UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE

 

 

 

OFFICE ACTION

 

RESPONSE TIME LIMIT:  TO AVOID ABANDONMENT, THE OFFICE MUST RECEIVE A PROPER RESPONSE TO THIS OFFICE ACTION WITHIN 6 MONTHS OF THE MAILING OR E-MAILING DATE. 

 

MAILING/E-MAILING DATE INFORMATION:  If the mailing or e-mailing date of this Office action does not appear above, this information can be obtained by visiting the USPTO website at http://tarr.gov.uspto.report/, inserting the application serial number, and viewing the prosecution history for the mailing date of the most recently issued Office communication.

 

Serial Number  77/006382

 

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

 

Section 2(d) - Likelihood of Confusion Refusal

 

Registration of the proposed mark is refused because of a likelihood of confusion with the mark in U.S. Registration No. 2427938.  Trademark Act Section 2(d), 15 U.S.C. §1052(d); TMEP §§1207.01 et seq.  See the enclosed registration.

 

 

 

Trademark Act Section 2(d) bars registration where an applied-for mark so resembles a registered mark that it is likely, when applied to the goods and/or services, to cause confusion, mistake or to deceive the potential consumer as to the source of the goods and/or services.  TMEP §1207.01.  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 consider in determining whether there is a likelihood of confusion.  Among these factors are the similarity of the marks as to appearance, sound, meaning and commercial impression, and the relatedness of the goods and/or services. 

 

Similarity of Marks

 

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 literal portion of applicant’s mark, LIAISON, is identical to the literal portion of the registered mark LIAISON. 

 

Relatedness of Goods/Services

 

The goods and/or services of the parties need not be identical or directly competitive to find a likelihood of confusion.  Instead, they need only be related in some manner, or the conditions surrounding their marketing are such that they would be encountered by the same purchasers under circumstances that would give rise to the mistaken belief that the goods and/or services come from a common source.  On-line Careline Inc. v. America Online Inc., 229 F.3d 1080, 56 USPQ2d 1471 (Fed. Cir. 2000); In re Martin’s Famous Pastry Shoppe, Inc., 748 F.2d 1565, 223 USPQ 1289 (Fed. Cir. 1984); In re Melville Corp., 18 USPQ2d 1386, 1388 (TTAB 1991); In re Corning Glass Works, 229 USPQ 65 (TTAB 1985); In re Rexel Inc., 223 USPQ 830 (TTAB 1984); Guardian Prods. Co., Inc. v. Scott Paper Co., 200 USPQ 738 (TTAB 1978); In re Int’l Tel. & Tel. Corp., 197 USPQ 910 (TTAB 1978); TMEP §1207.01(a)(i).

 

Applicant’s services are identified as “Electronic commerce services, namely, providing online and electronic network and software application services for the exchange and integration of electronic transactions, product data, records and information among businesses” in Class 35, and “Business consulting services, namely, the development and implementation of strategies, software, architectures and processes for business to business electronic transactions and product information repositories and exchanges” in Class 42.  Registrant’s services are “computer services, namely consultation services and integration of computer systems in the field of electrical, electronic and computer components and equipment for electronic management of inventory, information and production for others” in Class 42.

 

Registrant’s identification indicates that it makes computer systems work together so as to manage customers’ inventory, information and production.  Similarly, applicant develops programs and provides software that allows its customers’ computer systems to work together and exchange information.  Both applicant’s and registrant’s services are used by customers to allow information exchanges among different computer systems.  These services are therefore related because they are sold through the same channels of trade to the same classes of customers; i.e., to businesses seeking to integrate diverse computer systems and to allow information to flow between them.

 

Because the literal portions of the marks are identical and the goods are related, registration is refused.

 

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(s) to register, then applicant must also respond to the following requirement(s).

 

Identification of Services

 

Applicant’s identification of services needs clarification because it is too broad and could include services classified in other international classes.  Applicant may substitute the following wording, if accurate:

 

Class 35 - Business consulting services regarding business strategies, supply chain synchronization, supply and demand forecasting, and product distribution processes for others.

 

Class 38 – Electronic communication services, namely electronic exchange of data stored in databases accessible by businesses via telecommunication networks

 

Class 42 - Computer communication service, namely, acting as an application service provider in the field of knowledge management to host computer application software for the collection, editing, organizing, modifying, book marking, transmission, storage and sharing of data and information among businesses; Consultation services for businesses in the fields of selection, implementation and use of computer hardware and software systems for others.

 

Please note that if applicant wishes to include consulting services, the International Class is determined by the nature of those services.  For example, “Business consulting services regarding business strategies…” would be in Class 35, while “Consultation services for businesses in the fields of selection, implementation and use of computer hardware and software systems for others” would be in 42.

 

TMEP §§1402.01 and 1402.03.

 

If applicant adopts the suggested amendment of the goods and/or services, then applicant must amend the classification to add International Class 38.  37 C.F.R. §§2.32(a)(7) and 2.85; TMEP §§1401 et seq.

 

The filing fee for adding classes to an application is as follows:

 

(1)     $325 per class, when the fees are submitted with a response filed online via the Trademark Electronic Application System (TEAS) at http://www.gov.uspto.report/teas/index.html; and

 

(2)     $375 per class, when the fees are submitted with a paper response. 

 

37 C.F.R. §§2.6(a)(i) and (ii); TMEP §810.

 

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

Response

 

To expedite prosecution of this application, applicant is encouraged to file its response to this Office action through the Trademark Electronic Application System (TEAS), available at http://www.gov.uspto.report/teas/index.html.

 

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.

 

 

/Robin M. Mittler/

Robin M. Mittler

Trademark Examining Attorney

Law Office 117

571-270-1534 (phone)

571-270-2534 (fax)

 

 

HOW TO RESPOND TO THIS OFFICE ACTION:

• ONLINE RESPONSE:  You may respond using the Office’s Trademark Electronic Application System (TEAS) Response to Office action form available on our website at http://www.gov.uspto.report/teas/index.html.  If the Office action issued via e-mail, you must wait 72 hours after receipt of the Office action to respond via TEAS.  NOTE:  Do not respond by e-mail.  THE USPTO WILL NOT ACCEPT AN E-MAILED RESPONSE.
• REGULAR MAIL RESPONSE:  To respond by regular mail, your response should be sent to the mailing return address above, and include the serial number, law office number, and examining attorney’s name.  NOTE:  The filing date of the response will be the date of receipt in the Office, not the postmarked date.  To ensure your response is timely, use a certificate of mailing.  37 C.F.R. §2.197.

 

STATUS OF APPLICATION: To check the status of your application, visit the Office’s Trademark Applications and Registrations Retrieval (TARR) system at http://tarr.uspto.gov.

 

VIEW APPLICATION DOCUMENTS ONLINE: Documents in the electronic file for pending applications can be viewed and downloaded online at http://portal.gov.uspto.report/external/portal/tow.

 

GENERAL TRADEMARK INFORMATION: For general information about trademarks, please visit the Office’s website at http://www.gov.uspto.report/main/trademarks.htm

 

FOR INQUIRIES OR QUESTIONS ABOUT THIS OFFICE ACTION, PLEASE CONTACT THE ASSIGNED EXAMINING ATTORNEY SPECIFIED ABOVE.