To: | SamrtScience Laboratories Inc. (saw5198@earthlink.net) |
Subject: | TRADEMARK APPLICATION NO. 77113988 - JOINTFLEX - JOINTFLX AN |
Sent: | 6/8/2007 2:00:44 PM |
Sent As: | ECOM117@USPTO.GOV |
Attachments: | Attachment - 1 Attachment - 2 Attachment - 3 Attachment - 4 Attachment - 5 Attachment - 6 |
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
SERIAL NO: 77/113988
APPLICANT: SamrtScience Laboratories Inc.
|
|
CORRESPONDENT ADDRESS: |
RETURN ADDRESS: Commissioner for Trademarks P.O. Box 1451 Alexandria, VA 22313-1451
|
MARK: JOINTFLEX
|
|
CORRESPONDENT’S REFERENCE/DOCKET NO: JOINTFLX AN
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 77/113988
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 marks in U.S. Registration Nos. 2660133 and 3182567. Trademark Act Section 2(d), 15 U.S.C. §1052(d); TMEP §§1207.01 et seq. See the enclosed registrations.
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 be considered in determining whether there is a likelihood of confusion under Section 2(d). Any one of the factors listed may be dominant in any given case, depending upon the evidence of record. In re Dixie Restaurants, Inc., 105 F.3d 1405, 41 USPQ2d 1531, 1533 (Fed. Cir. 1997). In this case, the following factors are the most relevant: similarity of the marks, similarity of the goods and/or services, and similarity of trade channels of the goods and/or services. See In re Opus One, Inc., 60 USPQ2d 1812 (TTAB 2001); In re Dakin’s Miniatures Inc., 59 USPQ2d 1593 (TTAB 1999); In re Azteca Restaurant Enterprises, Inc., 50 USPQ2d 1209 (TTAB 1999); In re L.C. Licensing Inc., 49 USPQ2d 1379 (TTAB 1998); TMEP §§1207.01 et seq.
Applicant’s mark is “JOINTFLEX” for goods identified as “animal dietary supplements for relief of pain and promotion of movement; non-prescription topical analgesics and anesthetics and products to promote motion.” The registered marks are “JOINTFLEX” for dietary supplements and non-prescription topical analgesics and anesthetics, and “FLEXAJOINT” for dietary and nutritional food supplements for use in the treatment of and protection of joints and joint related conditions.
Taking into account the relevant du Pont factors, a likelihood of confusion determination in this case involves a two-part analysis. First, the marks are compared for similarities in appearance, sound, connotation and commercial impression. In re E .I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., 476 F.2d 1357, 177 USPQ 563 (C.C.P.A. 1973). Second, the goods or services are compared to determine whether they are similar or related or whether the activities surrounding their marketing are such that confusion as to origin is likely. In re National Novice Hockey League, Inc., 222 USPQ 638 (TTAB 1984); In re August Storck KG, 218 USPQ 823 (TTAB 1983); In re Int’l Tel. and Tel. Corp., 197 USPQ 910 (TTAB 1978); Guardian Prods. Co., v. Scott Paper Co., 200 USPQ 738 (TTAB 1978); TMEP §§1207.01 et seq.
Applicant’s mark is identical to the mark in the ‘133 registration. 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).
Applicant’s mark is also nearly identical to the mark in the ‘315 registration. Both applicant’s mark and the registered mark include the terms “FLEX” and “JOINT.” Applicant’s mark is essentially a transposition of the registrant’s mark and creates a similar commercial impression and meaning. In re Wine Society of America Inc., 12 USPQ2d 1139 (TTAB 1989); In re Nationwide Indus. Inc., 6 USPQ2d 1882 (TTAB 1988); In re General Tire & Rubber Co., 213 USPQ 870 (TTAB 1982); TMEP §1207.01(b)(vii).
COMPARISON OF THE GOODS
Applicant’s goods are in part identical to the goods identified in the prior registrations. Applicant’s dietary supplements, analgesics and anesthetics are identical to the dietary supplements and non-prescription topical analgesics and anesthetics identified in the ‘133 registration and identical to the dietary and nutritional food supplements identified in the ‘315 registration. Applicant’s goods and the goods identified in the ‘315 registration are both for the treatment of similar disorders, namely, joint or mobility problems. Applicant’s goods identified broadly as “products” are likewise legally identical to the goods identified in the registrations as these goods could include the supplements, analgesics and anesthetics identified in the registrations.
Likelihood of confusion is determined on the basis of the goods or services as they are identified in the application and the registration. Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Packard Press Inc., 281 F.3d 1261, 62 USPQ2d 1001 (Fed. Cir. 2002); In re Shell Oil Co., 992 F.2d 1204, 26 USPQ2d 1687, 1690 n.4 (Fed. Cir. 1993); J & J Snack Foods Corp. v. McDonald’s Corp., 932 F.2d 1460, 18 USPQ2d 1889 (Fed. Cir. 1991); Octocom Systems Inc. v. Houston Computer Services Inc., 918 F.2d 937, 16 USPQ2d 1783 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Since the identification of the applicant’s goods is very broad, it is presumed that the application encompasses all goods of the type described, including those in the registrant’s more specific identification, that they move in all normal channels of trade and that they are available to all potential customers. TMEP §1207.01(a)(iii).
Because the marks are substantially similar or identical and the goods are legally identical, registration of applicant’s mark is refused.
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).
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.
Information regarding pending Application Serial No. 78967107 is enclosed. The filing date of the referenced application precedes applicant’s filing date. There may be a likelihood of confusion under Trademark Act Section 2(d) between applicant’s mark and the referenced mark. If the referenced application registers, registration may be refused in this case under Section 2(d). 37 C.F.R. §2.83; TMEP §§1208 et seq. Therefore, upon entry of a response to this Office action, action on this case may be suspended pending final disposition of the earlier-filed application.
If applicant believes that there is no potential conflict between this application and the earlier-filed application, then applicant may present arguments relevant to the issue in a response to this Office action. The election not to submit arguments at this time in no way limits applicant’s right to address this issue at a later point.
If applicant chooses to respond to the refusal to register, then applicant must also respond to the following requirements.
The wording “PRODUCTS” in the identification of goods needs clarification because it is indefinite. Applicant must identify the types of products and their function. Applicant may substitute the following wording, if accurate: “veterinary preparations for the treatment of joint pain . . . .” TMEP §§1402.01 and 1402.03.
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.
Applicant’s claim of ownership of U.S. Registration No. 2034408 will not be printed on any registration which may issue from this application because Office records show that the claimed registration was cancelled in 2003 and was not owned by applicant. Only claims of ownership of live registrations are printed. 37 C.F.R. §2.36; TMEP §812.
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.
/Charlotte K. Corwin/
Charlotte Klein Corwin
Trademark Examining Attorney
Law Office 117
Phone - (571) 270-1532
Fax - (571) 270-2532
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.