| To: | Surgical Innovations Limited (tara.aaron@stites.com) |
| Subject: | TRADEMARK APPLICATION NO. 77331901 - LOGIC - N/A |
| Sent: | 2/7/2008 5:26:46 PM |
| Sent As: | ECOM111@USPTO.GOV |
| Attachments: | Attachment - 1 Attachment - 2 |
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
|
SERIAL NO: 77/331901
MARK: LOGIC
|
|
|
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: Surgical Innovations Limited
|
|
|
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: 2/7/2008
Registration is refused under Trademark Act Section 2(d), 15 U.S.C. Section 1052(d), because the mark LOGIC for “laparoscopic scissors; surgical jaws; surgical clamps; surgical graspers; surgical dissectors; surgical claws; parts and fittings for all the aforesaid goods, namely scissor blades, handles, jaw inserts, insulated tubes and locking nuts” resembles the mark shown in U.S. Registration No. 2698151 for the mark LOGIC for “medical device, namely, a coronary stent” as to be likely, to cause confusion, or to cause mistake, or to deceive.
Comparison of the Trademarks
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 be considered in determining whether there is a likelihood of confusion under Section 2(d). Any one of the factors listed may be dominant in any given case, depending upon the evidence of record. In re Dixie Restaurants, Inc., 105 F.3d 1405, 41 USPQ2d 1531, 1533 (Fed. Cir. 1997). In this case, the following factors are the most relevant: similarity of the marks, similarity of the goods and/or services, and similarity of trade channels of the goods and/or services. See In re Opus One, Inc., 60 USPQ2d 1812 (TTAB 2001); In re Dakin’s Miniatures Inc., 59 USPQ2d 1593 (TTAB 1999); In re Azteca Restaurant Enterprises, Inc., 50 USPQ2d 1209 (TTAB 1999); In re L.C. Licensing Inc., 49 USPQ2d 1379 (TTAB 1998); TMEP §§1207.01 et seq.
Applicant seeks to register LOGIC. Registrant owns the mark LOGIC. The marks are identical in sound, appearance and meaning. Thus, the similarity of the marks factor is met.
Relatedness of the Goods/Services
The goods of the parties need not be identical or directly competitive to find a likelihood of confusion. They need only be related in some manner that could give rise to the mistaken belief that the goods 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).
Applicant seeks to register its mark for “laparoscopic scissors; surgical jaws; surgical clamps; surgical graspers; surgical dissectors; surgical claws; parts and fittings for all the aforesaid goods, namely scissor blades, handles, jaw inserts, insulated tubes and locking nuts.” Registrant owns and uses its mark on a “medical device, namely, a coronary stent.” The goods are similar medical devices and the trade channels are virtually identical. Both parties will be selling to medical doctors performing surgical procedures. Thus, consumers encountering both trademarks may mistakenly assume that the goods emanate from the same source. In light of the above, the examining attorney believes that confusion as to source is likely.
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 include the following information on all correspondence with the Office: (1) the name and law office number of the trademark examining attorney; (2) the serial number of this application; (3) the mailing date of this Office action; and, (4) applicant's telephone number. 37 C.F.R. §2.194(b)(1); TMEP §302.03(a).
/Margery A. Tierney/
Margery A. Tierney
2210 N. Kentucky Street
Arlington, Virginia 22205
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.
