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  78/403951

 

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

 

Search Results

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

 

Registration refusal – 2(d) Likelihood of Confusion

Registration of the proposed mark is refused because of a likelihood of confusion with the mark in U.S. Registration No. 0940334.  Trademark Act Section 2(d), 15 U.S.C. §1052(d); TMEP §§1207.01 et seq.  See the enclosed registration.

 

The Court in In re E. I. DuPont de Nemours & Co., 476 F.2d 1357, 177 USPQ 563 (C.C.P.A. 1973), listed the principal factors to be considered in determining whether there is a likelihood of confusion under Section 2(d).  Any one of the factors listed may be dominant in any given case, depending upon the evidence of record.  In this case, the following factors are the most relevant:  similarity of the marks, similarity of the goods and/or services, and similarity of trade channels of the goods and/or services.  See In re Opus One, Inc., 60 USPQ2d 1812 (TTAB 2001); In re Dakin’s Miniatures Inc., 59 USPQ2d 1593 (TTAB 1999); In re Azteca Restaurant Enterprises, Inc., 50 USPQ2d 1209 (TTAB 1999); In re L.C. Licensing Inc., 49 USPQ2d 1379 (TTAB 1998); TMEP §§1207.01 et seq.

 

Trademark Act Section 2(d) bars registration where an applied-for mark so resembles a registered mark that it is likely, when applied to the goods and/or services, to cause confusion, mistake or to deceive the potential consumer as to the source of the goods and/or services.  TMEP §1207.01.  The Court in In re E. I. DuPont de Nemours & Co., 476 F.2d 1357, 177 USPQ 563 (C.C.P.A. 1973), listed the principal factors to consider in determining whether there is a likelihood of confusion.  Among these factors are the similarity of the marks as to appearance, sound, meaning and commercial impression, and the relatedness of the goods and/or services.  The overriding concern is to prevent buyer confusion as to the source of the goods and/or services.  Miss Universe, Inc. v. Miss Teen U.S.A., Inc., 209 USPQ 698 (N.D. Ga. 1980).  Therefore, any doubt as to the existence of a likelihood of confusion must be resolved in favor of the registrant.  In re Hyper Shoppes (Ohio), Inc., 837 F.2d 463, 6 USPQ2d 1025 (Fed. Cir. 1988); Lone Star Mfg. Co. v. Bill Beasley, Inc., 498 F.2d 906, 182 USPQ 368 (C.C.P.A. 1974).

 

Comparison of the Marks

The marks are compared 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 RECOVER for “oral supplement for horses.”  The registrant’s mark is RE-CVR for “anti-histaminic preparations.”

 

 

The marks are essentially phonetic equivalents and are thus similar sounding.  Similarity in sound alone may be sufficient to support a finding of likelihood of confusion.  RE/MAX of America, Inc. v. Realty Mart, Inc., 207 USPQ 960, 964 (TTAB 1980); Molenaar, Inc. v. Happy Toys Inc., 188 USPQ 469 (TTAB 1975); In re Cresco Mfg. Co., 138 USPQ 401 (TTAB 1963); TMEP §1207.01(b)(iv).

 

When determining whether there is a likelihood of confusion under Section 2(d), the question is not whether people will confuse the marks, but rather whether the marks will confuse the people into believing that the goods they identify emanate from the same source.  In re West Point-Pepperell, Inc., 468 F.2d 200, 175 USPQ 558 (C.C.P.A. 1972).  For that reason, the test of likelihood of confusion is not whether the marks can be distinguished when subjected to a side-by-side comparison.  The question is whether the marks create the same overall impression.  Visual Information Inst., Inc. v. Vicon Indus. 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).

 

 

Comparison of the Goods and /or Services

The goods and/or services of the parties need not be identical or directly competitive to find a likelihood of confusion.  Instead, 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 and/or 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 Melville Corp., 18 USPQ2d 1386, 1388 (TTAB 1991); In re Corning Glass Works, 229 USPQ 65 (TTAB 1985); In re Rexel Inc., 223 USPQ 830 (TTAB 1984); Guardian Prods. Co., Inc. v. Scott Paper Co., 200 USPQ 738 (TTAB 1978); In re Int’l Tel. & Tel. Corp., 197 USPQ 910 (TTAB 1978); TMEP §1207.01(a)(i).

 

Likelihood of confusion is 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., Inc., 473 F.2d 901, 177 USPQ 76 (C.C.P.A. 1973).  Since the identification of the registrant’s goods and/or services is very broad, it is presumed that the registration encompasses all goods and/or services of the type described, including those in the applicant’s more specific identification, that they move in all normal channels of trade and that they are available to all potential customers.  In re Elbaum, 211 USPQ 639, 640 (TTAB 1981); In re Optica International, 196 USPQ 775 (TTAB 1977); TMEP §1207.01(a)(iii).

 

Consumers are likely to believe that these related goods emanate from the same source based on the fact that they are for veterinary use, they both have a medicinal purpose and they are sold  establishments.

 

Therefore, a likelihood of confusion exists.

 

Although the trademark examining attorney has refused registration, applicant may respond to the refusal to register by submitting evidence and arguments in support of registration.

 

If applicant chooses to respond to the refusal(s) to register, then applicant must also respond to the following requirement(s).

 

Identification of Goods

The current wording used to describe the goods needs clarification because applicant must indicate the type of supplement. Applicant may adopt the following identification of goods, if accurate:  oral feed supplement for horses, International class 5

 

 

TMEP §1402.01.

 

Please note that, while the identification of goods may be amended to clarify or limit the goods, adding to the goods or broadening the scope of the goods is not permitted.  37 C.F.R. §2.71(a); TMEP §1402.06.  Therefore, applicant may not amend the identification to include goods that are not within the scope of the goods set forth in the present identification.

 

Classification of Goods

Applicant must correct the classification of the goods in the application and amend the application to classify them in International Class 5.  37 C.F.R. §§2.32(a)(7) and 2.85; TMEP §§1401.02(a) and 1401.03(b).

 

 

 

 

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.

 

 

 

/acs/

Aretha C Somerville

Examining Attorney

Law Office 112

571 272-9414

571 273-9414 (fax)

 

 

How to respond to this Office Action:

 

You may respond formally using the Office's Trademark Electronic Application System (TEAS) Response to Office Action form (visit http://eteas.gov.uspto.report/V2.0/oa242/WIZARD.htm and follow the instructions therein, but you must wait until at least 72 hours after receipt if the office action issued via e-mail).  PLEASE NOTE: Responses to Office Actions on applications filed under the Madrid Protocol (Section 66(a)) CANNOT currently be filed via TEAS.

 

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.