Offc Action Outgoing

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  77/111559

 

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

 

Likelihood of Confusion

The examining attorney refuses registration under Trademark Act Section 2(d), 15 U.S.C. Section 1052(d), because applicant's mark, when used in connection with the identified goods, so resembles the mark in U.S. Registration No. 2979304 as to be likely to cause confusion, to cause mistake, or to deceive.  TMEP section 1207.  See the enclosed registration.

 

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 goods 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 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 cited registered mark PETROL is a shortened version of applicant’s mark PETROLEUM.  The marks are highly similar in sound, appearance and commercial impression.  The meaning of the terms is very similar and so the addition of EUM in applicant’s mark is insufficient to obviate the likelihood of confusion.  Applicant’s mark is used in connection with “clothing” which encompasses registrant’s more specific clothing types.   Therefore, the goods are highly related and move in the same channels of trade.  Due to the close relation between both the marks and the goods, consumers are likely to be confused as to the source of the  goods.

 

Prior Pending Application

The examining attorney encloses information regarding pending Application Serial No. 78357784 The filing  date of the referenced application precedes applicant's filing date.  There may be a likelihood of confusion between the marks under Trademark Act Section 2(d), 15 U.S.C. Section 1052(d).  If the referenced application matures into a registration, the examining attorney may refuse registration in this case under Section 2(d).  37 C.F.R. Section 2.83; TMEP section 1208.01.

 

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 informalities.

 

Identification of Goods

The identification of goods is unacceptable as indefinite and overly broad.  The applicant must amend the identification to specify the commercial name of the goods.  If there is no common commercial name for the product, the applicant must describe the product and its intended uses. TMEP section 1402.

 

The applicant may adopt the following identification if accurate:

 

            Clothing, namely, [specify each item eg. shirts, pants, hats], in International Class 25.

 

 

Please note that, while an application may be amended to clarify or limit the identification, 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 goods set forth in the present identification.

 

The Trademark Acceptable Identification of Goods and Services Manual can be found on the world wide web at: http://www.gov.uspto.report/web/offices/tac/doc/gsmanual/

 

No Basis Specified

Applicant has not specified a filing basis for the application.  An application must specify and meet the requirements of at least one filing basis.  37 C.F.R. §2.32(a)(5); TMEP §806.  An application may be filed based on any of the following:

 

(1)    Use of the mark in commerce under Trademark Act Section 1(a), 15 U.S.C. §1051(a) (TMEP §806.01(a));

 

(2)    A bona fide intention to use the mark in commerce under Trademark Act Section 1(b), 15 U.S.C. §1051(b) (TMEP §806.01(b));

 

(3)    A claim of priority, based on an foreign application filed within six months of the filing date of the U.S. application, under Trademark Act Section 44(d), 15 U.S.C. §1126(d) (TMEP §806.01(c)); and/or

 

(4)    A foreign registration of a mark in applicant’s country of origin under Trademark Act Section 44(e), 15 U.S.C. §1126(e) (TMEP §806.01(d)).

 

Therefore, applicant must (1) amend the application to specify at least one filing basis, and (2) satisfy all the requirements for the basis or bases asserted.  TMEP §806. 

 

Depending on the circumstances, applicant may be entitled to assert more than one of the above bases for filing.  In such a case, applicant must:  (1) satisfy all requirements for each basis claimed; (2) state that more than one basis is being asserted; and (3) list separately each basis, followed by the goods or services to which that basis applies.  See 37 C.F.R. §2.34; TMEP §§806.02 et seq.

 

Although multi-basis applications are permitted, applicant may not assert both use in commerce and intent to use for the same goods or services.  37 C.F.R. §2.34(b)(1); TMEP §806.02(b).

 

If the applicant has any questions or needs assistance in responding to this Office action, please telephone the assigned examining attorney.  If the applicant has questions regarding the status of the application, the applicant should check the uspto.gov website.

 

 

Rebecca L. Gilbert

/Rebecca L. Gilbert/

Law Office 103

571-272-9431

 

 

 

 

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.