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  78/352015

 

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

 

LIKELIHOOD OF CONFUSION –Similar Marks Found

 

The examining attorney refuses registration under Trademark Act Section 2(d), 15 U.S.C. Section 1052(d), because the applicant's mark, when used on or in connection with the identified goods, so resembles the marks in U.S. Registration Nos. 2797313, 2572447, and 1546219,  as to be likely to cause confusion, or to cause mistake, or to deceive.  TMEP section 1207.  See the enclosed registrations.

 

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 (CCPA 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).

 

The applicant applied to register the mark CONDUCTOR for computer software to develop, deploy, and manage cross-functional and multi-organizational business applications; computer software to allow application integration between different computer programs and business applications; computer software for developing, deploying, and managing computer architecture, database integration, enterprise application integration, database management, data access, data control, supply chain management, and business applications .

 

The registered marks are all CONDUCTOR for various software.

 

The marks are very similar. Applicant mark consist of the same term in registrants’ marks.

 

When the applicant's mark is compared to a registered mark, "the points of similarity are of greater importance than the points of difference."  Esso Standard Oil Co. v. Sun Oil Co., 229 F.2d 37, 108 USPQ 161 (D.C. Cir.), cert. denied, 351 U.S. 973, 109 USPQ 517 (1956).

 

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). 

 

Thus, the applicant’s good are very similar to each of the registrant’s software program.

 

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

 

Consequently, the applicant’s mark is refused registration under Trademark Act Section 2(d), 15 U.S.C. Section 1052(d), because the applicant's mark, when used on or in connection with the identified goods so resembles the registered marks herein as to be likely to cause confusion, to cause mistake, or to deceive. 

 

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:

 

 

Informality

 

Specimen and Drawing Do Not Match –New Specimen Required

 

 

The drawing displays the mark as CONDUCTOR.  However, this differs from the display of the mark on the specimen, where it appears as COMMERCE ONE CONDUCTOR GRAPHICAL.  The applicant cannot amend the drawing to conform to the display on the specimen because the character of the mark would be materially altered.  37 C.F.R. §2.72(a); TMEP §§807.14, 807.14(a) and 807.14(a)(i).

Therefore, the applicant must submit a substitute specimen that shows use of the mark as it appears on the drawing.  37 C.F.R. §2.51; TMEP §807.14.  The applicant must verify, with an affidavit or a declaration under 37 C.F.R. §2.20, that the substitute specimen was in use in commerce at least as early as the filing date of the application.  37 C.F.R. §§2.59(a) and 2.72(a); TMEP §904.09.

 

If the applicant has any questions or needs assistance in responding to this Office action, please telephone 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.

 

 

 

/Shari L. Sheffield/

Shari Sheffield

Trademark Attorney

Law Office 110

703-308-9110 ext. 467

 

 

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.

 

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.