To: | Thor Tech, Inc. (joseph.schaeff@dinslaw.com) |
Subject: | TRADEMARK APPLICATION NO. 77112796 - MILLENIA - AIR0557TA |
Sent: | 6/7/2007 2:35:42 PM |
Sent As: | ECOM101@USPTO.GOV |
Attachments: | Attachment - 1 Attachment - 2 Attachment - 3 Attachment - 4 Attachment - 5 Attachment - 6 Attachment - 7 Attachment - 8 Attachment - 9 Attachment - 10 |
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
SERIAL NO: 77/112796
APPLICANT: Thor Tech, Inc.
|
|
CORRESPONDENT ADDRESS: |
RETURN ADDRESS: Commissioner for Trademarks P.O. Box 1451 Alexandria, VA 22313-1451
|
MARK: MILLENIA
|
|
CORRESPONDENT’S REFERENCE/DOCKET NO: AIR0557TA
CORRESPONDENT EMAIL ADDRESS: |
Please provide in all correspondence:
1. Filing date, serial number, mark and applicant's name. 2. Date of this Office Action. 3. Examining Attorney's name and Law Office number. 4. Your telephone number and e-mail address.
|
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 77/112796
The assigned trademark examining attorney has reviewed the referenced application and has determined the following:
Registration of the proposed mark is refused because of a likelihood of confusion with the marks in U.S. Registration Nos. 1624710 and 2474806. Trademark Act Section 2(d), 15 U.S.C. §1052(d); TMEP §§1207.01 et seq. See the enclosed registrations.
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. DuPont 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. The overriding concern is to prevent buyer confusion as to the source of the goods and/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. In re Hyper Shoppes (Ohio), Inc., 837 F.2d 463, 6 USPQ2d 1025 (Fed. Cir. 1988); Lone Star Mfg. Co. v. Bill Beasley, Inc., 498 F.2d 906, 182 USPQ 368 (C.C.P.A. 1974).
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).
If the marks of the respective parties are identical, the relationship between the goods or services of the respective parties need not be as close to support a finding of likelihood of confusion as might apply where differences exist between the marks. Century 21 Real Estate Corp. v. Century Life of America, 970 F.2d 874, 877, 23 USPQ2d 1698, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 1992), cert. denied 506 U.S. 1034 (1992); In re Opus One Inc., 60 USPQ2d 1812, 1815 (TTAB 2001); Amcor, Inc. v. Amcor Industries, Inc., 210 USPQ 70 (TTAB 1981); TMEP §1207.01(a).
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).
· As to U.S. Registration No. 1624710:
The registrant applies the mark “MILLENIA” to “automobiles and structural parts thereof.” The applicant seeks to register the wording “MILLENIA” for “ travel trailers, fifth wheels, sport utility trailers, park trailers and park models.” The applicant’s proposed mark is identical to the registered mark. Applicant’s goods are closely related to the registrant’s goods because travel trailers, fifth wheel trailers, and sport utility trailers would be used in connection with automobiles. Please see the attached evidence showing that travel trailers are used with trucks.
On balance, because the marks are identical and the goods are closely related, consumer confusion is likely.
· As to U.S. Registration No. 2474806:
The registrant applies the mark “MILLENNIUM BY KIT” to “travel trailer.” The applicant seeks to register the wording “MILLENIA” for “ travel trailers, fifth wheels, sport utility trailers, park trailers and park models.” The applicant’s proposed mark is highly similar to the registered mark because “millennia” is the plural form of “millennium.” Please see the attached evidence. Therefore, the marks cast highly similar commercial impressions. Moreover, the applicant’s goods are identical to the registrant’s goods. If the goods or services of the respective parties are closely related, the degree of similarity between marks required to support a finding of likelihood of confusion is not as great as would apply with diverse goods or services. Century 21 Real Estate Corp. v. Century Life of America, 970 F.2d 874, 877, 23 USPQ2d 1698, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 1992), cert. denied 506 U.S. 1034 (1992); In re J.M. Originals Inc., 6 USPQ2d 1393 (TTAB 1987); ECI Division of E-Systems, Inc. v. Environmental Communications Inc., 207 USPQ 443 (TTAB 1980); TMEP §1207.01(b).
On balance, because the marks are highly similar and the goods are identical, consumer confusion is likely.
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 to register, then applicant must also respond to the following requirements.
2. Requirement: Applicant Must Submit a Signed Declaration
The application was not signed and verified, which are application requirements. 15 U.S.C. §§1051(a)-(b), 1126(d)-(e), 1141f(a); 37 C.F.R. §§2.33-2.34. Therefore, applicant must verify, in a signed affidavit or declaration under 37 C.F.R. §2.20, the following statement: “Applicant has had a bona fide intention to use the mark in commerce on or in connection with the goods and/or services listed in the application as of the filing date, and the facts set forth in the application are true and correct.” 37 C.F.R. §2.193(c)(1)(iii); TMEP §804.02.
If applicant responds to this Office action via TEAS, applicant may satisfy this requirement by adding the required statement (specified immediately above) to the TEAS response form, checking the box for a “signed declaration,” and properly signing the form by either (1) choosing an electronic signature consisting of any combination of letters, numbers, spaces and/or punctuation marks, preceded and followed by the forward slash (/) symbol (e.g., /johndoe/), and entering this in the signature block on the response form, or (2) attaching a JPG or PDF image of a declaration under 37 C.F.R. §2.20 (see declaration paragraph below) together with a pen-and-ink signature. TMEP §804.05.
If applicant responds to this Office action on paper, via regular mail, applicant may satisfy this requirement by providing the following declaration at the end of the response, properly signed and dated:
The undersigned, being hereby warned that willful false statements and the like so made are punishable by fine or imprisonment, or both, under 18 U.S.C. 1001, and that such willful false statements and the like may jeopardize the validity of the application or any resulting registration, declares that he/she is properly authorized to execute this application on behalf of the applicant; he/she believes the applicant to be entitled to use such mark in commerce; that applicant has had a bona fide intention to use the mark in commerce on or in connection with the goods and/or services listed in the application as of the filing date; that the facts set forth in the application are true and correct; that to the best of his/her knowledge and belief no other person, firm, corporation, or association has the right to use the mark in commerce, either in the identical form thereof or in such near resemblance thereto as to be likely, when used on or in connection with the goods/services of such other person, to cause confusion, or to cause mistake, or to deceive; and that all statements made of his/her own knowledge are true and all statements made on information and belief are believed to be true.
_____________________________
(Signature)
_____________________________
(Print or Type Name and Position)
_____________________________
(Date)
3. Requirement: Identification of Goods
The wording “park models” in the identification of goods is indefinite and must be clarified because the type of model is unclear (i.e., trailer, home, vehicle). TMEP §1402.01. Applicant should specify that the type of model. Applicant should also clarify that the goods are “recreational vehicles” in order to properly classify them in International Class 012.
Applicant may substitute the following wording, if accurate:
Recreational vehicles, namely, travel trailers, fifth wheels, sport utility trailers, park trailers and park model trailers
Please note that, while the identification of goods may be amended to clarify or limit the goods, adding to the goods or broadening the scope of the goods is not permitted. 37 C.F.R. §2.71(a); TMEP §1402.06. Therefore, applicant may not amend the identification to include goods that are not within the scope of the goods 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.
4. Information: Response to Office Action
There is no required format or form for responding to this Office action. The Office recommends applicants use the Trademark Electronic Application System (TEAS) to respond to Office actions online at http://www.gov.uspto.report/teas/index.html. However, if applicant responds on paper via regular mail, the response should include the following information: (1) the name and law office number of the examining attorney; (2) the serial number of this application; (3) the mailing date of this Office action; and (4) applicant's telephone number.
The response should address each refusal and/or requirement raised in the Office action. If a refusal has issued, applicant may wish to argue against the refusal, i.e., submit arguments and/or evidence as to why the refusal should be withdrawn and why the mark should register. To respond to requirements, applicant should simply set forth in writing the required changes or statements and request that the Office enter them into the application record.
The response must be signed by applicant or someone with legal authority to bind applicant (i.e., a corporate officer of a corporate applicant, the equivalent of an officer for unincorporated organizations or limited liability company applicants, a general partner of a partnership applicant, each applicant for applications with multiple individual applicants, etc.). TMEP §§712 et seq.
/Justine D. Parker/
Trademark Examining Attorney
Law Office 101
Phone: (571) 272-2488
Fax: (571) 273-9101
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:
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.
Note:
In order to avoid size limitation constraints on large e-mail messages, this Office Action has been split into 2 smaller e-mail messages. The Office Action in its entirety consists of this message as well as the following attachments that you will receive in separate messages:
Email 1 includes the following 4 attachments
1. exhibit1-1
2. exhibit1-2
3. exhibit1-3
4. exhibit2-1
Email 2 includes the following 6 attachments
1. exhibit2-2
2. exhibit2-3
3. exhibit2-4
4. exhibit3
5. 73837347P001OF001
6. 75555286P001OF001
Please ensure that you receive all of the aforementioned attachments, and if you do not, please contact the assigned-examining attorney.