To: | Green Solar Transportation LLC (info@greensolartransport.com) |
Subject: | U.S. TRADEMARK APPLICATION NO. 77911769 - GREEN CROSS - N/A |
Sent: | 3/10/2010 5:22:52 PM |
Sent As: | ECOM112@USPTO.GOV |
Attachments: | Attachment - 1 Attachment - 2 Attachment - 3 Attachment - 4 Attachment - 5 Attachment - 6 Attachment - 7 Attachment - 8 Attachment - 9 Attachment - 10 Attachment - 11 Attachment - 12 Attachment - 13 Attachment - 14 Attachment - 15 Attachment - 16 Attachment - 17 Attachment - 18 Attachment - 19 Attachment - 20 Attachment - 21 Attachment - 22 Attachment - 23 Attachment - 24 Attachment - 25 Attachment - 26 Attachment - 27 Attachment - 28 Attachment - 29 |
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
SERIAL NO: 77/911769
MARK: GREEN CROSS
|
|
CORRESPONDENT ADDRESS: |
RESPOND TO THIS ACTION: http://www.gov.uspto.report/teas/eTEASpageD.htm
GENERAL TRADEMARK INFORMATION: http://www.gov.uspto.report/main/trademarks.htm
|
APPLICANT: Green Solar Transportation LLC
|
|
CORRESPONDENT’S REFERENCE/DOCKET NO: CORRESPONDENT E-MAIL ADDRESS: |
|
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: 3/10/2010
TEAS PLUS APPLICANTS MUST SUBMIT DOCUMENTS ELECTRONICALLY OR SUBMIT FEE: Applicants who filed their application online using the reduced-fee TEAS Plus application must continue to submit certain documents online using TEAS, including responses to Office actions. For a complete list of these documents, see TMEP §819.02(b). In addition, such applicants must accept correspondence from the Office via e-mail throughout the examination process and must maintain a valid e-mail address. 37 C.F.R. §2.23(a)(2); TMEP §§819, 819.02(a). TEAS Plus applicants who do not meet these requirements must submit an additional fee of $50 per international class of goods and/or services. 37 C.F.R. §2.6(a)(1)(iv); TMEP §819.04. Responding by telephone to authorize an examiner’s amendment will not incur this additional fee.
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, 2.65(a); TMEP §§711, 718.03.
LIKELIHOOD OF CONFUSION
For the reasons discussed below, the examining attorney concludes that confusion as to the source of services is likely between the applicant’s mark GREEN CROSS for “emergency road side services” and the registrant’s mark GREEN CROSS FOR SAFETY for “PREPARATION AND DISTRIBUTION OF EDUCATIONAL MATERIALS DESIGNED TO HELP INDIVIDUALS AND ORGANIZATIONS IN ACCIDENT PREVENTION,” GREEN CROSS FOR SAFETY NATIONAL SAFETY COUNCIL FIRST AID INSTITUTE for “organizing and implementing first aid and cardiac pulmonary resuscitation courses and providing related course materials,” and GREEN CROSS FOR SAFETY for “providing recognition and incentives by the way of awards to demonstrate excellence in the field of safety and health.”
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.
The services of both parties are related to safety including emergency road side assistance. The services of the parties are related and are likely to be marketed within the same trade channels. The services of both parties are likely to be displayed in close proximity in various stores and retail establishments. See attached registrations that demonstrates a single source for goods and services related to safety and roadside assistance.
The marks are virtually identical. The services are very highly related. The similarities among the marks and the services are so great as to create a likelihood of confusion among consumers. The overriding concern is not only to prevent buyer confusion as to the source of the goods and/or services, but to protect the registrant from adverse commercial impact due to use of a similar mark by a newcomer. See In re Shell Oil Co., 992 F.2d 1204, 1208, 26 USPQ2d 1687, 1690 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Therefore, any doubt regarding a likelihood of confusion determination is resolved in favor of the registrant. TMEP §1207.01(d)(i); see Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Packard Press, Inc., 281 F.3d 1261, 1265, 62 USPQ2d 1001, 1003 (Fed. Cir. 2002); In re Hyper Shoppes (Ohio), Inc., 837 F.2d 463, 464-65, 6 USPQ2d 1025, 1025 (Fed. Cir. 1988).
Although applicant’s mark has been refused registration, applicant may respond to the refusal(s) by submitting evidence and arguments in support of registration.
INFORMALITIES
If the applicant chooses to respond to the refusal to register, the applicant must also respond to the following informalities.
SIGNIFICANCE OF WORDING IN THE MARK
Further, applicant must provide additional information about this wording to enable proper examination of the application. Specifically, applicant must respond to the following questions: 1) Whether the wording GREEN CROSS has any significance in the applicant’s industry, 2) whether the design of a green Greek cross has any significance in the applicant’s industry, and 3) Whether a green cross is a recognized symbol in the automotive, travel, emergency, safety or roadside assistance fields or industries.
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.
REQUIREMENT FOR INFORMATION
The examining attorney requires information about the services to properly examine the application. TMEP section 1105.02. The applicant must provide information for the services. This may take the form of a fact sheet, brochures, or advertising materials. If unavailable, the applicant should submit the information for services of the same type, explaining how its services will differ. If the services feature new technology and no competing services are available, the applicant must provide a detailed factual description of the services.
In all cases, the submitted factual information must make clear what the services include, its salient feature, and its prospective customers and/or channel of trade. This information is not readily available to the examining attorney, and is pertinent to the examination of the application.
/Sharon A. Meier/
________________________
Trademark Attorney
Law Office 112
(571) 272-9195 - phone
(571) 273-9112 - fax
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.