To: | Freedom Awaits, LLC (legalines1@aol.com) |
Subject: | TRADEMARK APPLICATION NO. 77007143 - SPINEMASTER - N/A |
Sent: | 4/10/2009 7:39:51 AM |
Sent As: | ECOM112@USPTO.GOV |
Attachments: | Attachment - 1 Attachment - 2 Attachment - 3 Attachment - 4 |
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
SERIAL NO: 77/007143
MARK: SPINEMASTER
|
|
CORRESPONDENT ADDRESS: |
RESPOND TO THIS ACTION: http://www.gov.uspto.report/teas/eTEASpageD.htm
GENERAL TRADEMARK INFORMATION: http://www.gov.uspto.report/main/trademarks.htm
|
APPLICANT: Freedom Awaits, LLC
|
|
CORRESPONDENT’S REFERENCE/DOCKET NO: CORRESPONDENT E-MAIL ADDRESS: |
|
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: 4/10/2009
On September 24, 2007, action on this application was suspended pending the disposition of Application Serial No. 78668704. The referenced prior-pending application has since registered. Therefore, registration is refused as follows.
LIKELIHOOD OF CONFUSION
The examining attorney must analyze each case in two steps to determine whether there is a likelihood of confusion. First, the examining attorney must look at the marks themselves for similarities in appearance, sound, connotation and commercial impression. In re E. I. DuPont de Nemours & Co., 476 F.2d 1357, 177 USPQ 563 (CCPA 1973). Second, the examining attorney must compare the goods or services to determine if they are related or if the activities surrounding their marketing are such that confusion as to origin is likely. In re August Storck KG, 218 USPQ 823 (TTAB 1983); In re International Telephone and Telegraph Corp., 197 USPQ 910 (TTAB 1978); Guardian Products Co., v. Scott Paper Co., 200 USPQ 738 (TTAB 1978).
The registrant’s mark, SPINEMASTERS, and applicant’s mark, SPINEMASTER and design, create a similar commercial impression because the dominant portion of applicant’s mark, SPINEMASTER, is almost identical to registrant’s mark. The marks are compared in their entireties under a Trademark Act Section 2(d) analysis. See TMEP §1207.01(b). Nevertheless, one feature of a mark may be recognized as more significant in creating a commercial impression. Greater weight is given to that dominant feature in determining whether there is a likelihood of confusion. In re Nat’l Data Corp., 753 F.2d 1056, 224 USPQ 749 (Fed. Cir. 1985); Tektronix, Inc. v. Daktronics, Inc., 534 F.2d 915, 189 USPQ 693 (C.C.P.A. 1976); In re J.M. Originals Inc., 6 USPQ2d 1393 (TTAB 1987); see TMEP §1207.01(b)(viii), (c)(ii). When a mark consists of a word portion and a design portion, the word portion is more likely to be impressed upon a purchaser’s memory and to be used in calling for the goods and/or services. Therefore, the word portion is normally accorded greater weight in determining likelihood of confusion. In re Dakin’s Miniatures, Inc., 59 USPQ2d 1593, 1596 (TTAB 1999); In re Appetito Provisions Co., 3 USPQ2d 1553, 1554 (TTAB 1987); Amoco Oil Co. v. Amerco, Inc., 192 USPQ 729, 735 (TTAB 1976); TMEP §1207.01(c)(ii).
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).
The registrant’s goods, surgical instruments and apparatus for neurosurgical, orthopedic and radiotherapeutical purposes and applications in ear, nose and throat surgery; medical and surgical robots, and parts therefor, namely, controllers for medical and surgical robots, control boxes, instrument adapters, tool holders, endoscope adapters, microscope adapters, connection cables, for medical, neurosurgical, orthopedic or surgical applications, and for ear, nose and throat surgery; adapters for endoscopes; radiotherapeutic and radiosurgical apparatus; medical devices for acquiring and adjusting radiation points for medical purposes; medical systems for precisely positioning patients for medical purposes; nuclear spin tomographs used for medical purposes; intra-operative, image-guided localization systems for medical purposes; systems for software-controlled precision treatment in medical procedures, consisting of localizers, stereotactic neurosurgical arcs, biopsy kits, fixation adapters, instrument calibration matrixes and fixation rings, planning stations, computers, couch mounts, collimators, target positioners, film holders, mask systems, couch stabilizers, couch adapters, radiation devices, linear accelerators, gantrys, microscope adapters, fixation pins, neck and head immobilization devices; probes, sensors, electronic apparatus and image presentation apparatus all being parts of medical imaging systems for neurosurgical, orthopedic and radiotherapeutical purposes, for robot-assisted applications, and for applications in ear, nose and throat surgery; apparatus for controlling medical or surgical robots; supplementary devices for medical or surgical robots, namely, control boxes, instrument adapters, tool holders, adapters for endoscopes and microscopes, and connection cables, and applicant’s goods, medical device, namely a table containing a harness for use in decompression, reduction, and stablization of the intervetebral discs in the spine, travel in the same channels of trade because applicant’s table would be used in conjunction with registrant’s goods used for orthopedic applications.
Any doubt regarding a likelihood of confusion is resolved in favor of the prior registrant. Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Packard Press Inc., 281 F.3d 1261, 62 USPQ2d 1001, 1004 (Fed. Cir. 2002); In re Hyper Shoppes (Ohio), Inc., 837 F.2d 463, 6 USPQ2d 1025 (Fed. Cir. 1988); TMEP §§1207.01(d)(i).
Applicant must respond to the requirement(s) set forth below.
DRAWING UNACCEPTABLE
Applicant must submit a new drawing with “TM” deleted because it is not part of the mark. TMEP §§807.04 and 807.15.
/esther borsuk/
Esther Borsuk
Examining Attorney
Law Office 112
Phone: (571) 272-9131
Fax: (571) 273-9112
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.