Offc Action Outgoing

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: 9/11/2009

 

 

The referenced application has been reviewed by the assigned trademark examining attorney.  The applicant must respond timely and completely to the issues below.  15 U.S.C. §1062(b); 37 C.F.R. §§2.62, 2.65(a); TMEP §§711, 718.03.

 

TRADEMARK ACT SECTION 2(d) REFUSAL – LIKELIHOOD OF CONFUSION

 

Registration of the applied-for mark is refused because of a likelihood of confusion with the mark in U.S. Registration No. 2963589.  Trademark Act Section 2(d), 15 U.S.C. §1052(d); see TMEP §§1207.01 et seq.  See the enclosed registration.

 

Trademark Act Section 2(d) bars registration of an applied-for mark that so resembles a registered mark that it is likely that a potential consumer would be confused or mistaken or deceived as to the source of the services of the applicant and registrant.  See 15 U.S.C. §1052(d).  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 when determining whether there is a likelihood of confusion under Section 2(d).  See TMEP §1207.01.  However, not all of the factors are necessarily relevant or of equal weight, and any one factor may be dominant in a given case, depending upon the evidence of record.  In re Majestic Distilling Co., 315 F.3d 1311, 1315, 65 USPQ2d 1201, 1204 (Fed. Cir. 2003); see In re E. I. du Pont, 476 F.2d at 1361-62, 177 USPQ at 567.

 

Taking into account the relevant du Pont factors, a likelihood of confusion determination in this case involves a two-part analysis.  The marks are compared for similarities in their appearance, sound, connotation and commercial impression.  TMEP §§1207.01, 1207.01(b).  The services are compared to determine whether they are similar or commercially related or travel in the same trade channels.  See Herbko Int’l, Inc. v. Kappa Books, Inc., 308 F.3d 1156, 1164-65, 64 USPQ2d 1375, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2002); Han Beauty, Inc. v. Alberto-Culver Co., 236 F.3d 1333, 1336, 57 USPQ2d 1557, 1559 (Fed. Cir. 2001); TMEP §§1207.01, 1207.01(a)(vi).

 

The applicant seeks registration of ALERT, in standard character form, for use in connection with medical evaluation services, namely functional assessment program analyzing patient and claims data for purposes of guiding treatment and assessing effectiveness; identification of undetected clinical risks early and measures improvement of member well-being and workplace productivity.

 

The cited mark is A.L.E.R.T., in standard character form, for use on or in connection with printed instructional and educational materials used for counseling healthcare professionals to provide patients with information on the importance of pregnancy prevention while undergoing treatment with a pharmaceutical preparation associated with fetal abnormalities; kit for counseling healthcare professionals to provide patients with information on the importance of pregnancy prevention while undergoing treatment with a pharmaceutical preparation associated with fetal abnormalities, the kit consisting of printed instructional and educational materials, brochures, booklets, and a videotape; and counseling healthcare professionals to provide patients with information on the importance of pregnancy prevention while undergoing treatment with a pharmaceutical preparation associated with fetal abnormalities.

 

The proposed mark is identical in sound and essentially identical in meaning and commercial impression to the cited mark.  The test of likelihood of confusion is not whether the marks can be distinguished when subjected to a side-by-side comparison.  The question is whether the marks create the same overall impression.  See Recot, Inc. v. M.C. Becton, 214 F.2d 1322, 1329-30, 54 USPQ2d 1894, 1899 (Fed. Cir. 2000); Visual Info. Inst., Inc. v. Vicon Indus. Inc., 209 USPQ 179, 189 (TTAB 1980).  The focus is on the recollection of the average purchaser who normally retains a general rather than specific impression of trademarks.  Chemetron Corp. v. Morris Coupling & Clamp Co., 203 USPQ 537, 540-41 (TTAB 1979); Sealed Air Corp. v. Scott Paper Co., 190 USPQ 106, 108 (TTAB 1975); TMEP §1207.01(b).

 

Moreover, the applicant’s services are not limited to any particular area within the medical and healthcare field and may encompass evaluations and treatment regarding pregnancy and pre-natal care.  Likelihood of confusion is determined on the basis of the goods and services as they are identified in the application and registration.  Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Packard Press Inc., 281 F.3d 1261, 1267-68, 62 USPQ2d 1001, 1004-05 (Fed. Cir. 2002); In re Shell Oil Co., 992 F.2d 1204, 1207 n.4, 26 USPQ2d 1687, 1690 n.4 (Fed. Cir. 1993); TMEP §1207.01(a)(iii).

                                                           

When the application describes the goods 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 application encompasses all goods or services of the type described, that they move in all normal channels of trade, and that they are available to all potential customers.  See In re Melville Corp., 18 USPQ2d 1386, 1388 (TTAB 1991) (“With reference to the channels of trade, applicant’s argument that its goods are sold only in its own retail stores is not persuasive . . . . There is no restriction [in its identification of goods] as to the channels of trade in which the goods are sold.”); TMEP §1207.01(a)(iii).

 

Note that the goods and services of the parties need not be identical or directly competitive to find a likelihood of confusion.  See Safety-Kleen Corp. v. Dresser Indus., Inc., 518 F.2d 1399, 1404, 186 USPQ 476, 480 (C.C.P.A. 1975); TMEP §1207.01(a)(i).  Rather, they need only be related in some manner, or the conditions surrounding their marketing are such that they would be encountered by the same purchasers under circumstances that would give rise to the mistaken belief that the goods and services come from a common source.  In re Total Quality Group, Inc., 51 USPQ2d 1474, 1476 (TTAB 1999); TMEP §1207.01(a)(i); see, e.g., On-line Careline Inc. v. Am. Online Inc., 229 F.3d 1080, 1086-87, 56 USPQ2d 1471, 1475-76 (Fed. Cir. 2000); In re Martin’s Famous Pastry Shoppe, Inc., 748 F.2d 1565, 1566-68, 223 USPQ 1289, 1290 (Fed. Cir. 1984).

 

Although the applicant’s mark has been refused registration, the applicant may respond to the refusal by submitting evidence and arguments in support of registration.

 

The applicant must respond to the requirements set forth below.

 

IDENTIFICATION OF SERVICES

 

The identification of services is indefinite.  See TMEP §1402.01.  Specifically, the nature of the “identification of undetected clinical risks early and measures improvement of member well-being and workplace productivity” services is unclear.  The applicant must clarify these services in order to ensure proper classification.  The applicant may adopt the following identification, if accurate:  

 

“medical evaluation services, namely functional assessment program analyzing patient and claims data for purposes of guiding treatment and assessing effectiveness; mental health care services for health care plan members and employees, namely, early identification of undetected clinical risks in the areas of mental health and drug abuse and subsequent evaluation of treatment effectiveness,” in International Class 44.

 

Additions Not Allowed:  Identifications of services can be amended only to clarify or limit the services; adding to or broadening the scope of the services is not permitted.  37 C.F.R. §2.71(a); see TMEP §§1402.06 et seq., 1402.07.  Therefore, the applicant may not amend the identification to include services that are not within the scope of the services set forth in the present identification.

 

On-line Acceptable Identification of Goods and Services Manual information:  For the applicant’s reference the examining attorney provides the following address for the identification of goods and services manual on the United States Patent and Trademark Office’s web site:

 

http://tess2.gov.uspto.report/netahtml/tidm.html

 

The applicant may wish to consult the on-line identification manual for a listing of acceptable common names of goods and services.  While the list is not exhaustive, the manual should give the applicant direction regarding proper international classification and information and specificity required in the applicant’s identification of goods and/or services.

 

USE OF REGISTRATION SYMBOL PRIOR TO REGISTRATION

 

The specimen shows use of the federal registration symbol ® with the applied-for mark.  However, the USPTO records do not show that the mark is registered for the identified services.  The applicant may not use the federal registration symbol until its mark is registered in the USPTO.  After registration, the applicant may use this symbol in connection with the specific goods or services listed in the registration.  TMEP §§906, 906.03.

 

This information is advisory only.  The applicant need not respond to this issue.

 

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

 

 

/Martha L. Fromm/

Martha L. Fromm

Trademark Attorney

Law Office 106

Phone:  (571) 272-9320

Fax: (571) 273-9106 (formal responses)

 

 

 

RESPOND TO THIS ACTION: Applicant should file a response to this Office action online using the form at http://www.gov.uspto.report/teas/eTEASpageD.htm, waiting 48-72 hours if applicant received notification of the Office action via e-mail.  For technical assistance with the form, please e-mail TEAS@uspto.gov.  For questions about the Office action itself, please contact the assigned examining attorney.  Do not respond to this Office action by e-mail; 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 REGARDING YOUR TRADEMARK APPLICATION

 

Your trademark application (Serial No. 77750819) has been reviewed.   The examining attorney assigned by the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) has written a letter (an “Office action”) on 9/11/2009 to which you must respond (unless the Office letter specifically states that no response is required).  Please follow these steps:

 

1. Read the Office letter by clicking on this link http://tmportal.gov.uspto.report/external/portal/tow?DDA=Y&serial_number=77750819&doc_type=OOA&mail_date=20090911 OR go to  http://tmportal.gov.uspto.report/external/portal/tow and enter your serial number to access the Office letter.  If you have difficulty accessing the Office letter, contact TDR@uspto.gov.  

                                         

PLEASE NOTE: The Office letter may not be immediately available but will be viewable within 24 hours of this e-mail notification.

 

2. Contact the examining attorney who reviewed your application if you have any questions about the content of the Office letter (contact information appears at the end thereof).

 

3. Respond within 6 months, calculated from 9/11/2009 (or sooner if specified in the Office letter), using the Trademark Electronic Application System (TEAS) Response to Office Action form. If you have difficulty using TEAS, contact TEAS@uspto.gov. 

 

ALERT:

 

Failure to file any required response by the applicable deadline will result in the ABANDONMENT (loss) of your application.

 

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.