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: 3/3/2008

 

TEAS PLUS APPLICANTS MUST SUMIT 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).

 

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

 

Likelihood of Confusion-Section 2(d)

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 the identified goods, is likely to be confused with the registered mark in U.S. Registration No. 2168521.  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 seeks to register the mark PERFECTION.  The registrant's mark is PERFECTION. 

 

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's mark and registrant's marks are identical in appearance, sound and meaning as they both contain the wording PERFECTION, the only and dominant element of both applicant's mark and the registrant's mark. 

 

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 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 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).

 

Applicant's goods are  colognes, perfumes and cosmetics; cosmetics in general, including perfumes; disinfecting perfumed soaps; eau de perfume; essential oils as perfume for laundry purposes; liquid perfumes; oils for perfumes and scents; perfume; perfume oils; perfume oils for the manufacture of cosmetic preparations; perfumed creams; perfumed extracts for tissues and perfumes; perfumed paste; perfumed powder; perfumed powders; perfumed soap; perfumed soaps; perfumed talcum powder; perfumes; perfuming sachets. The registrant's goods are perfume, cologne, body lotion, skin soap, and hair care preparations. The goods are related in that they are beauty care preparations and specify the types of items, perfumes and soaps, are identical in part.

 

The goods would also be sold in the same channels of trade, health and beauty departments, stores, catalogues and websites.  The goods would be marketed to consumers who are looking to buy beauty products. Consequently, confusion as to the identity of the source of the goods is likely to occur.

 

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 issue.

 

Specimen

The originally submitted specimen is unacceptable because it appears to be temporary in nature.  Specifically, the specimen consists of an unevenly cut sticker upon which the mark is printed. The sticker is placed  crookedly on a damaged bottle. The label’s appearance suggests that they are only for temporary use and the examining attorney considers it necessary to make further inquiry under 37 C.F.R. §2.61(b) in order to properly examine the application. The applicant may respond to the inquiry by including additional specimens if labels of a more permanent nature have by that time been adopted. House of Worsted-Tex, Inc. v. Deering Milliken & Co., Inc., 102 USPQ 446 (Comm’r Pats. 1954), aff’d, 233 F.2d 333, 110 USPQ 44 (C.C.P.A. 1956).

 

Therefore, applicant must submit a specimen of a more permanent nature.  37 C.F.R. §2.61(b); TMEP §904.03.  In addition, applicant must submit 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; TMEP §904.05.

 

Pending a proper response, registration is refused because the specimen does not show the applied-for mark in use in commerce for the goods specified in the application.  Trademark Act Sections 1 and 45, 15 U.S.C. §§1051, 1127; 37 C.F.R. §§2.34(a)(1)(iv), 2.56/2.56, 2.76/2.56, 2.88; TMEP §§904, 904.07(a)/TMEP §§904, 904.07(a), 1104.09(e)/TMEP §§904, 904.07(a), 1109.09(b).

 

Applicant may overcome the refusal to register this mark by amending the application to assert a different basis for filing the application and submitting the requirements for the new basis. TMEP §§806.03 et seq.

 

In this case, applicant may wish to amend the application to assert a Section 1(b) basis.

 

Response Guidelines

There is no required format or form for responding to this Office action.  The Office recommends applicants use the Trademark Electronic Application System (TEAS) to respond to Office actions online at http://www.gov.uspto.report/teas/index.html.  However, if applicant responds on paper via regular mail, the response should include the following information:  (1) the name and law office number of the examining attorney; (2) the serial number of this application; (3) the mailing date of this Office action; and (4) applicant's telephone number.

 

The response should address each refusal and/or requirement raised in the Office action.  If a refusal has issued, applicant may wish to argue against the refusal, i.e., submit arguments and/or evidence as to why the refusal should be withdrawn and why the mark should register.  To respond to requirements, applicant should simply set forth in writing the required changes or statements and request that the Office enter them into the application record. 

 

The response must be signed by applicant or someone with legal authority to bind applicant (i.e., a corporate officer of a corporate applicant, the equivalent of an officer for unincorporated organizations or limited liability company applicants, a general partner of a partnership applicant, each applicant for applications with multiple individual applicants, etc.).  TMEP §§712 et seq.

 

 

 

/Angela Micheli/

Trademark Examining Attorney, Law Office 101

(571) 272-9196

(571) 273-9196 (fax)

angela.micheli@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 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 3/3/2008 FOR

APPLICATION SERIAL NO. 77349594

 

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

  

VIEW OFFICE ACTION: Click on this link http://tmportal.gov.uspto.report/external/portal/tow?DDA=Y&serial_number=77349594&doc_type=OOA&mail_date=20080303 (or copy and paste this URL into the address field of your browser), or visit http://tmportal.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 3/3/2008.

 

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.