To: | Olmes, James, B (jbolmes@aol.com) |
Subject: | TRADEMARK APPLICATION NO. 78219969 - REACTOR - N/A |
Sent: | 11/23/03 12:18:09 PM |
Sent As: | ECom111 |
Attachments: | Attachment - 1 Attachment - 2 Attachment - 3 Attachment - 4 Attachment - 5 Attachment - 6 Attachment - 7 Attachment - 8 Attachment - 9 Attachment - 10 |
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
SERIAL NO: 78/219969
APPLICANT: Olmes, James, B
|
|
CORRESPONDENT ADDRESS: OLMES, JAMES, B 5758 TENNEYSON AGOURA HILLS CA USA 91301 Agoura Hills CA USA 91301
|
RETURN ADDRESS: Commissioner for Trademarks 2900 Crystal Drive Arlington, VA 22202-3514 ecom111@uspto.gov
|
MARK: REACTOR
|
|
CORRESPONDENT’S REFERENCE/DOCKET NO: N/A
CORRESPONDENT EMAIL ADDRESS: jbolmes@aol.com |
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 78/219969
The assigned examining attorney has reviewed the referenced application and determined the following.
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. 2372434 as to be likely to cause confusion, to cause mistake, or to deceive. TMEP §§1207.01 et seq. See the enclosed registration.
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.
The applicant has applied to register “REACTOR” for watches, stop watches, and pocket watches. The registered mark is “REACTOR RING” for jewelry.
The test of likelihood of confusion is not whether the marks can be distinguished when subjected to a side‑by‑side comparison. The issue is whether the marks create the same overall impression. Visual Information Institute, Inc. v. Vicon Industries Inc., 209 USPQ 179 (TTAB 1980). The focus is on the recollection of the average purchaser who normally retains a general rather than specific impression of trademarks. Chemetron Corp. v. Morris Coupling & Clamp Co., 203 USPQ 537 (TTAB 1979); Sealed Air Corp. v. Scott Paper Co., 190 USPQ 106 (TTAB 1975); TMEP §1207.01(b). In this case, although the registered mark also contains the highly descriptive word “RINGS,” these marks create the same overall impression.
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). In this case, watches and jewelry are closely related. The examining attorney encloses representative copies of third-party registrations, showing the same mark used for both jewelry and watches.
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). TMEP §§1207.01(d)(i). 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. 2372434 as to be likely to cause confusion, to cause mistake, or to deceive. TMEP §§1207.01 et seq.
If the applicant chooses to respond to the refusal to register, the applicant must also respond to the following informality.
The wording “time pieces” and “time keeping instruments” in the identification of goods is unacceptable as indefinite. In addition, parentheses should not be used in identifications of goods and services. TMEP §1402.12. The Post Registration Section of the Office uses single brackets to indicate that goods/services have been deleted from a registration either by amendment of a registration under 15 U.S.C. §1057, filing of a partial affidavit of continued use under 15 U.S.C. §1058, or filing of a partial renewal application under 15 U.S.C. §1059.
The applicant may amend the identification to the following, if accurate.
Time pieces and time keeping instruments, namely, wrist watches, stop watches, pocket watches in International Class 014.
TMEP §1402.01.
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 the goods listed in the present identification.
For assistance regarding an acceptable listing of goods and/or services, please see the on‑line searchable Manual of Acceptable Identifications of Goods and Services, at http://www.gov.uspto.report/web/offices/tac/doc/gsmanual/.
If the applicant has any questions or needs assistance in responding to this Office action, please contact the assigned examining attorney.
/allison holtz/
Allison Holtz
Examining Attorney, Law Office 111
(703)308-9111, extension 249
ECom111@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.