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  78/241882

 

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

 

REFUSAL – Likelihood of Confusion - Section 2(d)

 

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. 2043212 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’s mark is N1, and the registrant’s mark is N+1 REDUNDANT POWER SUPPLY and design.

 

The examining attorney must look at the marks in their entireties under Section 2(d). Nevertheless, one feature of a mark may be recognized as more significant in creating a commercial impression.  Greater weight is given to that dominant feature in determining whether there is a likelihood of confusion.  In re National Data Corp., 224 USPQ 749 (Fed. Cir. 1985); Tektronix, Inc. v. Daktronics, Inc., 534 F.2d 915, 189 USPQ 693 (C.C.P.A. 1976). In re J.M. Originals Inc., 6 USPQ2d 1393 (TTAB 1988).  TMEP §1207.01(b)(viii).  The dominant feature of the parties’ marks is N1, which is highly significant in creating a commercial impression.  

 

While the examining attorney cannot ignore a disclaimed portion of a mark and must view marks in their entireties, one feature of a mark may be more significant in creating a commercial impression.  Tektronix, Inc. v. Daktronics, Inc., 534 F.2d 915, 189 USPQ 693 (CCPA 1976); In re El Torito Restaurants Inc., 9 USPQ2d 2002 (TTAB 1988); In re Equitable Bancorporation, 229 USPQ 709 (TTAB 1986).  Disclaimed matter is typically less significant or less dominant.   The registrant has disclaimed REDUNDANT POWER SUPPLY apart from the mark as shown.  This leaves the dominant literal portion N1, which is identical to the applicant’s proposed mark. 

 

When a mark consists of a word portion and a design portion, the word portion is more likely to be impressed upon a purchaser’s memory and to be used in calling for the goods or services. In re Appetito Provisions Co., 3 USPQ2d 1553 (TTAB 1987); Amoco Oil Co. v. Amerco, Inc., 192 USPQ 729 (TTAB 1976).  TMEP §1207.01(c)(ii).  The design portion in the registrant’s mark does not obviate the likelihood of confusion.  Prospective purchasers of the parties’ goods and services would call for them by the literal dominant portion of the marks, N1. 

 

If the marks of the respective parties are identical or highly similar, the examining attorney must consider the commercial relationship between the goods or services of the respective parties carefully to determine whether there is a likelihood of confusion.  In re Concordia International Forwarding Corp., 222 USPQ 355 (TTAB 1983).  TMEP §1207.01(a). 

 

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). 

 

The applicant’s goods/services consist of “scientific, nautical, surveying, photographic, cinematographic, optical, weighing, measuring, signalling, checking (supervision), lifesaving and teaching apparatus and instruments; apparatus and instruments for conducting, switching, transforming, accumulating, regulating or controlling electricity; apparatus for recording, transmission or reproduction of sound or images; magnetic data carriers, recording discs; automatic vending machines and mechanisms for coin operated apparatus; cash registers, calculating machines, data processing equipment and computers; paper, cardboard and goods made from these materials, not included in other classes; printed matter; photographs; stationery; typewriters and office requisites (except furniture); instructional and teaching material (except apparatus); repair; installation services; education; providing of training; entertainment; sporting and cultural activities; scientific and technological services and research and design relating thereto; industrial analysis and research services; design and development of computer hardware and software.”  The registrant’s goods/services consist of “computer hardware, namely, switching power supplies.” 

 

It is well settled that the issue of likelihood of confusion between marks must be determined on the basis of the goods or services as they are identified in the application and the registration. Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce v. Wells Fargo Bank, 811 F.2d 1490, 1 USPQ2d 1813 (Fed. Cir. 1987); Paula Payne Products Co. v. Johnson Publishing Co., 473 F.2d 901, 177 USPQ 76 (C.C.P.A. 1973).  Since the identification of the applicant’s goods/services is very broad, it is presumed that the application encompasses all goods/services of the type described, including those in the registrant’s more specific identification, that they move in all normal channels of trade and that they are available for all potential customers.  TMEP §1207.01(a)(iii).  The applicant’s goods consisting of “apparatus and instruments for conducting, switching, transforming, accumulating, regulating or controlling electricity” are identical to the registrant’s “switching power supplies.”  The use of highly similar marks on these goods would likely cause confusion as to their source. 

 

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.

 

Class Heading Unacceptable for Identification

 

The applicant uses the headings of the international classes as the identification of goods and services.  The headings indicate the general scope of the classes.  Although such broad designations are sufficient under the trademark laws and practice of many countries, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office considers them too broad to identify the goods or services in a United States application.  Therefore, the applicant must amend the identification to indicate the specific common commercial name of the goods and services.  In re Societe Generale des Eaux Minerales de Vittel S.A., 1 USPQ2d 1296, 1298 (TTAB 1986), rev’d on other grounds, 824 F.2d 957, 3 USPQ2d 1450 (Fed. Cir. 1987); TMEP §1401.08, 1402.01 and 1402.01(a).  In addition, the applicant must avoid the use of parentheses in the identification of goods and services. 

 

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.

 

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/.

 

 

 

 

 

/Cynthia Sloan/

Examining Attorney

Law Office 116

Ph 703.306.7921

Fx 703.746.8116

ecom116@uspto.gov

http://www.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.

 

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.