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: 5/22/2008

 

 

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).

 

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. §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. 3311406 and 3316286 as to be likely to cause confusion, or to cause mistake, or to deceive.  TMEP §§1207.01 et seq.  See the enclosed registrations.

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 (C.C.P.A. 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).  TMEP §§1207.01 et seq.

The registered marks are KLEAR CHOICE in stylized and standard character form covering “wood moldings”.    

In this case, the applicant’s mark CLEAR CHOICE in stylized form is highly similar to the cited marks visually and may be pronounced in the identical manner.  As such, the marks are essentially phonetic equivalents.  Similarity in sound alone is sufficient to find a likelihood of confusion.  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). 

In addition, the applicant’s identification of goods encompasses products which are the same or closely related to those covered by the cited registrations.  In particular, applicant’s lumber goods are likely to move in the same channels of trade to the same classes of purchasers as the wood building materials encompassed by the cited registrations.  For example, the both the applicant’s and registrant’s products would likely be sold through building suppliers, hardware stores, home improvement stores and the like and could be used in conjunction with other similar products. 

 

In this regard, attached are copies of printouts from the USPTO X-Search database, which show third-party registrations of marks used in connection with the same or similar goods and/or services as those of applicant and registrant in this case.  These printouts have probative value to the extent that they serve to suggest that the goods and/or services listed therein, namely, lumber and wood molding, are of a kind that may emanate from a single source.  In re Infinity Broad. Corp.,60 USPQ2d 1214, 1217-18 (TTAB 2001); In re Albert Trostel & Sons Co.,29 USPQ2d 1783, 1785-86 (TTAB 1993); In re Mucky Duck Mustard Co., 6 USPQ2d 1467, 1470 n.6 (TTAB 1988); TMEP §1207.01(d)(iii).

 

Given the similarities of the marks and the services, consumers are likely to conclude that the services are somehow related or emanate from the same source.  Accordingly, because confusion is likely, registration is refused under Trademark Act Section 2(d) based on a likelihood of confusion.

Applicant also must note the following prior pending application:

PRIOR PENDING APPLICATION

Information is enclosed concerning pending Application Serial No. 78965203.  There may be a likelihood of confusion under Section 2(d) of the Act between applicant’s mark and the mark in the above noted application.  The filing date of the referenced application precedes applicant’s filing date.  If the earlier‑filed application registers, registration may be refused under Section 2(d).  37 C.F.R. §2.83.  Therefore, upon entry of a response to the Office action, action on this case may be suspended pending final disposition of the earlier-filed application.

If applicant believes that there is no potential conflict between this application and the earlier-filed application, then applicant may present arguments relevant to the issue in a request to remove the application from suspension.  The election to file or not to file such a request at this time in no way limits applicant’s right to address this issue at a later point.

 

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 informality.

COLOR CLAIM AND LOCATION STATEMENT

 

The drawing shows the mark in colors that differ from those specified in the color claim and/or color location statement.  Specifically, the drawing shows the mark in the color light brown, white, dark brown and black; however the color claim specifies only the colors dark brown and light brown while the color location statement refers to dark brown, light brown and white.  The color drawing, color claim and color location statement must all agree.  See 37 C.F.R. §2.52(b)(1); TMEP §§807.07(a) et seq.  Moreover, the color claim/description must reference all colors in the mark, including black and white.  In this case, applicant refers to the lower half of the mark as in dark brown.  Although dark brown can be seen around the edges of the lower half, the primary background color appears to be black or perhaps very dark gray/green. 

 

Therefore, applicant must submit either (1) a corrected color claim and/or location statement that agree(s) with the color(s) depicted in the drawing of the mark, or (2) a color drawing that agrees with the color claim and location statement.  TMEP §807.07(c).

 

If applicant chooses option (1), the following color claim and/or color location statement are suggested:  “The colors black, white, dark brown and light brown are claimed as features of the mark.  The wording in the mark is white.  The rectangular background for the word CLEAR is in light brown.  The background for the word CHOICE is black with dark brown edging.”

 

If applicant submits a substitute drawing, applicant is advised that any additional amendments to the applied-for mark will not be accepted if the changes would materially alter the mark.  37 C.F.R. §2.72; see TMEP §§807.07(c), 807.14 et seq.  In this case, an amendment to correct the intended colors would most likely be acceptable.

 

If the applicant has any questions or needs assistance in responding to this Office action, please e-mail or telephone the assigned examining attorney.

 

/SMP/

Steven M. Perez

Trademark Attorney

Law Office 101

(571) 272-5888

steven.perez@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 5/22/2008 FOR

APPLICATION SERIAL NO. 77385229

 

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=77385229&doc_type=OOA&mail_date=20080522 (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 5/22/2008.

 

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.