UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
SERIAL NO: 78/180909
APPLICANT: Golden Gate Software, Inc.
|
|
CORRESPONDENT ADDRESS: Anne H. Peck Cooley Godward LLP Five Palo Alto Square 4th Floor 3000 El Camino Real Palo Alto CA 94306-2155 |
RETURN ADDRESS: Commissioner for Trademarks 2900 Crystal Drive Arlington, VA 22202-3514 ecom106@uspto.gov
|
MARK: GOLDENGATE
|
|
CORRESPONDENT’S REFERENCE/DOCKET NO: Golden Gate
CORRESPONDENT EMAIL ADDRESS:
|
Please provide in all correspondence:
1. Filing date, serial number, mark and applicant's name. 2. Date of this Office Action. 3. Examining Attorney's name and Law Office number. 4. Your telephone number and e-mail address.
|
Serial Number 78/180909
The assigned examining attorney has reviewed the referenced application and determined the following.
LIKELIHOOD OF CONFUSION
The examining attorney refuses registration 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 goods/services, so resembles the mark in U.S. Registration No. 2,398,544 as to be likely to cause confusion, to cause mistake, or to deceive. TMEP §§1207.01 et seq. See the enclosed registration.
The registered mark features use of the term GOLDEN-GATE for software design and implementation consulting services. These services would be closely related to applicant’s goods.
The goods/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).
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.
If the applicant chooses to respond to the refusal to register, the applicant must also respond to the following informalities.
The examining attorney encloses information regarding pending Application Serial Nos. 76-135415 and 76-329487. The filing dates of the referenced applications precede the applicant’s filing date. There may be a likelihood of confusion between the applicant’s mark and the referenced marks under Trademark Act Section 2(d), 15 U.S.C. §1052(d). If one or more of the referenced applications matures into a registration, the examining attorney may refuse registration in this case under Section 2(d). 37 C.F.R. §2.83; TMEP §1208.01.
Both applications cover marks which feature the expression GOLDEN GATE. Both marks cover computer software and manuals sold as a unit. Note that the field of use of the current applicant’s software and the actual functions are not yet provided. The respective goods appear to be related.
The identification of goods is unacceptable as indefinite because it essentially does not state the specific function of the software. If the software comprises computer utility programs, this should be clear. Virtually all programs are used to process or display data in some way. The specific functions and field of use must be stated.
Please note that, while an application may be amended to clarify or limit the identification, additions to the identification are not permitted. 37 C.F.R. §2.71(a); TMEP §1402.06. Therefore, the applicant may not amend to include any goods that are not within the scope of goods set forth in the present identification.
If the applicant has any questions about this Office action, please telephone the assigned examining attorney.
Fee increase effective January 1, 2003
Effective January 1, 2003, the fee for filing an application for trademark registration will be increased to $335.00 per International Class. The USPTO will not accord a filing date to applications that are filed on or after that date that are not accompanied by a minimum of $335.00.
Additionally, the fee for amending an existing application to add an additional class or classes of goods/services will be $335.00 per class for classes added on or after January 1, 2003.
/Steven Foster/ Trademark Attorney
Law Office 106
(703) 308-9106 Ext. 123
Fax number for the Law Office: (703) 746-8106
E-mail responses: ecom106@uspto.gov
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.
FOR INQUIRIES OR QUESTIONS ABOUT THIS OFFICE ACTION, PLEASE CONTACT THE ASSIGNED EXAMINING ATTORNEY.