| To: | United States Steel Corporation (ehjones@uss.com) |
| Subject: | TRADEMARK APPLICATION NO. 77126020 - USP - N/A |
| Sent: | 7/2/2007 9:15:10 AM |
| Sent As: | ECOM113@USPTO.GOV |
| Attachments: | Attachment - 1 Attachment - 2 Attachment - 3 Attachment - 4 Attachment - 5 Attachment - 6 Attachment - 7 Attachment - 8 |
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
|
SERIAL NO: 77/126020
MARK: USP
|
|
|
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: United States Steel Corporation
|
|
|
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: 7/2/2007
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 mark in U.S. Registration Nos. 0641265, 1152887, and 2925000. 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, to cause confusion, mistake or to deceive the potential consumer as to the source of the goods. TMEP §1207.01. 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 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. The overriding concern is to prevent buyer confusion as to the source of the goods. In re Shell Oil Co., 992 F.2d 1204, 1208, 26 USPQ2d 1687, 1690 (Fed. Cir. 1993). 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).
Here, registrant’s mark is “USP” in a stylized format while applicant’s mark is “USP” in standard character format.
Registration of a mark in typed or standard character form means that the mark may be displayed in any lettering style. 37 C.F.R. §2.52(a). The rights associated with a mark in typed or standard character form reside in the wording itself, and applicant is free to adopt any style of lettering, including lettering identical to that used by the registrants. Therefore, applicant’s presentation of its mark in standard character form will not avoid likelihood of confusion with a mark that is registered in typed or special form because the marks could be used in the same manner of display. See In re Melville Corp., 18 USPQ2d 1386, 1387-88 (TTAB 1991); In re Pollio Dairy Prods. Corp., 8 USPQ2d 2012, 2015 (TTAB 1988); Sunnen Prods. Co. v. Sunex Int’l Inc., 1 USPQ2d 1744, 1747 (TTAB 1987); In re Hester Indus., Inc., 231 USPQ 881, 882, n.6 (TTAB 1986); United Rum Merchants, Ltd. v. Fregal, Inc., 216 USPQ 217, 220 (TTAB 1982); Frances Denney, Inc. v. Vive Parfums, Ltd., 190 USPQ 302, 303-04 (TTAB 1976); TMEP §1207.01(c)(iii).
The literal elements of registrant’s mark is identical to applicant’s mark and since applicant’s mark is in standard character format, it can be displayed in any manner or stylization, including stylizations similar to the registrant’s mark. As such, the marks create similar commercial impressions.
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).
Here, registrant’s mark is “USP” in a stylized format while applicant’s mark is “USP” in standard character format.
Registration of a mark in typed or standard character form means that the mark may be displayed in any lettering style. 37 C.F.R. §2.52(a). The rights associated with a mark in typed or standard character form reside in the wording itself, and applicant is free to adopt any style of lettering, including lettering identical to that used by the registrants. Therefore, applicant’s presentation of its mark in standard character form will not avoid likelihood of confusion with a mark that is registered in typed or special form because the marks could be used in the same manner of display. See In re Melville Corp., 18 USPQ2d 1386, 1387-88 (TTAB 1991); In re Pollio Dairy Prods. Corp., 8 USPQ2d 2012, 2015 (TTAB 1988); Sunnen Prods. Co. v. Sunex Int’l Inc., 1 USPQ2d 1744, 1747 (TTAB 1987); In re Hester Indus., Inc., 231 USPQ 881, 882, n.6 (TTAB 1986); United Rum Merchants, Ltd. v. Fregal, Inc., 216 USPQ 217, 220 (TTAB 1982); Frances Denney, Inc. v. Vive Parfums, Ltd., 190 USPQ 302, 303-04 (TTAB 1976); TMEP §1207.01(c)(iii).
The literal elements of registrant’s mark is identical to applicant’s mark and since applicant’s mark is in standard character format, it can be displayed in any manner or stylization, including stylizations similar to the registrant’s mark. As such, the marks create similar commercial impressions.
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).
Here, registrant’s mark is “USP” in a stylized format with a crescent design, while applicant’s mark is “USP” in standard character format.
Registration of a mark in typed or standard character form means that the mark may be displayed in any lettering style. 37 C.F.R. §2.52(a). The rights associated with a mark in typed or standard character form reside in the wording itself, and applicant is free to adopt any style of lettering, including lettering identical to that used by the registrants. Therefore, applicant’s presentation of its mark in standard character form will not avoid likelihood of confusion with a mark that is registered in typed or special form because the marks could be used in the same manner of display. See In re Melville Corp., 18 USPQ2d 1386, 1387-88 (TTAB 1991); In re Pollio Dairy Prods. Corp., 8 USPQ2d 2012, 2015 (TTAB 1988); Sunnen Prods. Co. v. Sunex Int’l Inc., 1 USPQ2d 1744, 1747 (TTAB 1987); In re Hester Indus., Inc., 231 USPQ 881, 882, n.6 (TTAB 1986); United Rum Merchants, Ltd. v. Fregal, Inc., 216 USPQ 217, 220 (TTAB 1982); Frances Denney, Inc. v. Vive Parfums, Ltd., 190 USPQ 302, 303-04 (TTAB 1976); TMEP §1207.01(c)(iii).
Here, registrant’s mark consists of a literal element and a design element. However, this does not obviate the similarity between the marks because 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 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 (TTAB 1987); Amoco Oil Co. v. Amerco, Inc., 192 USPQ 729 (TTAB 1976); TMEP §1207.01(c)(ii).
The literal elements of registrant’s mark is identical to applicant’s mark and since applicant’s mark is in standard character format, it can be displayed in any manner or stylization, including stylizations similar to the registrant’s mark. As such, the marks create similar commercial impressions.
The goods/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/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). TMEP §1207.01(a)(i).
Here, registrant’s goods in US Registration number 0641265 are identified as “HOLLOW CAST METAL BODIES-NAMELY, CAST IRON PIPES AND FITTINGS HAVING PLAIN OR FLANGED ENDS, AND WITH OR WITHOUT BELL AND SPIGOT ENDS.” Applicant goods and services are identified as “steel pipes and tubes” in International Class 6, and “contract manufacturing in the field of steel pipe and tubing” in International Class 40.
The goods/services of both parties consist of metal pipes or the manufacture of such pipes. Steel is defined as “a strong alloy of iron containing up to 1.5 percent carbon along with small amounts of other elements such as manganese, chromium, and nickel.” See attached definition. Applicant’s steel pipes therefore use the same metal as applicant’s iron pipes, with the only difference being that applicant’s pipes are an iron alloy.
The similar nature of the parties’ pipes shows the relatedness of the parties’ goods.
The applicant’s mark is highly similar to the registrant’s mark. The applicant’s goods and services are closely related to the goods of the registrant. As such, the mark is refused registration under Section 2(d).
The goods/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/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). TMEP §1207.01(a)(i).
Here, registrant’s goods in US Registration number 1152887 are identified as “Cast Iron Pressure Pipe.” Applicant goods and services are identified as “steel pipes and tubes” in International Class 6, and “contract manufacturing in the field of steel pipe and tubing” in International Class 40.
The goods/services of both parties consist of metal pipes or the manufacture of such pipes. Steel is defined as “a strong alloy of iron containing up to 1.5 percent carbon along with small amounts of other elements such as manganese, chromium, and nickel.” See attached definition. Applicant’s steel pipes therefore use the same metal as applicant’s iron pipes, with the only difference being that applicant’s pipes are an iron alloy.
The similar nature of the parties’ pipes shows the relatedness of the parties’ goods.
The applicant’s mark is highly similar to the registrant’s mark. The applicant’s goods and services are closely related to the goods of the registrant. As such, the mark is refused registration under Section 2(d).
The goods/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/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). TMEP §1207.01(a)(i).
The registrant’s services in U.S. Registration No. 292500 are identified as “wholesale distributorship, mail order catalogue, and telephone and online ordering services for products in the field of industrial equipment, namely, bottles, labware, buckets, barrels, tanks, valves, pumps, pipes, tubing, fittings, sheet, rods, trash containers and bags, trays, carts, knobs, screws, shovels, wall protectors, hazardous chemical containers, portable containment pools, drum platforms and dock supports.” Again, applicant’s goods and services are identified as “steel pipes and tubes” in International Class 6, and “contract manufacturing in the field of steel pipe and tubing” in International Class 40.
Registrant’s distributorship and ordering services feature pipes and tubing. Since registrant’s identification of services contains no limitation on the material composition of the pipes or tubing, its services must be interpreted as encompassing applicant’s goods.
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 registrant’s goods and/or services is very broad, it is presumed that the registration encompasses all goods and/or services of the type described, including those in the applicant’s more specific identification, that they move in all normal channels of trade and that they are available to all potential customers. In re Elbaum, 211 USPQ 639, 640 (TTAB 1981); In re Optica International, 196 USPQ 775 (TTAB 1977); TMEP §1207.01(a)(iii).
Consumers are likely to be confused by the use of similar marks on or in connection with goods and with services featuring or related to those goods. See In re Hyper Shoppes (Ohio), Inc., 837 F.2d 463, 6 USPQ2d 1025 (Fed. Cir. 1988) (BIGG’S for retail grocery and general merchandise store services held confusingly similar to BIGGS for furniture); In re U.S. Shoe Corp., 229 USPQ 707 (TTAB 1985) (CAREER IMAGE (stylized) for retail women’s clothing store services and clothing held likely to be confused with CREST CAREER IMAGES (stylized) for uniforms); In re United Service Distributors, Inc., 229 USPQ 237 (TTAB 1986) (design for distributorship services in the field of health and beauty aids held likely to be confused with design for skin cream); In re Phillips-Van Heusen Corp., 228 USPQ 949 (TTAB 1986) (21 CLUB for various items of men’s, boys’, girls’ and women’s clothing held likely to be confused with THE “21” CLUB (stylized) for restaurant services and towels); Steelcase Inc. v. Steelcare Inc., 219 USPQ 433 (TTAB 1983) (STEELCARE INC. for refinishing of furniture, office furniture, and machinery held likely to be confused with STEELCASE for office furniture and accessories); Mack Trucks, Inc. v. Huskie Freightways, Inc., 177 USPQ 32 (TTAB 1972) (use of similar marks for trucking services and on motor trucks and buses is likely to cause confusion).
The applicant’s mark is highly similar to the registrant’s mark. The applicant’s goods and services are closely related to the services of the registrant. As such, the mark is refused registration under Section 2(d).
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 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.
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).
/ahsenkhan/
Trademark Attorney
Law Office 113
(571) 272 1479
RESPOND TO THIS ACTION: If there are any questions about the Office action, please contact the assigned examining attorney. A response to this Office Action should be filed using the Office’s Response to Office action form available at http://www.gov.uspto.report/teas/eTEASpageD.htm. If notification of this Office action was received via e-mail, no response using this form may be filed for 72 hours after receipt of the notification. Do not attempt to respond by e-mail as 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.
