UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
|
SERIAL NO: 77/240550
MARK: DURAFOAM
|
|
|
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: TEAM CID, 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: MARK: DURAFOAM
The assigned trademark examining attorney has reviewed the referenced application and has determined the following:
SECTION 2(D) LIKELIHOOD OF CONFUSION REFUSAL
The examining attorney refuses registration under Trademark Act Section 2(d), 15 U.S.C. Section 1052(d), because the applicant's mark, when used on or in connection with the identified goods, so resembles the marks in U.S. Registration Nos. 2737686 as to be likely to cause confusion, to cause mistake, or to deceive. TMEP section 1207. See the enclosed registration.
The examining attorney must analyze each case in two steps to determine whether there is a likelihood of confusion. First, the examining attorney must look at the marks themselves for similarities in appearance, sound, connotation and commercial impression. In re E. I. DuPont de Nemours & Co., 476 F.2d 1357, 177 USPQ 563 (CCPA 1973). Second, the examining attorney must compare the goods or services to determine if they are related or if the activities surrounding their marketing are such that confusion as to origin is likely. In re August Storck KG, 218 USPQ 823 (TTAB 1983); In re International Telephone and Telegraph Corp., 197 USPQ 910 (TTAB 1978); Guardian Products Co., v. Scott Paper Co., 200 USPQ 738 (TTAB 1978).
The examining attorney must compare the marks for similarities in sound, appearance, meaning or connotation. In re E. I. DuPont de Nemours & Co., 476 F.2d 1357, 177 USPQ 563 (CCPA 1973). Similarity in any one of these elements is sufficient to find a likelihood of confusion. In re Mack, 197 USPQ 755 (TTAB 1977).
The applicant uses its mark “DURAFOAM” in connection with goods identified as “polyurethane spray foam for bonding, sealing, insulation, stopping leaks and deadening sound; spray tips for use with polyurethane spray foam; solvents for dissolving spray foam and cleaning foam spray tips; applicator guns adapted for use with spray foam.” Registered mark No. 2737686 is for the mark “DURAFOAM” used in connection with “silicone sealants for forming gaskets.” The applicant’s mark is identical to the registered mark and therefore, is identical in sound and meaning and appearance. Similarity in sound alone may be sufficient to support a finding of likelihood of confusion. RE/MAX of America, Inc. v. Realty Mart, Inc., 207 USPQ 960, 964 (TTAB 1980); Molenaar, Inc. v. Happy Toys Inc., 188 USPQ 469 (TTAB 1975); In re Cresco Mfg. Co., 138 USPQ 401 (TTAB 1963); TMEP §1207.01(b)(iv).
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. Amcor, Inc. v. Amcor Industries, Inc., 210 USPQ 70 (TTAB 1981). TMEP §1207.01(a).
Some of the applicant’s goods as well of those of the respective registrants are goods used for sealing. Accordingly, the applicant’s goods and those of the registrant could also be offered to the same class of purchaser through the same channels of trade. Because of the similarity between the applicant’s and registrant’s marks and because the marks are used on the same or related goods consumers are likely to mistakenly believe that the goods come from the same source. For these reasons registration of the applicant’s mark is refused in accordance with Section 2(d) of the Trademark Act.
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 applicant chooses to respond to the refusal(s) to register, then applicant must also respond to the following requirements.
The wording used to describe the goods is indefinite and must be clarified because it contains goods that exceeds the scope of one class. TMEP §1402.01. 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 may adopt the following identification of goods, if accurate: TMEP §1402.01.
CLASS 1
“Solvents for dissolving spray foam and cleaning foam spray tips.”
“Tips for polyurethane spray foam guns; applicator guns adapted for use with spray foam.”
“Polyurethane spray foam for bonding, sealing, insulation, stopping leaks and deadening sound.”
Please note that, while an application may be amended to clarify or limit the identification, additions to the identification are not permitted. 37 C.F.R. Section 2.71(a); TMEP section 804.09. Therefore, the applicant may not amend to include any goods/services that are not within the scope of the goods/services recited in the present identification.
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.
CERTIFICATE OF REGISTRATION REQUIRED
If the applicant is asserting §44(e) as a basis for registration (based on the foreign registration that will issue from the application that the applicant relied on for priority), the applicant must submit a true copy, a photocopy, a certification, or a certified copy of a foreign registration from the applicant’s country of origin. The applicant’s country of origin must either be a party to a convention or treaty relating to trademarks to which the United States is also a party, or must extend reciprocal registration rights to nationals of the United States by law. See TMEP §§1002.01, 1003.03 and 1004.
If the foreign certificate of registration is not written in English, the applicant must provide an English translation. The translator should sign the translation. See TMEP §§1004.01 and 1004.01(b).
Georgia Ann Carty Ellis
/GeorgiaAnnCartyEllis/
Trademark Attorney
Law Office 117
(571)-272-9377
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 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.