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:

 

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

 

LIKELIHOOD OF CONFUSION

 

Registration of the proposed mark is refused because of a likelihood of confusion with the mark in U.S. Registration No. 0229786.  Trademark Act Section 2(d), 15 U.S.C. §1052(d); TMEP §§1207.01 et seq.  See the enclosed registration.

 

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 marks are compared for similarities in sound, appearance, meaning or connotation.  In re E .I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., 476 F.2d 1357, 177 USPQ 563 (C.C.P.A. 1973).  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).

 

The applicant’s mark is ASARCO for “Bismuth/Selenide, Selenium, Tellurium, Molybdenum, and Sulfuric Acid.”  This mark is highly similar to the registered mark ASARCO for “salts, acids, and compounds made from nonferrous metals-namely, oxides of antimony, arsenic, cadmium, [ copper, ] lead, [ nickel and zinc; ] sulphates of [ cadmium, copper, ] nickel, thallium, and zinc; [ bromides, carbonates, chlorides, ] and nitrates of [ cadmium and ] thallium; chemically-pure [ cadmium cyanide, cadium hydrate, ] cadmium sulphide, litharge, [ nickel-ammonium sulphate, selenium oxychloride, ] sodium selenite, [ thallium acetate, ] zinc chloride [ , sulphuric acid and sulphur dioxide ].”

 

The marks are identical in sound and appearance.  If the marks of the respective parties are 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).  Further, the goods of the parties are closely related because they are all chemical compounds.  The marks are the same and the goods are closely related and therefore, a likelihood of confusion exists.

 

If the mark in the cited registration has been assigned to applicant, applicant can provide evidence of ownership of the mark by satisfying one of the following:

 

(1)   Record the assignment with the Assignment Services Division of the Office and provide a written statement to the trademark examining attorney that the assignment has been duly recorded;

(2)   Submit copies of documents evidencing chain of title; or

(3)   Submit the following statement, verified with an affidavit or signed declaration under 37 C.F.R. §2.20:  “Applicant is the owner of U.S. Registration No. 0229786.” 

 

TMEP §812.01; see 15 U.S.C. §1060; 37 C.F.R. §§3.25, 3.73; TMEP §502.02(a).

 

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.

 

If applicant chooses to respond to the refusal to register, then applicant must also respond to the following requirement.

 

SPECIMEN OF USE

 

The application is incomplete because it does not include the required specimen showing use of the applied-for mark in commerce for the goods identified in the application.  An application based on Section 1(a) of the Trademark Act must include a specimen showing the applied-for mark in use in commerce for each class of goods and/or services.  Trademark Act Sections 1(a) and 45, 15 U.S.C. §§1051(a), 1127; 37 C.F.R. §§2.34(a)(1)(iv), 2.56; TMEP §§904, 904.07(a).

 

Therefore, applicant must submit the following:

 

(1)   A specimen (i.e., an example of how applicant actually uses its mark in commerce) for each class of goods and/or services based on use in commerce; and

 

(2)    The following statement, verified with an affidavit or signed declaration under 37 C.F.R. §2.20:  “The specimen was in use in commerce at least as early as the filing date of the application.”  37 C.F.R. §2.56(a); TMEP §904.05.  If submitting a specimen requires an amendment to the dates of use, applicant must also verify the amended dates.  37 C.F.R. §2.71(c).

 

Examples of specimens for goods are tags, labels, instruction manuals, containers, photographs that show the mark on the goods or packaging, or displays associated with the goods at their point of sale.  TMEP §§904.03 et seq.  Examples of specimens for services are signs, photographs, brochures, website printouts or advertisements that show the mark used in the sale or advertising of the services.  TMEP §§1301.04 et seq.

 

If applicant cannot satisfy the above requirements, applicant may amend the Section 1(a) filing basis (use in commerce) to Section 1(b) (intent to use basis), for which no specimen is required.  However, should applicant amend the basis to Section 1(b), registration cannot be granted until applicant later amends the application back to use in commerce by filing an acceptable allegation of use with a proper specimen.  15 U.S.C. §1051(c); 37 C.F.R. §§2.76, 2.88; TMEP Chapter 1100. 

 

In order to amend to Section 1(b), applicant must submit the following statement, verified with an affidavit or signed declaration under 37 C.F.R. §2.20:  “Applicant has had a bona fide intention to use the mark in commerce on or in connection with the goods or services listed in the application as of the filing date of the application.”  15 U.S.C. §1051(b); 37 C.F.R. §§2.34(a)(2) and 2.35(b)(1); TMEP §806.03(c).

 

Pending a proper response, registration is refused because applicant has not provided evidence of use in commerce of the applied-for mark.  15 U.S.C. §§1051(a), 1127; 37 C.F.R. §§2.34(a)(1)(iv), 2.56; TMEP §§904, 904.07(a).

 

The following is a sample declaration under 37 C.F.R. §2.20 with a supporting statement for a substitute specimen:

 

The undersigned being warned that willful false statements and the like are punishable by fine or imprisonment, or both, under 18 U.S.C. §1001, and that such willful false statements and the like may jeopardize the validity of the application or document or any registration resulting there from, declares that the substitute specimen was in use in commerce at least as early as the filing date of the application; all statements made of his/her own knowledge are true; and all statements made on information and belief are believed to be true.

 

 

_____________________________

(Signature)

 

_____________________________

(Print or Type Name and Position)

 

_____________________________

(Date)

 

“TMEP” refers to the Trademark Manual of Examining Procedure (5th ed., 2007), available on the United States Patent and Trademark Office website at www.gov.uspto.report/main/trademarks.htm.  The TMEP is a detailed guidebook written by the Office to explain the laws and procedures that govern the trademark and service mark application, registration and post registration processes.

 

The following legal authorities govern the processing of trademark and service mark applications by the Office:  The Trademark Act, 15 U.S.C. §§1051 et seq.; the Trademark Rules of Practice, 37 C.F.R. Part 2; and the Office’s Trademark Manual of Examining Procedure (TMEP) (5th ed., 2007), available on the United States Patent and Trademark Office web site at http://www.gov.uspto.report/main/trademarks.htm.

 

The Trademark Applications and Registrations Retrieval (TARR) database on the USPTO website at http://tarr.uspto.gov provides detailed, up to the minute information about the status and prosecution history of trademark applications and registrations.  Please note that an application serial number or registration number is needed to be able to access this database.  TARR is available 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.

 

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.

 

 

 

/Barbara Brown/

Trademark Examining Attorney, LO 116

TEL: 571-272-9134

FAX: 571-273-9116

barbara.t.brown@uspto.gov (informal)

 

 

 

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.