| To: | Denman, Paul (monster57@earthlink.net) |
| Subject: | TRADEMARK APPLICATION NO. 77328725 - ORANGE - N/A |
| Sent: | 3/6/2008 2:41:54 PM |
| Sent As: | ECOM101@USPTO.GOV |
| Attachments: | Attachment - 1 Attachment - 2 Attachment - 3 Attachment - 4 Attachment - 5 Attachment - 6 Attachment - 7 Attachment - 8 Attachment - 9 Attachment - 10 Attachment - 11 Attachment - 12 Attachment - 13 Attachment - 14 Attachment - 15 Attachment - 16 Attachment - 17 Attachment - 18 Attachment - 19 Attachment - 20 Attachment - 21 Attachment - 22 Attachment - 23 Attachment - 24 Attachment - 25 Attachment - 26 |
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
|
SERIAL NO: 77/328725
MARK: ORANGE
|
|
|
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: Denman, Paul
|
|
|
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: 3/6/2008
The assigned examining attorney has reviewed the referenced application and 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 No. 0920090. Trademark Act Section 2(d), 15 U.S.C. §1052(d); TMEP §§1207.01 et seq. 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).
Applicant is attempting to register the standard character mark ORANGE. The mark ORANGE in stylized script is registered. Thus, these marks are identical in sound and virtually identical in appearance, connotation and commercial impression. 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).
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.
If the marks of the respective parties are identical or highly similar, the examining attorney must consider the commercial relationship between the goods or services of the respective parties carefully to determine whether there is a likelihood of confusion. In re Concordia International Forwarding Corp., 222 USPQ 355 (TTAB 1983).
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).
Applicant seeks to register its mark for “Musical sound recordings.” The mark ORANGE is registered for ”phonograph records, pre-recorded magnetic tapes, cartridge tapes” among other goods in class 9. Presumably these phonograph records, pre-recorded tapes are included among the Musical sound recordings listed in the application. Use of these marks by different parties on the musical sound recordings is likely to lead to consumer confusion as to the source of the recordings.
The examining attorney must resolve any doubt as to the issue of likelihood of confusion in favor of the registrant and against the applicant who has a legal duty to select a mark which is totally dissimilar to trademarks already being used. Burroughs Wellcome Co. v. Warner‑Lambert Co., 203 USPQ 191 (TTAB 1979). Since the marks are virtually identical and the goods are closely related, if not identical, there is a likelihood that purchasers would confuse the sources of the applicant’s goods.
For the foregoing reasons, the marks must be considered confusingly similar.
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.
Applicant should note the following additional ground for refusal.
Title of a Single Work
Registration is refused because the proposed mark, as used on the specimen of record, is used only as the title of a single creative work, namely, the title of a specific CD; it does not function as a trademark to identify and distinguish applicant’s goods from those of others and to indicate their source. Trademark Act Sections 1, 2 and 45, 15 U.S.C. §§1051-1052 and 1127; In re Cooper, 254 F.2d 611, 117 USPQ 396 (C.C.P.A. 1958); see In re Scholastic, Inc., 23 USPQ2d 1774, (TTAB 1992); TMEP §1202.08. Single creative works include works in which the content does not change, whether that work is in printed, recorded or electronic form.
Applicant may respond to this refusal by submitting evidence that the proposed mark is used to identify a series, rather than a single work. The name for a series of creative works indicates that each work in the series comes from the same source as the others. Scholastic, 23 USPQ2d at 1776. Evidence of a series includes copies of at least two different book covers or packaging for prerecorded works (not two copies of the same work) showing the mark as a source identifier for the series as well as distinguishing the mark from the individual titles of the works. Id.
If applicant cannot satisfy the requirement for evidence of a series, applicant may amend the Section 1(a) filing basis (use in commerce) to Section 1(b) (intent to use), and the refusal will be withdrawn. 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 along with evidence of use on a series. 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 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).
The following is a sample declaration under 37 C.F.R. §2.20, which should include a dated signature by a person authorized under 37 C.F.R. §2.33(a). 37 C.F.R. §2.20.
The undersigned, being hereby warned that willful false statements and the like so made are punishable by fine or imprisonment, or both, under 18 U.S.C. §1001, and that such willful false statements and the like may jeopardize the validity of the application or document or any resulting registration, declares that the facts set forth in the application are true; all statements made of his/her own knowledge are true; and all statements made on information and belief are believed to be true.
_____________________________
(Signature)
_____________________________
(Print or Type Name and Position)
_____________________________
(Date)
The applicant should also note the following additional potential ground(s) for refusal.
Information regarding pending Application Serial Nos. 76105842; 76215112; 76215122; 78495060; 78622419; 78796125; and 77106059 is enclosed. The filing dates of the referenced applications precede applicant’s filing date. There may be a likelihood of confusion under Trademark Act Section 2(d) between applicant’s mark and the referenced marks. If one or more 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 that 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.
Upon receipt of applicant’s response to the refusal to register, action on this application will be suspended pending the disposition of Application Serial No(s). 76105842; 76215112; 76215122; 78495060; 78622419; 78796125; and 77106059. 37 C.F.R. §2.83(c); TMEP §§716.02(c) and 1208.02(c).
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).
Applicant may wish to hire a specialist attorney to assist in prosecuting this application because of the technicalities involved. The Office cannot aid in the selection of a trademark attorney. 37 C.F.R. §2.11. Applicant may wish to consult the Yellow Pages for a listing of attorneys specializing in trademark or intellectual property law, or seek guidance from its local Bar Association attorney-referral service.
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.
/Barbara Rutland/
Trademark Examining Attorney
US Patent & Trademark Office
Law Office 101
571-272-9311
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.
