To: | IntelliPath Inc. (trademarks@morganlewis.com) |
Subject: | TRADEMARK APPLICATION NO. 77148690 - INTELLIPATH - 068320.0002 |
Sent: | 7/18/2007 10:19:35 AM |
Sent As: | ECOM110@USPTO.GOV |
Attachments: | Attachment - 1 |
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
SERIAL NO: 77/148690
MARK: INTELLIPATH
|
|
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: IntelliPath Inc.
|
|
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: 7/18/2007
The assigned examining attorney has reviewed the referenced application and determined the following.
Registration of the proposed mark is refused because of a likelihood of confusion with the mark in U.S. Registration No. 1467640. Trademark Act Section 2(d), 15 U.S.C. §1052(d); TMEP §§1207.01 et seq. See the enclosed registration.
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. 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 and/or services. The overriding concern is to prevent buyer confusion as to the source of the goods and/or services. 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 applicant applies to register the mark INTELLIPATH computer hardware; disk drives, monitors, mouse pointing devices, peripherals, printed circuit boards containing electrical components and sockets, processors and memories; telecommunications equipment, namely, fiber optic components, legacy interfaces, modules, port adaptors, subsystems and switching elements for use in computer and communications networks, and for the transmission and storage of data and information to any network device; computer software, namely, software development tools for modeling, integrating, and testing fiber optic and legacy switching elements as part of communications systems equipment or for operating in a communications network; and user manuals sold with the foregoing items. Registrant is INTELLIPATH for use in connection with telecommunications services, namely, digital data transmission services.
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). In this instance the services are highly related all include telecommunications services.
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.
The identification of goods is unacceptable as indefinite. Applicant must clarify the identification of goods to specify the common commercial or generic name for the goods. If there is no common commercial or generic name, then applicant must describe the product and intended consumer as well as its main purpose and intended uses. Applicant may adopt the following identification of goods, if accurate. TMEP §1402.01.
Computer hardware; computer disk drives, computer monitors, computer mouse pointing devices, computer peripherals, printed circuit boards
containing electrical components and sockets, processors and memories; telecommunications equipment, namely, fiber optics components, computer legacy interface boards,
integrated circuit modules, computer port adaptors, subsystems in the nature of __________[please specify common commercial name] and automatic switching apparatus
for use in computer and communications networks, and for the transmission and storage of data and information to any network device; computer software, namely, software development tools for
modeling, integrating, and testing fiber optic and legacy switching elements as part of communications systems equipment or for operating in a communications network; and user manuals sold with the
foregoing items, in International Class 9.
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.
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.
Specimen Unacceptable for Goods
The specimen is not acceptable because it does not show the applied-for mark in use in commerce. An application based on Section 1(a) must include a specimen showing the applied-for mark in use in commerce for each class of goods. Trademark Act Sections 1, 2 and 45, 15 U.S.C. §§1051-1052 and 1127; 37 C.F.R. §§2.34(a)(1)(iv) and 2.56; TMEP §904.
The specimen is not acceptable as evidence of actual trademark use because it does not show use of the mark on the goods themselves or packaging for the goods. Thus it fails to show proper use on the goods or on packaging of the goods.
Therefore, applicant must submit the following:
(1) A substitute specimen showing the mark in use in commerce for the goods specified in the application.
(2) The following statement, verified with an affidavit or signed declaration under 37 C.F.R. §2.20: “The substitute specimen was in use in commerce at least as early as the filing date of the application.” 37 C.F.R. §2.59(a); TMEP §904.09. If submitting a specimen requires an amendment to the dates of use, applicant must also verify the amended dates. 37 C.F.R. §2.71(c).
Examples of specimens for goods are tags, labels, instruction manuals, containers, photographs that show the mark on the goods or packaging, or displays associated with the goods at their point of sale. TMEP §§904.04 et seq.
If applicant cannot satisfy the above requirements, applicant may amend the Section 1(a) filing basis (use in commerce) to Section 1(b) (intent to use basis), for which no specimen is required. However, should applicant amend the basis to Section 1(b), registration cannot be granted until applicant later amends the application back to use in commerce by filing an acceptable allegation of use with a proper specimen. 15 U.S.C. §1051(c); 37 C.F.R. §§2.76, 2.88; TMEP Chapter 1100.
In order to amend to Section 1(b), applicant must submit the following statement, verified with an affidavit or a signed declaration under 37 C.F.R. §2.20: “Applicant has had a bona fide intention to use the mark in commerce on or in connection with the goods or services listed in the application as of the filing date of the application.” 15 U.S.C. §1051(b); 37 C.F.R. §§2.34(a)(2) and 2.35(b)(1); TMEP §806.01(b).
Pending a proper response, registration is refused because the specimen does not show the applied-for mark in use in commerce as a trademark. 15 U.S.C. §§1051-1052 and 1127; 37 C.F.R. §§2.34(a)(1)(iv) and 2.56.
/Tarah Hardy Ludlow/
Tarah Hardy Ludlow
Trademark Attorney
Law Office 110
571-272-9361
571-273-9110 fax
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.