To: | Cellco Partnership (nytmdpt@bakerbotts.com) |
Subject: | U.S. TRADEMARK APPLICATION NO. 77604851 - GLANCE - 068728.xxxx |
Sent: | 3/9/2010 10:20:30 AM |
Sent As: | ECOM110@USPTO.GOV |
Attachments: |
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
SERIAL NO: 77/604851
MARK: GLANCE
|
|
CORRESPONDENT ADDRESS: |
GENERAL TRADEMARK INFORMATION: http://www.gov.uspto.report/main/trademarks.htm
|
APPLICANT: Cellco Partnership
|
|
CORRESPONDENT’S REFERENCE/DOCKET NO: CORRESPONDENT E-MAIL ADDRESS: |
|
ISSUE/MAILING DATE: 3/9/2010
Applicant is requesting reconsideration of a final refusal issued/mailed August 12, 2009.
After careful consideration of the law and facts of the case, the examining attorney must deny the request for reconsideration and adhere to the final action as written since no new facts or reasons have been presented that are significant and compelling with regard to the point at issue.
The marks are identical.
Additionally, the goods are related. Applicant attempts to limit the channels of trade of the registrant. However, the registrant’s identification of goods include “Computer software for transmitting data, graphics, audio and/or video over electronic communications networks.” This clause is not limited by market or application. This wording is independent of any other clauses in the description and not limited.
A determination of whether there is a likelihood of confusion is made solely on the basis of the goods and/or services identified in the application and registration, without limitations or restrictions that are not reflected therein. In re Dakin’s Miniatures, Inc., 59 USPQ2d 1593, 1595 (TTAB 1999); see TMEP §1207.01(a)(iii). If the cited registration describes the goods and/or services broadly and there are no limitations as to their nature, type, channels of trade or classes of purchasers, then it is presumed that the registration encompasses all goods and/or services of the type described, that they move in all normal channels of trade, and that they are available to all potential customers. In re Linkvest S.A., 24 USPQ2d 1716, 1716 (TTAB 1992); In re Elbaum, 211 USPQ 639, 640 (TTAB 1981); TMEP §1207.01(a)(iii). Thus, applicant’s argument that registrant’s specimen of record or web page limits the scope of its identification of goods is unpersuasive and is contrary to established law.
[A]pplicant’s assertion that it is unaware of any actual confusion occurring as a result of the contemporaneous use of the marks of applicant and registrant is of little probative value in an ex parte proceeding such as this where we have no evidence pertaining to the nature and extent of the use by applicant and registrant (and thus cannot ascertain whether there has been ample opportunity for confusion to arise, if it were going to); and the registrant has no chance to be heard from (at least in the absence of a consent agreement, which applicant has not submitted in this case).
In re Kangaroos U.S.A., 223 USPQ 1025, 1026-27 (TTAB 1984).
Accordingly, applicant’s request for reconsideration is denied. The time for appeal runs from the date the final action was issued/mailed. 37 C.F.R. Section 2.64(b); TMEP Section 715.03(c). If applicant has already filed a timely notice of appeal, the application will be forwarded to the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB).
/Daniel Capshaw/
Trademark Attorney
Law Office 110
571.272.9356
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.