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 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(a), 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. 3421672.  Trademark Act Section 2(d), 15 U.S.C. §1052(d); see TMEP §§1207.01 et seq.  See the enclosed registration.

 

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).

 

Applicant’s mark INFOTRAC is highly similar to the cited registered mark INFOTRACS. The marks are identical but for the fact that applicant’s mark is the singular version of the cited registered mark. The Board has held that pluralization of a mark is generally not significant.  In re Pix of America, Inc., 225 USPQ 691 (TTAB 1985).

 

Applicant’s goods are listed as “computer software in the field of customer and sales management which accesses and integrates data from other third party programs”. The goods in the cited registration are listed as “computer software, namely, custom designed business management system for managing, integrating and reporting costs, sales, inventory, contacts, purchase histories, marketing initiatives and back office processes in one central database”.

 

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).

 

In this case, applicant’s software is used for “customer and sales management” and is broadly enough defined to include the software functions listed in the cited registration. For example, registrant’s software manages sales data and customer contacts. Consumers looking for software which manages customer and sales data would be confused by two software programs which manage the same data sold under highly similar names.

 

Although applicant’s mark has been refused registration, applicant may respond to the refusal(s) by submitting evidence and arguments in support of registration.

 

Applicant must respond to the requirement(s) set forth below.

 

IDENTIFICATION OF GOODS

 

The identification of goods is indefinite and must be clarified by further clarifying the function of the software listed as “customer and sales management”.  See TMEP §1402.01.  Applicant may adopt the following identification, if accurate:   

 

• “computer software for use in customer relationship management and for the collection, editing, organizing, modifying, transmission, storage and sharing of sales data which accesses and integrates data from other third party programs”, in Class 009

 

Identifications of goods and/or services can be amended only to clarify or limit the goods and/or services; adding to or broadening the scope of the goods and/or services is not permitted.  37 C.F.R. §2.71(a); see TMEP §§1402.06 et seq., 1402.07.  Therefore, applicant may not amend the identification to include goods and/or services that are not within the scope of the goods and/or services set forth in the present identification.

 

For assistance with identifying and classifying 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.  See TMEP §1402.04.

 

REQUEST FOR INFORMATION

 

To permit proper examination of the application, applicant must submit additional product information about the goods.  See 37 C.F.R. §2.61(b); In re DTI P’ship LLP, 67 USPQ2d 1699, 1701-02 (TTAB 2003); TMEP §814.  The requested product information should include fact sheets, instruction manuals, and/or advertisements.  If these materials are unavailable, applicant should submit similar documentation for goods of the same type, explaining how its own product will differ.  If the goods feature new technology and no competing goods are available, applicant must provide a detailed description of the goods.

 

The submitted factual information must make clear how the goods operate, their salient features, and their prospective customers and channels of trade.  Conclusory statements regarding the goods will not satisfy this requirement.

 

Failure to respond to a request for information is an additional ground for refusing registration.  See In re Cheezwhse.com, Inc., 85 USPQ2d 1917, 1919 (TTAB 2008); In re DTI, 67 USPQ2d at 1701-02.  Merely stating that information about the goods is available on applicant’s website is an inappropriate response to a request for additional information and is insufficient to make the relevant information of record.  See In re Planalytics, Inc., 70 USPQ2d 1453, 1457-58 (TTAB 2004).

 

APPLICATION PURSUANT TO SECTIONS 1(a) AND 44(d) – INQUIRY REQUIRED

 

The application specifies both a use in commerce basis under Trademark Act Section 1(a) and a claim of priority under Section 44(d) based on a foreign application.  See 15 U.S.C. §§1051(a), 1126(d); 37 C.F.R. §2.34(a)(1), (a)(4).  However, the application does not include a foreign registration certificate or a statement indicating whether applicant intends to rely upon the resulting foreign registration under Section 44(e) as an additional basis for registration.  See 15 U.S.C. §1126(e).

 

Although Section 44(d) provides a basis for filing and a priority filing date, it does not provide a basis for publication or registration.  37 C.F.R. §2.34(a)(4)(iii); TMEP §§1002.02, 1003.03.  It is unclear whether applicant intends to rely on Section 44(e) as an additional basis for registration.

 

Therefore, applicant must clarify the basis in the application by satisfying one of the following:

 

(1)        If applicant intends to rely on Section 44(e), in addition to Section 1(a), as a basis for registration, applicant must so specify.  In addition, (i) applicant’s country of origin must either be a party to a convention or treaty relating to trademarks to which the United States is also a party, or must extend reciprocal registration rights to nationals of the United States by law, and (ii) applicant must submit a true copy, photocopy, certification or certified copy of the foreign registration from applicant’s country of origin.  See 15 U.S.C. §1126(b)-(c), (e); 37 C.F.R. §2.34(a)(3)(ii); TMEP §§806.02(f), 1002.01, 1004.  A copy of the foreign registration must be a copy of a document that issued to the applicant by or was certified by the intellectual property office in the applicant’s country of origin.  TMEP §1004.01.  If the foreign registration is not written in English, then applicant must provide an English translation.  37 C.F.R. §2.34(a)(3)(ii).  The translation should be signed by the translator.  TMEP §1004.01(b).  If the foreign registration has not yet issued, or applicant requires additional time to procure a copy of the foreign registration (and English translation, as appropriate), applicant should respond to this Office action to request suspension pending receipt of the foreign registration documentation.  TMEP §1003.04(b).; or

 

(2)        If applicant intends to rely on a use in commerce basis under Section 1(a), while retaining its Section 44(d) priority filing date, applicant must specify that it does not intend to rely on Section 44(e) as a basis for registration and request that the mark be approved for publication based solely on the Section 1(a) basis.  See TMEP §§806.02(f), 806.04(b), 1003.04(b).

 

 

 

 

/Ernest Shosho/

Trademark Attorney

Law Office 117

571-272-9705

 

 

 

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.