Offc Action Outgoing

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE

 

 

OFFICE ACTION

 

TO AVOID ABANDONMENT, WE MUST RECEIVE A PROPER RESPONSE TO THIS OFFICE ACTION WITHIN 6 MONTHS OF OUR MAILING OR E-MAILING DATE. 

 

Serial Number  78/149851

 

The assigned trademark examining attorney has reviewed the referenced application and determined the following.

 

SECTION 2(d) REFUSAL    TMEP §§1207.01 et seq    Registration is refused under Trademark Act Section 2(d), 15 U.S.C. §1052(d), because the applicant’s mark, when used on or in connection with the identified services, so resembles the mark in U.S. Registration No. 2040703 as to be likely to cause confusion, to cause mistake, or to deceive.    See registration information below

 

Mark        CLEANSCAPES
Pseudo Mark        CLEAN SCAPES
Goods and Services
IC 037. US 100 103 106. G & S: commercial office cleaning services. FIRST USE: 19941228. FIRST USE IN COMMERCE: 19941228
Mark Drawing Code        (1) TYPED DRAWING
Serial Number        75-094930
Filing Date        April 26, 1996
Publication for Opposition Date        December 3, 1996
Registration Number        2040703
Registration Date        February 25, 1997
Owner Name and Address        (REGISTRANT) Janus Services Corporation CORPORATION TEXAS 2516 Harwood Rd. Bedford TEXAS 76021
Type of Mark        SERVICE MARK
Register        PRINCIPAL
Live Dead Indicator       LIVE
Attorney of Record        Lewis D. Schwartz

 

The examining attorney must analyze each case in two steps to determine whether there is a likelihood of confusion.  First, the examining attorney must look at the marks themselves for similarities in appearance, sound, connotation and commercial impression.  In re E. I. DuPont de Nemours & Co., 476 F.2d 1357, 177 USPQ 563 (C.C.P.A. 1973).  Second, the examining attorney must compare the goods or services to determine if they are related or if the activities surrounding their marketing are such that confusion as to origin is likely.  In re August Storck KG, 218 USPQ 823 (TTAB 1983); In re International Telephone and Telegraph Corp., 197 USPQ 910 (TTAB 1978); Guardian Products Co., v. Scott Paper Co., 200 USPQ 738 (TTAB 1978).  TMEP §§1207.01 et seq. 

 

Applicant’s proposed word mark and the cited registrant’s mark are identical:  CLEANSCAPES.

 

When the marks of the respective parties are identical, the relationship between the goods 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.  Amcor, Inc. v. Amcor Industries, Inc., 210 USPQ 70 (TTAB 1981).  TMEP §§1207.01(a) and 1207.01(b). 

 

 

The services of the parties need not be identical or directly competitive to find a likelihood of confusion.  They need only be related in some manner, or the conditions surrounding their marketing be such, that they could be encountered by the same purchasers under circumstances that could give rise to the mistaken belief that the goods/services come from a common source.  In re Martin’s Famous Pastry Shoppe, Inc., 748 F.2d 1565, 223 USPQ 1289 (Fed. Cir. 1984); In re Corning Glass Works, 229 USPQ 65 (TTAB 1985); In re Rexel Inc., 223 USPQ 830 (TTAB 1984); Guardian Products Co., Inc. v. Scott Paper Co., 200 USPQ 738 (TTAB 1978); In re International Telephone & Telegraph Corp., 197 USPQ 910 (TTAB 1978).  TMEP §1207.01(a)(i). 

 

Applicant’s services Street and park management services, namely, litter and graffiti removal and pressure washing of streets, sidewalks and outdoor property and the cited registrant’s services are commercial office cleaning service

 

 

The fact that the goods/services of the parties differ is not controlling in determining likelihood of confusion.  The issue is not likelihood of confusion between particular goods/services, but likelihood of confusion as to the source of those goods/services.  See In re Rexel Inc., 223 USPQ 830, 831, (TTAB 1984), and cases cited therein; TMEP §§1207.01 et seq.

 

The applicant has a legal duty to select a mark which is totally dissimilar to trademarks already being used.   Any doubt as to the issue of likelihood of confusion will be resolved in favor of the registrant and against the applicant.   Burroughs Wellcome Co. v. Warner‑Lambert Co., 203 USPQ 191 (TTAB 1979).

 

Although the examining attorney has refused registration, the applicant may respond to the refusal to register by submitting evidence and arguments in support of registration. 

 

 

 

 

 

/leb/  Linda E. Blohm,  Trademark Examining Attorney

Ecom110@uspto.gov (the law office email address for OFFICIAL responses ONLY)

703.308.9110 ext.130,   Facsimile 703.746.6340

 

 

 

How to respond to this Office Action:

 

To respond formally using the Office’s Trademark Electronic Application System (TEAS), visit http://www.gov.uspto.report/teas/index.html and follow the instructions.

 

To respond formally via E-mail, visit http://www.gov.uspto.report/web/trademarks/tmelecresp.htm and follow the instructions.

 

To respond formally via regular mail, your response should be sent to the mailing Return Address listed above and include the serial number, law office and examining attorney’s name on the upper right corner of each page of your response.

 

To check the status of your application at any time, visit the Office’s Trademark Applications and Registrations Retrieval (TARR) system at http://tarr.gov.uspto.report/

 

For general and other useful information about trademarks, you are encouraged to visit the Office’s web site at http://www.gov.uspto.report/main/trademarks.htm

 

For inquiries or questions about this office action, please contact the assigned examining attorney.