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:

 

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.

 

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. 3127450.  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 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.

 

COMPARISON OF THE MARKS

 

In a likelihood of confusion determination, the marks are compared for similarities in their appearance, sound, meaning or connotation and commercial impression.  In re E. I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., 476 F.2d 1357, 1361, 177 USPQ 563, 567 (C.C.P.A. 1973); TMEP §1207.01(b).  Similarity in any one of these elements may be sufficient to find a likelihood of confusion.  In re White Swan Ltd., 8 USPQ2d 1534, 1535 (TTAB 1988); In re Lamson Oil Co., 6 USPQ2d 1041, 1043 (TTAB 1987); see TMEP §1207.01(b).

 

In the present case, the applicant’s mark, TRUE FIT (in standard character form) is identical to the wording of the registrant’s mark, TRUE FIT (in standard character form).  If the marks of the respective parties are identical, the relationship between the goods and/or services of the respective parties need not be as close to support a finding of likelihood of confusion as might apply where differences exist between the marks.  In re Opus One Inc., 60 USPQ2d 1812, 1815 (TTAB 2001); Amcor, Inc. v. Amcor Indus., Inc., 210 USPQ 70, 78 (TTAB 1981); TMEP §1207.01(a).

 

 

 

COMPARISON OF THE 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).

 

The applicant intends use of its mark for use with “providing access to software for matching users to apparel based on body measurements and heuristics” among other things.  The registrant uses its mark in connection with “telecommunications services, namely, transmission of voice, data and information by electronic means.”  It is not clear whether the applicant is providing telecommunications services or software, however, in view of the ambiguity, and the identical marks, it is presumed here that the applicant is providing “access” to telecomm services as is the registrant.  In this case, and in view of the identical marks, consumers are likely to believe that the telecom services emanate from a common source.

 

Overall, the similarities among the marks and the services are so great as to create a likelihood of confusion. The examining attorney must resolve any doubt regarding a likelihood of confusion in favor of the prior registrant. In re Hyper Shoppes (Ohio), Inc., 837 F.2d 463, 6 USPQ2d 1025 (Fed. Cir., 1988).

 

 

 

INFORMALITIES

 

The applicant must respond to the following informalities.

 

Recitation and Classification of Services and/or Goods

 

The identification of services (and perhaps goods in IC 009) is indefinite and must be clarified the applications suggests services in a number of international classes, and must be more definitely described for the purposed of classification.  The wording “providing access to software” reads as a communications service in IC 038.  See suggestion below.  If the applicant is providing software, the goods are in IC 009 if on prerecorded media, or if downloadable from a website, or if provided for only online use, it is a service in IC 042.  If the applicant is using the mark as a source identifier for retail store services, a suggestion is made below, but must also include the goods (or kind of goods) provided in the store services bearing the mark.  Retail store services are in IC 035.  If the applicant is providing a personal service in the nature of fitting and matching apparel for others, the services are in IC 045.  See TMEP §1402.01.  Applicant may adopt the following identification, if accurate: 

 

Providing access to telecommunications networks, in IC 038.

 

Prerecorded software for matching users to apparel based on body measurements and heuristics, in IC 009.

 

Downloadable software for matching users to apparel based on body measurements and heuristics, in IC 009.

 

Providing online non-downloadable software for matching users to apparel based on body measurements and heuristics, in IC 042.

 

Retail store services and online retail store services featuring [indicate the kind or type of goods provided via the retail store services, e.g., women’s clothing, furniture, footwear], in IC 035.

 

Personal services in the nature of matching users to apparel based on body measurements and heuristics, provided via retail and online retail store services, in IC 045.

 

 

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, applicant may not amend the identification to include services that are not within the scope of the services set forth in the present identification.

 

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.

 

Amendment or Addition of International Classes

 

If the applicant adopts the suggested amendments to the identification of goods and/or service, the applicant must amend the classification to the appropriate International Classes, and/or amend to add additional classes. 37 C.F.R. Sections 2.32(a)(7) and 2.85; TMEP §§ 805, 1401.

 

Fees

 

The application identifies goods and/or services that are classified in at least four classes; however, the fees submitted are sufficient for only one class.  In a multiple-class application, a fee for each class is required.  37 C.F.R. §2.86(a)(2); TMEP §§810.01, 1403.01.

 

Therefore, applicant must either (1) restrict the application to the number of class(es) covered by the fee(s) already paid, or (2) submit the fees for the additional class(es). 

 

The filing fee for adding classes to an application is as follows:

 

         (1)     $325 per class, when the fees are submitted with a response filed online via the Trademark Electronic Application System (TEAS) at http://www.gov.uspto.report/teas/index.html; or

 

         (2)     $375 per class, when the fees are submitted with a paper response. 

 

37 C.F.R. §2.6(a)(1)(i)-(a)(1)(ii); TMEP §810.

 

 

Requirements for a Multiple Class Application

 

If applicant prosecutes this application as a combined, or multiple-class application, then applicant must comply with each of the following for those goods and/or services based on an intent to use the mark in commerce under Trademark Act Section 1(b) and/or 44(e):

 

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

 

(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).

 

See 37 C.F.R. §§2.34(a)(2)-(3), 2.86(a); TMEP §§1403.01, 1403.02(c).

 

 

Note:  “TMEP” refers to the Office’s 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 administrative manual written by the Office to explain the laws and procedures that govern the trademark/service mark application, registration and post registration processes.

 

 

RESPONSE

 

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).

 

In the response, applicant should explicitly address each refusal and/or requirement raised in the 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 and why the mark should register.  To respond to requirements, applicant should set forth in writing the required changes or statements. 

 

If the applicant has an attorney who is authorized to practice before the USPTO under 37 C.F.R. §10.14(e) (see TMEP §602), the attorney must sign the response. 37 C.F.R. §10.18(a). TMEP §712.01.

 

If the applicant is not represented by an attorney, the response must be signed by applicant or someone with legal authority to bind applicant (i.e., a corporate officer of a corporate applicant, the equivalent of an officer for unincorporated organizations or limited liability company applicants, a general partner of a partnership applicant, each applicant for applications with multiple individual applicants).  TMEP §§605.02, 712. 

 

The signer must personally sign and date the response or manually enter their electronic signature in the signature block.  TMEP §605.02.

 

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

 

 

 

/Linda A. Powell/

Trademark Examining Attorney

Law Office 117

(571) 272-9327

 

 

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.