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: 12/31/2009

 

Introduction

 

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

 

Please note that the citations to the “TMEP” below refer to the Trademark Manual of Examining Procedure (5th ed., 2007), available on the United States Patent and Trademark Office website at www.gov.uspto.report/main/trademarks.htm.  The TMEP is a detailed guidebook written by the Office to explain the laws and procedures that govern the trademark and service mark application, registration and post registration processes.

 

Additionally please note that copies of Office actions and supporting documentation for this application can be viewed and downloaded online at http://portal.gov.uspto.report/external/portal/tow.  Simply, enter the serial number of this application in the box labeled NUMBER and click on the SUBMIT button.  The Office actions can then be viewed by clicking the links labeled “Offc Action Outgoing” (which have their relevant mail/creation dates next to them) in the Trademark Document Retrieval (TDR) system. 

 

Likelihood of Confusion – Refusal under Section 2(d)

 

Registration of the applied-for mark is refused because of a likelihood of confusion with the mark(s) in U.S. Registration No(s). 2718789.  Trademark Act Section 2(d), 15 U.S.C. §1052(d); see TMEP §§1207.01 et seq.  See the enclosed registration(s).

 

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 goods and/or 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.

 

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 Rest. Enters., Inc., 50 USPQ2d 1209 (TTAB 1999); TMEP §§1207.01 et seq.

 

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 goods and/or 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).

 

Comparison of the Marks

 

Applicant’s mark is “RESONATE.”

 

Registrant’s mark is “RESONANCE” and design.

 

The marks are compared in their entireties under a Trademark Act Section 2(d) analysis.  See TMEP §1207.01(b).  Nevertheless, one feature of a mark may be recognized as more significant in creating a commercial impression.  Greater weight is given to that dominant feature in determining whether there is a likelihood of confusion.  In re Nat’l Data Corp., 753 F.2d 1056, 224 USPQ 749 (Fed. Cir. 1985); Tektronix, Inc. v. Daktronics, Inc., 534 F.2d 915, 189 USPQ 693 (C.C.P.A. 1976); In re J.M. Originals Inc., 6 USPQ2d 1393 (TTAB 1987); see TMEP §1207.01(b)(viii), (c)(ii).

 

When a mark consists of a word portion and a design portion, the word portion is more likely to be impressed upon a purchaser’s memory and to be used in calling for the goods and/or services.  Therefore, the word portion is normally accorded greater weight in determining likelihood of confusion.  In re Dakin’s Miniatures, Inc., 59 USPQ2d 1593, 1596 (TTAB 1999); In re Appetito Provisions Co., 3 USPQ2d 1553, 1554 (TTAB 1987); Amoco Oil Co. v. Amerco, Inc., 192 USPQ 729, 735 (TTAB 1976); TMEP §1207.01(c)(ii).

 

In this case, the dominant words in the marks are “RESONANCE” and “RESONATE.”  Significantly, the terms appear similar, sound similar, and cause the marks to have very similar overall commercial impressions.

 

Comparison of the Goods/Services

 

The goods and/or 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, it is sufficient that the goods and/or services are related in some manner and/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/or 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).

 

Registrant’s services are data automation and collection service using proprietary software systems to collect, analyze and evaluate service data.  Applicant’s goods/services are broadly identified and encompass technology to monitor, analyze and discover meaningful insights within online user-generated media and social media.

 

Likelihood of confusion is determined on the basis of the goods and/or 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 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 application 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.  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).

 

In this case, it appears that the goods and services of both applicant and registrant may be used for analyzing and gather the same types of information.  Thus, the goods/services appear highly related.

 

Additionally, attached are copies of printouts from the USPTO X-Search database, which show third-party registrations of marks used in connection both technology products similar to applicant’s goods/services and with services similar to registrant’s services.  These printouts have probative value to the extent that they serve to suggest that the goods and/or services listed therein are of a kind that may emanate from a single source.  In re Infinity Broad. Corp. of Dallas,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).

 

Based on the foregoing, it is clear that the marks are similar and the goods/services are related.  Therefore, registration is refused under Section 2(d) based on a likelihood of confusion.

 

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

 

Prior-filed, Pending Application

 

The filing date of pending Application Serial No. 77726736 precedes applicant’s filing date.  See attached referenced application.  If the mark in the referenced application registers, applicant’s mark may be refused registration under Trademark Act Section 2(d) because of a likelihood of confusion between the two marks.  See 15 U.S.C. §1052(d); 37 C.F.R. §2.83; TMEP §§1208 et seq.  Therefore, upon receipt of applicant’s response to this Office action, action on this application may be suspended pending final disposition of the earlier-filed referenced application.

 

In response to this Office action, applicant may present arguments in support of registration by addressing the issue of the potential conflict between applicant’s mark and the mark in the referenced application.  Applicant’s election not to submit arguments at this time in no way limits applicant’s right to address this issue later if a refusal under Section 2(d) issues.

 

Applicant must respond to the requirement(s) set forth below.

 

Information Requirement

 

Applicant must explain whether “RESONATE” has any meaning or significance in the industry in which the goods and/or services are manufactured/provided, or if such wording is a “term of art” within applicant’s industry.  See 37 C.F.R. §2.61(b); TMEP §814.

 

Failure to respond to this request for information can be grounds for refusing registration.  See In re DTI P’ship LLP, 67 USPQ2d 1699, 1701 (TTAB 2003); TMEP §814.

 

Identification and Classification of Goods and Services

 

The identification of goods and services requires clarification.  In this regard, applicant must clarify the nature of the technology products by indicating their common commercial name(s).  See TMEP §1402.01.

 

Applicant also must adopt the appropriate international classification number for the goods and/or services identified in the application.  The United States follows the International Classification of Goods and Services for the Purposes of the Registration of Marks, established by the World Intellectual Property Organization, to classify goods and services.  TMEP §§1401.02, 1401.02(a).

 

Applicant may adopt the following identification, if accurate.  See TMEP §1402.01.

 

Software recorded on computer media for use in monitoring, analyzing and obtaining information requested by the user, all by reviewing online user-generated media and social media, in Class 9.

 

Providing online non-downloadable software for use in monitoring, analyzing and obtaining information requested by the user, all by reviewing online user-generated media and social media, in Class 42.

 

For assistance with identifying and classifying goods and/or services in trademark applications, please see the online searchable Manual of Acceptable Identifications of Goods and Services at http://tess2.gov.uspto.report/netahtml/tidm.html.  See TMEP §1402.04.

 

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

 

Multiple-classification Requirements

 

If applicant prosecutes this application as a combined, or multiple-class application, then applicant must comply with each of the requirements below for those goods and/or services based on actual use in commerce under Trademark Act Section 1(a):

 

(1)        Applicant must list the goods/services by international class;

 

(2)        Applicant must submit a filing fee for each international class of goods and/or services not covered by the fee already paid (current fee information should be confirmed at http://www.uspto.gov); and

 

(3)        For each additional international class of goods and/or services, applicant must submit:

 

(a)        Dates of first use of the mark anywhere and dates of first use of the mark in commerce, or a statement that the dates of use in the initial application apply to that class.  The dates of use, both anywhere and in commerce, must be at least as early as the filing date of the application.;

 

(b)        One specimen showing the mark in use in commerce for each class of goods and/or services.  The specimen must have been in use in commerce at least as early as the filing date of the application.  If a single specimen supports multiple classes, applicant should indicate which classes the specimen supports rather than providing multiple copies of the same specimen.  Examples of specimens for goods are tags, labels, instruction manuals, containers, photographs that show the mark on the goods or packaging, or displays associated with the goods at their point of sale.  TMEP §§904.03 et seq.  Examples of specimens for services are signs, photographs, brochures, website printouts or advertisements that show the mark used in the sale or advertising of the services.  TMEP §§1301.04 et seq.;

 

(c)        The following statement:  “The specimen was in use in commerce on or in connection with the goods and/or services listed in the application at least as early as the filing date of the application.”; and

 

(d)        Verification of the statements in 3(a) and 3(c) (above) in an affidavit or a signed declaration under 37 C.F.R. §§2.20, 2.33.  Verification is not required where (1) the dates of use for the added class are stated to be the same as the dates of use specified in the initial application, and (2) the original specimens are acceptable for the added class(es).

 

See 15 U.S.C. §§1051(a), 1112, 1127; 37 C.F.R. §§2.32(a)(5), 2.34(a)(1), 2.56(a), 2.71(c), 2.86(a); TMEP §§1403.01, 1403.02(c).

 

Specimen

 

The application is incomplete because it does not include the required specimen showing use of the applied-for mark in commerce for the goods and/or services identified in the application.  An application based on Trademark Act Section 1(a) must include a specimen showing the applied-for mark in use in commerce for each class of goods and/or services.  Trademark Act Sections 1(a)(1) and 45, 15 U.S.C. §§1051(a)(1), 1127; 37 C.F.R. §§2.34(a)(1)(iv), 2.56(a); TMEP §§904, 904.07(a).

 

The examiner notes that applicant indicated that a specimen was attached.  However, none was received.

 

Therefore, applicant must submit the following for each class:

 

(1)  A specimen (i.e., an example of how applicant actually uses its mark in commerce) for each class of goods and/or services based on use in commerce; and

 

(2)  The following statement, verified with an affidavit or signed declaration under 37 C.F.R. §§2.20, 2.33:  “The specimen was in use in commerce at least as early as the filing date of the application.”  37 C.F.R. §2.59(a); TMEP §904.05.  If submitting a specimen requires an amendment to the dates of use, applicant must also verify the amended dates.  37 C.F.R. §2.71(c); TMEP §904.05.

 

Examples of specimens for goods are tags, labels, instruction manuals, containers, photographs that show the mark on the actual goods or packaging, or displays associated with the actual goods at their point of sale.  See TMEP §§904.03 et seq.  Examples of specimens for services are signs, photographs, brochures, website printouts or advertisements that show the mark used in the actual sale or advertising of the services.  See TMEP §§1301.04 et seq.

 

If applicant cannot satisfy the above requirements, applicant may amend the application from a use in commerce basis under Section 1(a) to an intent to use basis under Section 1(b), for which no specimen is required.  See TMEP §806.03(c).  However, if applicant amends the basis to Section 1(b), registration will not be granted until applicant later amends the application back to use in commerce by filing an acceptable allegation of use with a proper specimen.  See 15 U.S.C. §1051(c), (d); 37 C.F.R. §§2.76, 2.88; TMEP §1103. 

 

To amend to Section 1(b), applicant must submit the following statement, verified with an affidavit or signed declaration under 37 C.F.R. §§2.20, 2.33:  “Applicant has had a bona fide intention to use the mark in commerce on or in connection with the goods and/or services listed in the application as of the filing date of the application.”  37 C.F.R. §2.34(a)(2); TMEP §806.01(b); see 15 U.S.C. §1051(b); 37 C.F.R. §2.35(b)(1).

 

Pending receipt of a proper response, registration is refused because applicant has not provided evidence of the applied-for mark in use in commerce as a trademark and/or service mark.  Trademark Act Sections 1(a)(1) and 45, 15 U.S.C. §§1051(a)(1), 1127; 37 C.F.R. §§2.34(a)(1)(iv), 2.56(a); TMEP §§904, 904.07(a).

 

Applicant may respond to the stated specimen refusal by submitting a verified specimen or amending the application to an intent to use filing basis under Trademark Act Section 1(b) by following the suggested directions below for responding either online or by mail. 

 

If applicant responds to this Office action online via the Trademark Electronic Application System (TEAS), applicant should provide a substitute specimen as follows:  (1) answer “yes” to the TEAS response form wizard question to “submit a new or substitute specimen;” (2) attach a jpg or pdf file of the substitute specimen; and (3) select the statement that “The substitute specimen(s) was in use in commerce at least as early as the filing date of the application.”  However, if applicant is responding by amending the application to a Section 1(b) filing basis, applicant should do the following:  (1) answer “yes” to the TEAS response form wizard question to “change filing basis;” (2) uncheck the box for “Filing Basis Section 1(a);” and (3) check the box for “Filing Basis Section 1(b).”  Please note that these steps appear on different pages of the TEAS response form. 

 

Whether submitting a substitute specimen or amending the filing basis to Section 1(b), applicant must also manually enter his/her electronic signature and date after the declaration at the end of the TEAS response form.  See TMEP §§611.01(c), 804.01(b). 

 

If applicant experiences difficulty in submitting the required substitute specimen, supporting statement and/or declaration, or changing the filing basis, please e-mail TEAS@uspto.gov for technical assistance regarding the TEAS response form.

 

If applicant responds to this Office action on paper, via regular mail, applicant may provide a verified substitute specimen by checking the first statement below, personally signing and dating the declaration appearing below the statement, and submitting a substitute specimen showing the applied-for mark in use in commerce.  See 37 C.F.R. §2.20; TMEP §§804.01(b), 904.05.  If applicant is responding by amending the application to a Section 1(b) filing basis, applicant may check the second statement below, and personally sign and date the declaration appearing below the statement.  See 37 C.F.R. §2.20; TMEP §§804.01(b), 806.03(c).

 

q         The specimen was in use in commerce at least as early as the filing date of the application.

 

q         Applicant has had a bona fide intention to use the mark in commerce on or in connection with the goods and/or services listed in the application as of the filing date of the application.

 

The undersigned being warned that willful false statements and the like are punishable by fine or imprisonment, or both, under 18 U.S.C. §1001, and that such willful false statements and the like may jeopardize the validity of the application or document or any registration resulting therefrom, declares that all statements made of his/her own knowledge are true; and all statements made on information and belief are believed to be true.

 

_____________________________

(Signature)

 

_____________________________

(Print or Type Name and Position)

 

_____________________________

(Date)

 

 

General Response Guidelines

 

There is no required format or form for responding to an 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. 

 

If applicant responds on paper via regular mail, the response should include the title “Response to Office Action” and the following information:  (1) the name and law office number of the examining attorney, (2) the serial number and filing date of the application, (3) the date of issuance of this Office action, (4) applicant’s name, address, telephone number and e-mail address (if applicable), and (5) the mark.  37 C.F.R. §2.194(b)(1); TMEP §302.03(a).

 

Applicant must explicitly address each issue raised in this 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.  To respond to requirements, applicant should set forth in writing the required changes or statements. 

 

The response must be signed by the individual applicant or by a person with legal authority to bind a juristic applicant (e.g., a corporate officer, the equivalent of an officer for unincorporated organizations or limited liability companies, a general partner).  See TMEP §§611.03(b), 611.06 et seq., 712.01.  In the case of joint applicants, all should sign.  TMEP §611.06(a).  The proper signatory must personally sign or manually enter his/her electronic signature.  TMEP §§611.01(b), 611.02.

 

Please do not hesitate to contact the undersigned with any questions.

 

/MaureenDallLott/

 

Maureen Dall Lott

Trademark Examining Attorney, Law Office 117

United States Patent and Trademark Office

571-272-9714

 

 

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. 77840929) has been reviewed.   The examining attorney assigned by the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) has written a letter (an “Office action”) on 12/31/2009 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=77840929&doc_type=OOA&mail_date=20091231 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 12/31/2009 (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.