| To: | Banc Enterprises Corporation (ribeiro@lapcr.com) |
| Subject: | TRADEMARK APPLICATION NO. 78325180 - ABSOLUT - N/A |
| Sent: | 8/20/04 6:06:35 PM |
| Sent As: | ECOM103@USPTO.GOV |
| Attachments: |
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
|
SERIAL NO: 78/325180
APPLICANT: Banc Enterprises Corporation
|
|
|
CORRESPONDENT ADDRESS: |
RETURN ADDRESS: Commissioner for Trademarks 2900 Crystal Drive Arlington, VA 22202-3514
|
|
MARK: ABSOLUT
|
|
|
CORRESPONDENT’S REFERENCE/DOCKET NO: N/A
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 78/325180
This letter responds to the applicant’s communication filed on July 12, 2004.
The applicant’s translation statement has been added to the record.
For the reasons set forth below, the refusal under Trademark Act Section 2(d), 15 U.S.C. §1052(d), is now made FINAL with respect to U.S. Registration Nos., 2,540,331; 2,529,817; 2,651,084; and 1,302,003. 37 C.F.R. §2.64(a).
The applicant has not responded to the Section 2(d) refusal. The examining attorney will repeat the refusal for the applicant’s convenience.
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, so resembles the mark in U.S. Registration Nos. 2,540,331; 2,529,817; 2,651,084 and 1,302,003 as to be likely to cause confusion, to cause mistake, or to deceive. TMEP §§1207.01 et seq. See the enclosed registrations.
THE MARKS
The examining attorney must compare the marks for similarities in sound, appearance, meaning or connotation. In re E. I. DuPont de Nemours & Co., 476 F.2d 1357, 177 USPQ 563 (C.C.P.A. 1973). Similarity in any one of these elements is sufficient to find a likelihood of confusion. In re Mack, 197 USPQ 755 (TTAB 1977). TMEP §§1207.01(b) et seq.
The applicant’s mark is identical to the registrant’s mark.
THE GOODS
The goods 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 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 uses its mark on “Cigarettes, Menthol cigarettes, little cigars, cigars” and the
registrant uses its mark on “vodka.” As demonstrated by the attached copies of third party
registrations, cigarettes and alcoholic beverages travel in the same trade channels to the same
class of purchaser.
Third-party registrations that cover a number of different goods or services have some probative value to the extent that they may serve to suggest that goods or services are of a type that may emanate from a single source, if the registrations are based on use in commerce. In re Albert Trostel & Sons Co., 29 USPQ2d 1783 (TTAB 1993); In re Mucky Duck Mustard Co. Inc., 6 USPQ2d 1467 (TTAB 1988). The applicant should refer to copies of third party registrations which were attached to the first office action.
The refusal is maintained and made FINAL.
Applicant may respond to this final action by either: (1) submitting a timely response that fully satisfies any outstanding requirements, if feasible; or (2) timely filing an appeal of this final action to the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board. 37 C.F.R. §2.64(a); TMEP §715.01. If applicant fails to respond within six months of the mailing date of this refusal, the application will be abandoned. 37 C.F.R. §2.65(a).
*
Trademark Attorney
Law Office 103
703-308-9103 ext. 487
fax- 703-746-8103
e-mail- lesley.lamothe@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 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.
NOTICE: TRADEMARK OPERATION RELOCATING OCTOBER AND NOVEMBER 2004
The Trademark Operation is relocating to Alexandria, Virginia, in October and November 2004. Effective October 4, 2004, all Trademark-related paper mail (except documents sent to the Assignment Services Division for recordation, certain documents filed under the Madrid Protocol, and requests for copies of trademark documents) must be sent to:
Commissioner for Trademarks
P.O. Box 1451
Alexandria, VA 22313-1451
Applicants, registration owners, attorneys and other Trademark customers are strongly encouraged to correspond with the USPTO online via the Trademark Electronic Application System (TEAS), at www.uspto.gov.
/Lesley LaMothe/
Trademark Attorney
Law Office 103
703-308-9103 ext 487
e-mail- lesley.lamothe@uspto.gov
fax- 703-308-9207
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 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.