UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE

 

 

 

OFFICE ACTION

 

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: 8/27/2007

 

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

 

Registration Refused – Likelihood Of Confusion

 

Registration of the proposed mark is refused because of a likelihood of confusion with the marks in U.S. Registration Nos. 2511950 and 2710520.  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. 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).

 

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 proposed mark is REACTOR for, as currently worded, video gaming desktop computers.

 

The registered marks are:

 

REACTOR for audio equipment and components for audio equipment, namely, radio tuners, audio tape recorders and players, audio compact disc recorders and players, speakers, woofers, audio monitor speakers, LCD display panels; and

 

REACTOR for audio equipment and video equipment, and components for audio and video equipment, namely, amplifiers, equalizers, radio tuners, audio tape recorders and players, audio compact disc recorders and players, speakers, woofers, audio monitor speakers, LCD display panels, television tuners, video tape recorders and players, video disc recorders and players, video monitors, video screens, speaker enclosures and grills, audio and video cables, headphones; GPS receivers, radio transmitters, batteries, battery cables, capacitors, battery terminals, fuse blocks, headphones, video game machines for use with televisions, cables, connectors, terminal blocks; radar detectors, pagers, security alarms, alarm sirens, alarm sensors, namely, motion and sound sensors; electronic controllers, namely, central locking controllers for vehicles.

 

The marks are identical.

 

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 are, nevertheless, very similar.  Applicant’s goods comprise a computer apparatus on which one can play video games.  The registered goods include LCD display panels, which can be used in connection with video game machines, as well as video game machines for use with televisions.

 

Based on the foregoing, there is a likelihood of confusion, and refusal pursuant to Section 2(d) is appropriate in this case.

 

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. 

 

Potential Likelihood Of Confusion

 

Information regarding pending Application Serial Nos. 77113144 and 77248031 is enclosed.  The filing dates of the referenced applications precede applicant’s filing date.  There may be a likelihood of confusion between the marks under Trademark Act Section 2(d), 15 U.S.C. §1052(d).  If one or both of the referenced applications 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 applications.

 

If applicant believes there is no potential conflict between this application and the earlier-filed applications, 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.

 

Applicant Must Amend Its Identification Of Goods

 

The identification of goods is indefinite and must be clarified because it is unclear what is meant by “video gaming desktop computers.”  TMEP §1402.01.  Additionally, it is too broad and could include goods in other international classes.  TMEP §§1402.01 and 1402.03.  Applicant may adopt the following identification, or either portion of it, if accurate: 

 

“Desktop computer that can be used to play video games,” in International Class 9; and/or

 

“Standalone video game machines,” in International Class 28.

 

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.

 

Multi-Class Application Requirements

 

If applicant prosecutes this application as a combined, or multiple-class application, applicant must comply with each of the following for those goods and/or services based on an intent to use the mark in commerce under Trademark Act Section 1(b): 

 

(1)        Applicant must list the goods and/or services by international class with the classes listed in ascending numerical order; and

 

(2)   Applicant must submit a filing fee for each international class of goods and/or services not covered by the fee already paid (current fee information should be confirmed at http://www.uspto.gov). 

 

37 C.F.R. §2.86(a)(2); TMEP §§810 and 1403.01.

 

Applicant is invited to call or email the assigned examining attorney with any specific questions regarding the substance of this action.

 

/Katherine S. Chang/

Trademark Examining Attorney

Law Office 115

571-270-1528

katherine.chang@uspto.gov

 

 

 

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.

 

 

 

 

                                                                

IMPORTANT NOTICE

USPTO OFFICE ACTION HAS ISSUED ON 8/27/2007 FOR

APPLICATION SERIAL NO. 77177145

 

Please follow the instructions below to continue the prosecution of your application:

  

VIEW OFFICE ACTION: Click on this link http://portal.gov.uspto.report/external/portal/tow?DDA=Y&serial_number=77177145&doc_type=OOA&mail_date=20070827 (or copy and paste this URL into the address field of your browser), or visit http://portal.gov.uspto.report/external/portal/tow and enter the application serial number to access the Office action.

 

PLEASE NOTE: The Office action may not be immediately available but will be viewable within 24 hours of this notification.

 

RESPONSE MAY BE REQUIRED: You should carefully review the Office action to determine (1) if a response is required; (2) how to respond; and (3) the applicable response time period. Your response deadline will be calculated from 8/27/2007.

 

Do NOT hit “Reply” to this e-mail notification, or otherwise attempt to e-mail your response, as the USPTO does NOT accept e-mailed responses.  Instead, the USPTO recommends that you respond online using the Trademark Electronic Application System response form at http://www.gov.uspto.report/teas/eTEASpageD.htm.

 

HELP: For technical assistance in accessing the Office action, please e-mail

TDR@uspto.gov.  Please contact the assigned examining attorney with questions about the Office action. 

 

        WARNING

1. The USPTO will NOT send a separate e-mail with the Office action attached.

 

2. Failure to file any required response by the applicable deadline will result in the ABANDONMENT of your application.