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  77/102081

 

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

 

LIKELIHOOD OF CONFUSION REFUSAL

 

The examining attorney refuses registration under Trademark Act Section 2(d), 15 U.S.C. Section 1052(d), because the applicant's mark, when used on or in connection with the identified goods, so resembles the mark in U.S. Registration No. 2813324 as to be likely to cause confusion, or to cause mistake, or to deceive.  TMEP section 1207.  See the enclosed registration.

 

Section 2(d) of the Trademark Act bars registration where a mark so resembles a registered mark, that it is likely, when applied to the goods or services, to cause confusion, or to cause mistake or to deceive. TMEP section 1207.01.  The Court in In re E. I. DuPont de Nemours & Co., 476 F.2d 1357, 177 USPQ 563 (CCPA 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 similarity of the goods or services.  The overriding concern is to prevent buyer confusion as to the source of the goods or services.  Miss Universe, Inc. v. Miss Teen U.S.A., Inc., 209 USPQ 698 (N.D. Ga. 1980).  Therefore, any doubt as to the existence of a likelihood of confusion must be resolved in favor of the registrant.  Lone Star Mfg. Co. v. Bill Beasley, Inc., 498 F.2d 906, 182 USPQ 368 (CCPA 1974).

 

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).

 

COMPARISON OF THE MARKS

 

The test of likelihood of confusion is not whether the marks can be distinguished when subjected to a side‑by‑side comparison.  The issue is whether the marks create the same overall impression. Visual Information Institute, Inc. v. Vicon Industries Inc., 209 USPQ 179 (TTAB 1980).  The focus is on the recollection of the average purchaser who normally retains a general rather than specific impression of trademarks.  Chemetron Corp. v. Morris Coupling & Clamp Co., 203 USPQ 537 (TTAB 1979); Sealed Air Corp. v. Scott Paper Co., 190 USPQ 106 (TTAB 1975); TMEP section 1207.01(b).

 

The cited registration is for the mark “COLORADO.”  The applicant’s mark is “COLORADO.”  The parties’ marks are identical in sound, appearance, meaning and commercial impression.  Similarity in any one of these elements is sufficient to find a likelihood of confusion. In re Mack, 197 USPQ 755 (TTAB 1977).

 

COMPARISON OF THE GOODS

 

If the marks of the respective parties are identical or highly similar, the examining attorney must consider the commercial relationship between the goods or services of the respective parties carefully to determine whether there is a likelihood of confusion.  In re Concordia International Forwarding Corp., 222 USPQ 355 (TTAB 1983).  The goods or services of the parties need not be identical or directly competitive to find a likelihood of confusion.  They need only be related in some manner, or the conditions surrounding their marketing be such, that they could be encountered by the same purchasers under circumstances that could give rise to the mistaken belief that the goods or services come from a common source.  In re Martin's Famous Pastry Shoppe, Inc., 748 F.2d 1565, 223 USPQ 1289 (Fed. Cir. 1984); In re Corning Glass Works, 229 USPQ 65 (TTAB 1985); In re Rexel Inc., 223 USPQ 830 (TTAB 1984); Guardian Products Co., Inc. v. Scott Paper Co., 200 USPQ 738 (TTAB 1978); In re International Telephone & Telegraph Corp., 197 USPQ 910 (TTAB 1978).

 

The registered mark is used in connection with “land vehicles, namely, automobiles, trucks, sport utility vehicles, vans, engines therefor and structural parts thereof” in International Class 12.  The applicant’s proposed mark is used in connection with “tires” in International Class 12.  The Trademark Trial and Appeal Board has consistently found that the use of identical or similar marks on automobiles and on tires is likely to cause confusion.  In re Jeep Corp., 222 USPQ 333 (TTAB 1984) (LAREDO for land vehicles and structural parts therefor confusingly similar to LAREDO for pneumatic tires); Ford Motor Company v. Hi-Performance Motors, Inc., 186 USPQ 64 (TTAB 1975) (representation of a coiled snake for automobile tires likely to cause confusion with COBRA for automobiles and automobile components); In re McCreary Tire & Rubber Company, 183 USPQ 256 (TTAB 1974) (THE PARK AVENUE for tires likely to cause confusion with PARK AVENUE for automobiles); Jetzon Tire & Rubber Corporation v. General Motors Corporation, 177 USPQ 467 (TTAB 1973) (GEMINI and GMINI for automobiles likely to cause confusion with GEMINI for vehicle tires).  Consequently, consumers are likely to be confused as to the source of the registrant’s goods and the applicant’s goods and believe that the goods emanate from a common source.  Based on the foregoing, registration is refused.

 

OTHER ISSUES

 

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 issues.

 

CLARIFICATION OF IDENTIFICATION OF GOODS REQUIRED

 

The applicant has listed its goods as twice in the application as “tires; tires” in International Class 12. The applicant must amend the identification of goods to delete one of the references to tires.  TMEP section 1402.01. To follow is the examining attorney’s suggestion concerning the applicant’s identification of goods”

 

“Tires” in International Class 12.

 

APPLICANT MAY NOT EXCEED SCOPE OF PRESENT IDENTIFICATION OF GOODS

 

While an application may be amended to clarify or limit the identification of goods, additions to the identification are not permitted.  37 C.F.R. Section 2.71(b).  TMEP section 1402.06.  Therefore, the applicant may not amend to include any goods that are not within the scope of the present identification.

 

IMPROPER DISCLAIMER – CANNOT DISCLAIM ENTIRE MARK

 

The application is confusing because the applicant has included the following statement:

 

THIS TRADEMARK IS DEDICATED TO BE USED FOR OFF-THE-ROAD AUTOMOBILE AND MINING EQUIPMENT TIRES MADE OF RUBBER BY THE OWNER. NO CLAIM IS MADE TO THE EXCLUSIVE RIGHT TO USE ANY TRADEMARK CONTAINING "COLORADO" BUT UNRELATED TO RUBBER TIRES.

 

The applicant has disclaimed the entire applied-for mark (i.e., “COLORADO”).  However, an entire mark may not be disclaimed.  15 U.S.C. §1056(a); See In re Dena Corp. v. Belvedere International Inc., 950 F.2d 1555, 1560, 21 USPQ2d 1047, 1051 (Fed. Cir. 1991); In re JT Tobacconists, 59 USPQ2d 1080, 1081 n.1 (TTAB 2001); In re Anchor Hocking Corp., 223 USPQ 85 (TTAB 1984). 

 

If the applied-for mark is not registrable as a whole, a disclaimer will not make it registrable.  TMEP §1213.06.  Therefore, the applicant must withdraw the disclaimer (by submitting a written request that it be withdrawn from the application). 

 

GENERAL RESPONSE GUIDELINES

 

When responding to this Office action, applicant must make sure to respond to each refusal and requirement raised.  If there is a refusal to register the proposed mark, then applicant may wish to argue against the refusal, i.e., explain why it should be withdrawn and why the mark should register.  If there are other requirements, then applicant should simply set forth the required changes or statements and request that the Office enter them into the application record.  Applicant must also sign and date its response.

 

TEAS PLUS APPLICANTS MUST SUBMIT DOCUMENTS ELECTRONICALLY OR SUBMIT FEE:  TEAS Plus applicants should submit the following documents using the Trademark Electronic Application System (TEAS) at http://www.gov.uspto.report/teas/index.html:  (1) written responses to Office actions; (2) preliminary amendments; (3) changes of correspondence address; (4) changes of owner’s address; (5) appointments and revocations of attorney; (6) amendments to allege use; (7) statements of use; (8) requests for extension of time to file a statement of use, and (9) requests to delete a §1(b) basis.  If any of these documents are filed on paper, they must be accompanied by a $50 per class fee.  37 C.F.R. §§2.6(a)(1)(iv) and 2.23(a)(i).  Telephone responses will not incur an additional fee.  NOTE:  In addition to the above, applicant must also continue to accept correspondence from the Office via e-mail throughout the examination process in order to avoid the additional fee.  37 C.F.R. §2.23(a)(2).

 

AUTHORITIES GOVERNING TRADEMARK APPLICATIONS

The following authorities govern the processing of trademark applications:

§         The Trademark Act, 15 U.S.C. Section 1051 et seq.;

§         Trademark Rules of Practice, 37 C.F.R. Part 2;

§         Trademark Manual of Examining Procedure (TMEP).

To access these resources, please see http://www.gov.uspto.report/web/office/tac

 

/Sonya B. Stephens/

Trademark Attorney

Law Office 109

(571) 272-9352 phone

(571) 273-9109 fax*

*fax no. for official responses only

 

 

 

NOTICE OF NEW PROCEDURE FOR E-MAILED OFFICE ACTIONS:  In late spring 2007, for any applicant who authorizes e-mail communication with the USPTO, the USPTO will no longer directly e-mail the actual Office action to the applicant.  Instead, upon issuance of an Office action, the USPTO will e-mail the applicant a notice with a link/web address to access the Office action using Trademark Document Retrieval (TDR), which is located on the USPTO website at http://portal.gov.uspto.report/external/portal/tow.  The Office action will not be attached to the e-mail notice.  Upon receipt of the notice, the applicant can then view and print the actual Office action and any evidentiary attachments using the provided link/web address.  TDR is available 24 hours a day, seven days a week, including holidays and weekends.  This new process is intended to eliminate problems associated with e-mailed Office actions that contain numerous attachments.

 

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.