UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE (USPTO)
OFFICE ACTION (OFFICIAL LETTER) ABOUT APPLICANT’S TRADEMARK APPLICATION
|
U.S. APPLICATION SERIAL NO. 76720321
MARK: ENVIROPURE
|
|
|
CORRESPONDENT ADDRESS: |
CLICK HERE TO RESPOND TO THIS LETTER: http://www.gov.uspto.report/trademarks/teas/response_forms.jsp
|
|
APPLICANT: water, inc.
|
|
|
CORRESPONDENT’S REFERENCE/DOCKET NO: CORRESPONDENT E-MAIL ADDRESS: |
|
OFFICE ACTION
TO AVOID ABANDONMENT OF APPLICANT’S TRADEMARK APPLICATION, THE USPTO MUST RECEIVE APPLICANT’S COMPLETE RESPONSE TO THIS LETTER WITHIN 6 MONTHS OF THE ISSUE/MAILING DATE BELOW. A RESPONSE TRANSMITTED THROUGH THE TRADEMARK ELECTRONIC APPLICATION SYSTEM (TEAS) MUST BE RECEIVED BEFORE MIDNIGHT EASTERN TIME OF THE LAST DAY OF THE RESPONSE PERIOD.
The referenced application has been reviewed by the assigned trademark examining attorney. Applicant must respond timely and completely to the issues 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 with Registered Marks
Trademark Act Section 2(d) bars registration of an applied-for mark that so resembles a registered mark that it is likely a consumer would be confused, 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). Determining likelihood of confusion is made on a case-by-case basis by applying the factors set forth in In re E. I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., 476 F.2d 1357, 1361, 177 USPQ 563, 567 (C.C.P.A. 1973). In re i.am.symbolic, llc, 866 F.3d 1315, 1322, 123 USPQ2d 1744, 1747 (Fed. Cir. 2017). However, “[n]ot all of the [du Pont] factors are relevant to every case, and only factors of significance to the particular mark need be considered.” Coach Servs., Inc. v. Triumph Learning LLC, 668 F.3d 1356, 1366, 101 USPQ2d 1713, 1719 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (quoting In re Mighty Leaf Tea, 601. F.3d 1342, 1346, 94 USPQ2d 1257, 1259 (Fed. Cir 2010)). The USPTO may focus its analysis “on dispositive factors, such as similarity of the marks and relatedness of the goods [and/or services].” In re i.am.symbolic, llc, 866 F.3d at 1322, 123 USPQ2d at 1747 (quoting Herbko Int’l, Inc. v. Kappa Books, Inc., 308 F.3d 1156, 1164-65, 64 USPQ2d 1375, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2002)); see TMEP §1207.01.
Similarity of the Marks
The applied-for mark is ENVIROPURE with a design. The registered marks are:
When comparing marks, the test is not whether the marks can be distinguished in a side-by-side comparison. Midwestern Pet Foods, Inc. v. Societe des Produits Nestle S.A., 685 F.3d 1046, 1053, 103 USPQ2d 1435, 1440 (Fed. Cir. 2012); TMEP §1207.01(b). Instead, marks are compared in their entireties for similarities in appearance, sound, connotation, and commercial impression. Stone Lion Capital Partners, LP v. Lion Capital LLP, 746 F.3d 1317, 1321, 110 USPQ2d 1157, 1160 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (quoting Palm Bay Imps., Inc. v. Veuve Clicquot Ponsardin Maison Fondee En 1772, 396 F.3d 1369, 1371, 73 USPQ2d 1689, 1691 (Fed. Cir. 2005)); TMEP §1207.01(b)-(b)(v). “Similarity in any one of these elements may be sufficient to find the marks confusingly similar.” In re Davia, 110 USPQ2d 1810, 1812 (TTAB 2014) (citing In re 1st USA Realty Prof’ls, Inc., 84 USPQ2d 1581, 1586 (TTAB 2007)); TMEP §1207.01(b).
When evaluating a composite mark containing both words and designs, for example, the word portion is more likely to indicate the origin of the goods and/or services because it is that portion of the mark that consumers use when referring to or requesting the goods and/or services. Bond v. Taylor, 119 USPQ2d 1049, 1055 (TTAB 2016) (citing In re Viterra Inc., 671 F.3d 1358, 1362, 101 USPQ2d 1905, 1908, 1911 (Fed. Cir. 2012)); TMEP §1207.01(c)(ii). Thus, although marks must be compared in their entireties, the word portion is often considered the dominant feature and is accorded greater weight in determining whether marks are confusingly similar, even where the word portion has been disclaimed. In re Viterra Inc., 671 F.3d at 1366-67, 101 USPQ2d at 1911 (citing Giant Food, Inc. v. Nation’s Foodservice, Inc., 710 F.2d 1565, 1570-71, 218 USPQ2d 390, 395 (Fed. Cir. 1983)).
Similarly, consumers are generally more inclined to focus on the beginning of any trademark or service mark. See Presto Prods., Inc. v. Nice-Pak Prods., Inc., 9 USPQ2d 1895, 1897 (TTAB 1988) (“it is often the first part of a mark which is most likely to be impressed upon the mind of a purchaser and remembered” when making purchasing decisions).
Accordingly, ENVIROPURE, as the only wording in it, is the dominant source-indicating element in the applied-for mark. The same wording is the dominant element of the mark in U.S. Registration No 3137791, and the essentially identical term ENVIRO PURE is the dominant source-indicating element of the marks in U.S. Registration Nos. 4666258, 3876092, and 2965409. ENVIROPURE in the applied-for mark and ENVIROPURE and ENVIRO PURE in the registered marks sound the same, appear similarly, and convey the same commercial impression. For these reasons, the applied-for and registered marks are confusingly similar.
Relatedness of the Goods and Services
Applicant seeks to register its mark for “water treatment equipment for commercial and residential use”. The registered marks are for:
The application uses the broad wording “Water treatment equipment for commercial and residential use” to describe applicant’s goods, which presumably encompasses all goods of the type described, including the more narrow identification of “water filtration units and reverse osmosis units” in U.S. Registration No. 4666258 and “Plastic pipe for well screens” in U.S. Registration No. 3876092. See, e.g., Sw. Mgmt., Inc. v. Ocinomled, Ltd., 115 USPQ2d 1007, 1025 (TTAB 2015); see also attached evidence from www.michigan.gov. Additionally, the goods of the parties have no restrictions as to channels of trade or classes of purchasers and are “presumed to travel in the same channels of trade to the same class of purchasers.” In re Viterra Inc., 671 F.3d 1358, 1362, 101 USPQ2d 1905, 1908 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (quoting Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Packard Press, Inc., 281 F.3d 1261, 1268, 62 USPQ2d 1001, 1005 (Fed. Cir. 2002)).
Determining likelihood of confusion is based on the description of the goods and/or services stated in the application and registrations at issue, not on evidence of actual use. See Stone Lion Capital Partners, LP v. Lion Capital LLP, 746 F.3d 1317, 1323, 110 USPQ2d 1157, 1162 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (quoting Octocom Sys. Inc. v. Hous. Computers Servs. Inc., 918 F.2d 937, 942, 16 USPQ2d 1783, 1787 (Fed. Cir. 1990)).
Applicant’s equipment is also related to the services identified in U.S. Registration Nos. 3137791 and 2965409. The compared goods and services need not be identical or even competitive to find a likelihood of confusion. See On-line Careline Inc. v. Am. Online Inc., 229 F.3d 1080, 1086, 56 USPQ2d 1471, 1475 (Fed. Cir. 2000); TMEP §1207.01(a)(i). They need only be “related in some manner and/or if the circumstances surrounding their marketing are such that they could give rise to the mistaken belief that [the goods and/or services] emanate from the same source.” Coach Servs., Inc. v. Triumph Learning LLC, 668 F.3d 1356, 1369, 101 USPQ2d 1713, 1722 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (quoting 7-Eleven Inc. v. Wechsler, 83 USPQ2d 1715, 1724 (TTAB 2007)); TMEP §1207.01(a)(i).
For example, consumers are likely to be confused by the use of similar marks on or in connection with goods and with services featuring or related to those goods. TMEP §1207.01(a)(ii); see In re Hyper Shoppes (Ohio), Inc., 837 F.2d 463, 6 USPQ2d 1025 (Fed. Cir. 1988) (holding BIGG’S for retail grocery and general merchandise store services likely to be confused with BIGGS for furniture). In this case, registrant’s services feature equipment like that identified in the application. See, attached U.S. Registration Nos. 3137791 and 2965409.
The trademark examining attorney has attached evidence from the USPTO’s X-Search database consisting of a number of third-party marks registered for use in connection with the same or similar goods and services as those of both applicant and registrant in this case. This evidence shows that the goods and services listed therein, namely water treatment equipment on the one hand and sales and/or technical consultation in the field of water and wastewater on the other hand, are of a kind that may emanate from a single source under a single mark. See In re Aquamar, Inc., 115 USPQ2d 1122, 1126 n.5 (TTAB 2015) (citing In re Mucky Duck Mustard Co., 6 USPQ2d 1467, 1470 n.6 (TTAB 1988)); TMEP §1207.01(d)(iii).
Sections 1 and 45 Refusal: Specimen Unacceptable
Registration is refused because the specimen does not show the applied-for mark in the drawing in use in commerce in International Class 011. Trademark Act Sections 1 and 45, 15 U.S.C. §§1051, 1127; 37 C.F.R. §§2.34(a)(1)(iv), 2.56(a); In re Keep A Breast Found., 123 USPQ2d 1869, 1876-79 (TTAB 2017); TMEP §§904, 904.07(a), 1301.04(a), (d), (g)(i). Specifically:
(1) The specimen displays the mark the wording ENVIROPURE with a design of a globe inside the letter “O” and a line underneath the letters “ROPURE”; however, the drawing displays the mark as ENVIROPURE with a line underneath the entire word and without a globe design.
The drawing shows the mark sought to be registered, and must be a substantially exact representation of the mark as used on or in connection with the goods, as shown by the specimen. 37 C.F.R. §2.51(a); TMEP §807.12(a). Because the mark in the drawing is not a substantially exact representation of the mark on the specimen, applicant has failed to provide the required evidence of use of the applied-for mark in commerce on applicant’s goods. See TMEP §807.12(a).
Regarding whether applicant may submit an amended drawing in response to this refusal, applicant is advised that the drawing of a mark can be amended only if the amendment does not materially alter the mark as originally filed. 37 C.F.R. §2.72(a)(2); see TMEP §§807.12(a), 807.14 et seq. In this case, amending the mark in the drawing to conform to the mark on the specimen would be a material alteration and would not be accepted, because the difference between the mark in the specimen and the drawing is significant and each mark creates a different commercial impression. Specifically, the mark on the specimen includes a distinctive design of a globe that is not included in the drawing and which conveys an impression that is not conveyed by the drawing.
(2) The specimen does not show the applied-for mark in use in commerce in connection with any of the goods specified in International Class 011 in the application. In particular, the specimen displays ENVIROPURE with a design in connection with water test kits principally comprised of chemicals. Such kits are properly classified in International Class 001 rather than 011.
(3) The specimen is a printer’s proof. Generally, printer’s proofs are preliminary copies of documents used to make corrections before publication. Proofs are usually not disseminated to the public, and thus do not show use in commerce of the mark in connection with the identified goods. See 15 U.S.C. §1127; In re The Signal Cos., 228 USPQ 956, 957-58 n.4 (TTAB 1986); TMEP §§904.04(a), 904.07(a), 1301.04(a).
In addition, the specimen submitted with the application is not properly verified. Trademark Act Sections 1 and 45, 15 U.S.C. §§1051, 1127; 37 C.F.R. §§2.34(a)(1)(iv), 2.56(a), 2.63(b), 2.76(b)(2); TMEP §§904, 904.07(a), 1301.04(g)(i). In particular, a verified statement that the specimen was in use in commerce at least as early as the application filing date was omitted from the application.
An application based on Trademark Act Section 1(a) must include a specimen showing the applied-for mark in use in commerce for each international class of goods identified in the application. 15 U.S.C. §1051(a)(1); 37 C.F.R. §§2.34(a)(1)(iv), 2.56(a); TMEP §§904, 904.07(a).
Examples of specimens for goods include tags, labels, instruction manuals, containers, photographs that show the mark on the actual goods or packaging, and displays associated with the actual goods at their point of sale. See TMEP §§904.03 et seq. Webpages may also be specimens for goods when they include a picture or textual description of the goods associated with the mark and the means to order the goods. TMEP §904.03(i).
Applicant may respond to this refusal by satisfying one of the following for each applicable international class:
(1) Submit a different specimen (a verified “substitute” specimen) that (a) was in actual use in commerce at least as early as the filing date of the application and (b) shows the applied-for mark in actual use in commerce for the goods identified in the application.
(2) Amend the filing basis to intent to use under Section 1(b), for which no specimen is required. This option will later necessitate additional fee(s) and filing requirements such as providing a specimen at a subsequent date.
For an overview of both response options referenced above and instructions on how to satisfy either option online using the Trademark Electronic Application System (TEAS) form, please go to http://www.gov.uspto.report/trademarks/law/J3_1.jsp.
Applicant must also respond to the following requirements.
New Drawing Required
Therefore, applicant must submit a new drawing showing a clear depiction of the mark only. All lines must be clean, sharp and solid, and not fine or crowded. 37 C.F.R. §§2.53(c), 2.54(e); TMEP §§807.05(c), 807.06(a). Additionally, the USPTO will not accept a new drawing in which there are amendments or changes that would materially alter the applied-for mark. 37 C.F.R. §2.72; see TMEP §§807.13 et seq., 807.14.
For more information about drawings and instructions on how to submit a drawing, please visit the Drawing webpage.
Applicant must also respond to the following requirements.
Mark Description Required
The applied-for mark is not in standard characters and applicant did not provide a description of the mark with the initial application. Applications for marks not in standard characters must include an accurate and concise description of the entire mark that identifies literal elements as well as any design elements. See 37 C.F.R. §2.37; TMEP §§808.01, 808.02, 808.03(b).
Therefore, applicant must provide a description of the applied-for mark. The following is suggested:
The mark consists of the wording “ENVIROPURE” in a stylized font. A straight, horizontal line appears beneath the wording.
Applicant must also respond to the following requirements.
Date of First Use Anywhere Required
Therefore, applicant must provide the date of first use of the mark anywhere. If the date of first use anywhere differs from the date of first use in commerce, applicant must verify the date of first use anywhere with an affidavit or signed declaration under 37 C.F.R. §2.20. See 37 C.F.R. §§2.34(a)(1)(ii), 2.193(e)(1); TMEP §§903, 903.04. However, if the date of first use anywhere is the same as the date of first use in commerce, applicant need not verify the date of first use anywhere. See TMEP §903.04.
For an overview of the requirement for providing a verified date of first use of the mark anywhere and instructions on how to satisfy this requirement online using the Trademark Electronic Application System (TEAS) form, please go to http://www.gov.uspto.report/trademark/laws-regulations/dates-use.
Applicant must also respond to the following requirements.
Amendment to Identification of Goods Required
The identification of goods in the application is:
Water treatment equipment for commercial and residential use
The applicant did not designate in the application the required international class numbers for applicant’s goods and submitted a filing fee for a single class. Thus, the USPTO conducted a preliminary review of the specified goods and services and assigned International Class 011. See TMEP §1401.03(b). However, not all of the goods encompassed by the identification are properly classified in International Class 011, as set forth in detail below.
The identification of goods is indefinite and too broad. See 37 C.F.R. §2.32(a)(6); TMEP §§1402.01, 1402.03. The identification is indefinite because it does not specify the name of each piece of equipment. See TMEP §§1402.01, 1402.03. Further, this wording could identify goods in more than one international class. For example: water treatment equipment in the nature of metal water storage basins is properly classified in International Class 006; water treatment equipment in the nature of pumps for use in irrigation systems is properly classified in International Class 007; water treatment equipment in the nature of fertilizer injection units is properly classified in International Class 009; water treatment equipment such as filters is properly classified in International Class 011; and water treatment equipment in the nature of non-metal water storage basins is properly classified in International Class 019.
Applicant may adopt any or all of the following identification, if accurate. Applicant must also adopt the appropriate international class number(s), and, if applicant adopts goods in more than one class, it must comply with the multiple-class application requirements set forth below. In the following, proposed amendments are in bold.
Class 006: Water treatment equipment for commercial and residential use, namely, metal water storage basins for collecting and storing water
Class 007: Water treatment equipment for commercial and residential use, namely, pumps for use in irrigation systems
Class 009: Water treatment equipment for commercial and residential use, namely, fertilizer injection devices which connect to a water distribution line, which automatically injects a predetermined proportion of fertilizer into an irrigation system used by a greenhouse complex
Class 011: Water treatment equipment for commercial and residential use, namely, water filtration units, reverse osmosis units, ultraviolet sterilization units, and chemical sterilization units
Class 019: Water treatment equipment for commercial and residential use, namely, non-metal water storage basins for collecting and storing water
For assistance with identifying and classifying goods in trademark applications, please see the USPTO’s online searchable U.S. Acceptable Identification of Goods and Services Manual. See TMEP §1402.04.
Multiple-Class Application Requirements
(1) List the goods and/or services by their international class number in consecutive numerical order, starting with the lowest numbered class.
(2) Submit a filing fee for each international class not covered by the fee already paid (view the USPTO’s current fee schedule). Specifically, the application identifies goods based on use in commerce that are classified in at least 5 classes; however, applicant submitted a fee sufficient for only 1 class. Applicant must either (a) submit the filing fees for the classes not covered by the submitted fee or (b) restrict the application to the number of classes covered by the fee already paid.
(3) Submit verified dates of first use of the mark anywhere and in commerce for each international class. See more information about verified dates of use.
(4) Submit a specimen for each international class. The current specimen is not acceptable for any international class.
(5) Submit a verified 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.” See more information about verification.
See 15 U.S.C. §§1051(a), 1112; 37 C.F.R. §§2.32(a)(6)-(7), 2.34(a)(1), 2.86(a); TMEP §§904, 1403.01, 1403.02(c).
See an overview of the requirements for a Section 1(a) multiple-class application and how to satisfy the requirements online using the Trademark Electronic Application System (TEAS) form.
Applicant must also respond to the following requirement.
Applicant’s Entity Type and Place of Organization Required
If applicant’s legal entity is an individual, applicant must so specify and provide his or her national citizenship. TMEP §803.03(a).
If applicant is a corporation, association, partnership, joint venture, or the foreign equivalent, applicant must so specify and provide the U.S. state or foreign country under whose laws applicant is organized or incorporated. TMEP §803.04. For a U.S. partnership or joint venture, applicant must also list the names, legal entities and national citizenship or the U.S. state or foreign country of organization or incorporation of all the general partners or joint venturers. TMEP §803.03(b)-(c). For an association, applicant must also specify whether the association is incorporated or unincorporated. TMEP §803.03(c).
Examining Attorney
Law Office 120
571-272-3177
jeanine.gagliardi@uspto.gov
TO RESPOND TO THIS LETTER: Go to http://www.gov.uspto.report/trademarks/teas/response_forms.jsp. Please wait 48-72 hours from the issue/mailing date before using the Trademark Electronic Application System (TEAS), to allow for necessary system updates of the application. For technical assistance with online forms, e-mail TEAS@uspto.gov. For questions about the Office action itself, please contact the assigned trademark examining attorney. E-mail communications will not be accepted as responses to Office actions; therefore, do not respond to this Office action by e-mail.
All informal e-mail communications relevant to this application will be placed in the official application record.
WHO MUST SIGN THE RESPONSE: It must be personally signed by an individual applicant or someone with legal authority to bind an applicant (i.e., a corporate officer, a general partner, all joint applicants). If an applicant is represented by an attorney, the attorney must sign the response.
PERIODICALLY CHECK THE STATUS OF THE APPLICATION: To ensure that applicant does not miss crucial deadlines or official notices, check the status of the application every three to four months using the Trademark Status and Document Retrieval (TSDR) system at http://tsdr.gov.uspto.report/. Please keep a copy of the TSDR status screen. If the status shows no change for more than six months, contact the Trademark Assistance Center by e-mail at TrademarkAssistanceCenter@uspto.gov or call 1-800-786-9199. For more information on checking status, see http://www.gov.uspto.report/trademarks/process/status/.
TO UPDATE CORRESPONDENCE/E-MAIL ADDRESS: Use the TEAS form at http://www.gov.uspto.report/trademarks/teas/correspondence.jsp.