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 referenced application has been reviewed by the assigned trademark examining attorney.  Applicant must respond timely and completely to the issue(s) below.  15 U.S.C. §1062(b); 37 C.F.R. §§2.62, 2.65(a); TMEP §§711, 718.03.

 

 

SECTION 2(d) REFUSAL – LIKELIHOOD OF CONFUSION

Registration of the applied-for mark is refused because of a likelihood of confusion with the mark in U.S. Registration No. 1896104.  Trademark Act Section 2(d), 15 U.S.C. §1052(d); see TMEP §§1207.01 et seq.  See the enclosed registrations.

 

Trademark Act Section 2(d) bars registration of an applied-for mark that so resembles a registered mark that it is likely that a potential consumer would be confused or mistaken or deceived as to the source of the goods and/or services of the applicant and registrant.  See 15 U.S.C. §1052(d).  The court in In re E. I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., 476 F.2d 1357, 177 USPQ 563 (C.C.P.A. 1973) listed the principal factors to be considered when determining whether there is a likelihood of confusion under Section 2(d).  See TMEP §1207.01.  However, not all of the factors are necessarily relevant or of equal weight, and any one factor may be dominant in a given case, depending upon the evidence of record.  In re Majestic Distilling Co., 315 F.3d 1311, 1315, 65 USPQ2d 1201, 1204 (Fed. Cir. 2003); see In re E. I. du Pont, 476 F.2d at 1361-62, 177 USPQ at 567.

 

In this case, the following factors are the most relevant:  similarity of the marks, similarity of the goods and/or services, and similarity of trade channels of the goods and/or services.  See In re Opus One, Inc., 60 USPQ2d 1812 (TTAB 2001); In re Dakin’s Miniatures Inc., 59 USPQ2d 1593 (TTAB 1999); In re Azteca Rest. Enters., Inc., 50 USPQ2d 1209 (TTAB 1999); TMEP §§1207.01 et seq.

 

Taking into account the relevant du Pont factors, a likelihood of confusion determination in this case involves a two-part analysis.  The marks are compared for similarities in their appearance, sound, connotation and commercial impression.  TMEP §§1207.01, 1207.01(b).  The goods and/or services are compared to determine whether they are similar or commercially related or travel in the same trade channels.  See Herbko Int’l, Inc. v. Kappa Books, Inc., 308 F.3d 1156, 1164-65, 64 USPQ2d 1375, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2002); Han Beauty, Inc. v. Alberto-Culver Co., 236 F.3d 1333, 1336, 57 USPQ2d 1557, 1559 (Fed. Cir. 2001); TMEP §§1207.01, 1207.01(a)(vi).

 

 

Comparison of the Marks

 

In a likelihood of confusion determination, the marks are compared for similarities in their appearance, sound, meaning or connotation and commercial impression.  In re E. I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., 476 F.2d 1357, 1361, 177 USPQ 563, 567 (C.C.P.A. 1973); TMEP §1207.01(b).  Similarity in any one of these elements may be sufficient to find a likelihood of confusion.  In re White Swan Ltd., 8 USPQ2d 1534, 1535 (TTAB 1988); In re Lamson Oil Co., 6 USPQ2d 1041, 1043 (TTAB 1987); see TMEP §1207.01(b).

 

Applicant seeks registration for HUMIDIPAK.

 

The registered mark is HUMIDIPAK.

 

The marks are identical.

 

If the marks of the respective parties are identical, the relationship between the goods and/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.  In re Opus One Inc., 60 USPQ2d 1812, 1815 (TTAB 2001); Amcor, Inc. v. Amcor Indus., Inc., 210 USPQ 70, 78 (TTAB 1981); TMEP §1207.01(a).

 

 

Comparison of the Goods

 

Likelihood of confusion is determined on the basis of the goods and/or services as they are identified in the application and registration.  Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Packard Press Inc., 281 F.3d 1261, 1267-68, 62 USPQ2d 1001, 1004-05 (Fed. Cir. 2002); In re Shell Oil Co., 992 F.2d 1204, 1207 n.4, 26 USPQ2d 1687, 1690 n.4 (Fed. Cir. 1993); TMEP §1207.01(a)(iii).

                                                           

When the application describes the goods and/or services broadly and there are no limitations as to their nature, type, channels of trade or classes of purchasers, then it is presumed that the application encompasses all goods and/or services of the type described, that they move in all normal channels of trade, and that they are available to all potential customers.  See In re Melville Corp., 18 USPQ2d 1386, 1388 (TTAB 1991) (“With reference to the channels of trade, applicant’s argument that its goods are sold only in its own retail stores is not persuasive . . . . There is no restriction [in its identification of goods] as to the channels of trade in which the goods are sold.”); TMEP §1207.01(a)(iii).

 

Applicant provides “humidity control devices in the form of pouches, packets, humidors, and the like, for use in controlling humidity in various closed environments.”

 

The registrant provides “steam humidifiers and parts thereof.”

 

The applicant’s broadly worded identification encompasses the goods of the registrant.

 

The fact that purchasers are sophisticated or knowledgeable in a particular field does not necessarily mean that they are sophisticated or knowledgeable in the field of trademarks or immune from source confusion.  TMEP §1207.01(d)(vii); see In re Decombe, 9 USPQ2d 1812 (TTAB 1988); In re Pellerin Milnor Corp., 221 USPQ 558 (TTAB 1983). When the relevant consumer includes both professionals and the general public, the standard of care for purchasing the goods is that of the least sophisticated purchaser.  Alfacell Corp. v. Anticancer, Inc., 71 USPQ2d 1301, 1306 (TTAB 2004).

 

The Trademark Act not only guards against the misimpression that the senior user is the source of the junior user’s goods and/or services, but it also protects against “reverse confusion,” that is the junior user is the source of the senior user’s goods and/or services.  In re Shell Oil Co., 992 F.2d 1204, 1208, 26 USPQ2d 1687, 1690 (Fed. Cir. 1993); Fisons Horticulture, Inc. v. Vigoro Indust., Inc., 30 F.3d 466, 474-75, 31 USPQ2d 1592, 1597-98 (3d Cir. 1994); Banff, Ltd. v. Federated Dep’t Stores, Inc., 841 F.2d 486, 490-91, 6 USPQ2d 1187, 1190-91 (2d Cir. 1988).

 

Accordingly, registration is refused under Trademark Act Section 2(d).

 

 

Informalities

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. If the applicant chooses to respond to the refusal to register, the applicant must also respond to the following informalities:

 

 

Ownership of Prior Registration

If applicant is the owner of U.S. Registration No. 2351169, then applicant must submit a claim of ownership.  37 C.F.R. §2.36; TMEP §812.  The following standard format is suggested:

 

Applicant is the owner of U.S. Registration No. 2351169.

 

 

Identification of Goods

The identification of goods is unacceptable as presently worded because certain goods are worded indefinitely, need clarification and may identify goods in more than one International Class. Further, the wording “and the like” in the identification of goods is indefinite and must be (1) clarified to specify the common commercial or generic name for the goods, or (2) deleted.  See TMEP §§1402.01, 1402.03(a).  This wording constitutes an open-ended “catch-all” word or phrase and is not acceptable because it fails to identify specific goods.

 

 In the identification of goods, applicant must use the common commercial or generic names for the goods, be all-inclusive, 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," "apparatus" 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).

 

For comparison purposes, the entries requiring amendment have been underlined, and the wording in bold font and/or brackets [ ] indicate information that the applicant must supply. Please be certain to supply all required information when amending the identifications below. Applicant may change this wording to the following, if accurate:

 

 

Class 1:            Humidity control devices in the form of pouches and packets containing [identify the specific humidity controlling contents of the pouches and packets, e.g., salt solution that absorbs or releases moisture, desiccants] for use in controlling humidity in various closed environments.

 

Class 11:          Humidity control devices in the form of [identify the specific Class 11 devices, e.g., humidifiers, desiccating units, a portable container containing a moisture-sensitive silica co-polymer that absorbs or releases moisture] for use in controlling humidity in various closed environments.

 

Class 34:          Humidity control devices in the form of humidors for use in controlling humidity in various closed environments.

 

 

TMEP §1402.01.

 

Please note that, while the identification may be amended to clarify or limit the goods/services, adding to or broadening the scope of the goods/services is not permitted.  37 C.F.R. §2.71(a); TMEP §1402.06.  Therefore, applicant may not amend the identification to include goods/services that are not within the scope of the goods/services set forth in the present identification.

 

For assistance with identifying 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.

 

 

Requirements for Combined Applications

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;

 

(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 international 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; and 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; and the specimen must have been in use in commerce at least as early as the filing date of the application.  If a single specimen supports multiple classes, applicant should indicate which classes the specimen supports rather than providing multiple copies of the same specimen;

 

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) (above) in an affidavit or a signed declaration under 37 C.F.R. §§2.20, 2.33.  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, and (2) the original specimens are acceptable for the added class(es).

 

See 37 C.F.R. §§2.34(a)(1), 2.71(c), 2.86(a); TMEP §§1403.01, 1403.02(c).

 

The specimen of record is acceptable for International Class 34 only.

 

 

 

/RLF/

Ronald L. Fairbanks

Trademark Attorney

Law Office 117

(571) 272-9405

 

 

 

RESPOND TO THIS ACTION: Applicant should file a response to this Office action online using the form at http://www.gov.uspto.report/teas/eTEASpageD.htm, waiting 48-72 hours if applicant received notification of the Office action via e-mail.  For technical assistance with the form, please e-mail TEAS@uspto.gov.  For questions about the Office action itself, please contact the assigned examining attorney.  Do not respond to this Office action by e-mail; 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.