced the same. Similarity in sound alone is sufficient to find a likelihood of confusion.  Molenaar, Inc. v. Happy Toys Inc., 188 USPQ 469 (TTAB 1975); In re Cresco Mfg. Co., 138 USPQ 401 (TTAB 1963).

Moreover, likelihood of confusion is determined on the basis of the goods 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 registrant’s goods is very broad, it is presumed that the registration encompasses all goods of the type described, including those in the applicant’s more specific identification, that they move in all normal channels of trade and that they are available to all potential customers.  In re Elbaum, 211 USPQ 639, 640 (TTAB 1981); In re Optica International, 196 USPQ 775 (TTAB 1977); TMEP §1207.01(a)(iii). Similarly, since the identification of the applicant’s goods is very broad, it is presumed that the application encompasses all goods of the type described, 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 instance, the marks are very highly related and the goods will likely be sold to the same type of consumers and through similar channels of trade. The similarities among the marks and the goods are so great as to create a likelihood of confusion among consumers. Consumers are likely to believe that the applicant’s goods are produced in connection with the goods noted in the cited registration. As a result, consumers are likely to be confused as to the source of the applicant’s goods. The examining attorney must resolve any doubt regarding a likelihood of confusion in favor of the prior registrant.  In re Hyper Shoppes (Ohio), Inc., 837 F.2d 463, 6 USPQ2d 1025 (Fed. Cir., 1988).

 

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.

 

Contact and Status Update Information

 

The applicant may view and download any or all documents contained in the electronic file wrapper of its OWN and all other pending trademark applications, as well as many registrations via the Trademark Document Retrieval (TDR) system available online at:

 

<http://portal.gov.uspto.report/external/portal/tow>. 

 

Currently, you can access all pending applications and all Madrid Protocol filings, and also many registrations, via TDR.  The USPTO is in the process of converting all remaining registrations into a digital format, to permit future TDR access.  This conversion process is expected to take several years.

 

Downloads are converted into PDF format and may be viewed with any PDF viewer, including the free Adobe Reader.

 

If you need information regarding the application process or applying for a Trademark, please access other resources on the Trademark Web page such as: Frequently-Asked Questions or Basic Facts about Trademarks.  More detailed information is available in the Trademark Manual of Examining Procedure and the Acceptable Identification of Goods and Services Manual. 

 

Applicants should note that they may now file changes of correspondence address via a new form on TEAS.   Address changes may be performed on up to 20 cases at a time.  The Trademark Office strongly encourages applicants to use this time-saving form that is available online at: http://eteas.gov.uspto.report/V2.0/ca200/WIZARD.htm

 

To submit a fax response to this Office action after that date, send your response to the Law Office fax number, namely (571) 273-9103.

 

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

 

 

 

 

/Ronald E. Aikens/

Trademark Attorney, Law Office 112

US Patent and Trademark Office

Ron.Aikens@USPTO.gov

(571) 272-9268 (d)

(571) 273-9268 (

 

 

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.