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  78/419363

 

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

 

Likelihood of Confusion

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 Nos. 2591763, 2703521, and 2714902 as to be likely to cause confusion, to cause mistake, or to deceive.  TMEP §§1207.01 et seq.  See the enclosed registrations.

 

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/services, and similarity of trade channels of the goods/services.  TMEP §§1207.01 et seq. 

 

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. 

 

Similarity of the Marks

The applicant has applied for the mark AFS for “mesh particulate filters made of alumina and ceramic material for use in the oil and gas industry”.

 

The Registrants’ marks are AFS and/or forms thereof for various filters and/or filtration devices.

 

The marks are highly similar in that they share the same dominant term, namely AFS. The mere addition of a term to a registered mark does not obviate the similarity between the marks nor does it overcome a likelihood of confusion under Section 2(d).  Coca-Cola Bottling Co. v. Joseph E. Seagram & Sons, Inc., 526 F.2d 556, 188 USPQ 105 (C.C.P.A. 1975) (“BENGAL” and “BENGAL LANCER”); Lilly Pulitzer, Inc. v. Lilli Ann Corp., 376 F.2d 324, 153 USPQ 406 (C.C.P.A. 1967) (“THE LILLY” and “LILLI ANN”); In re El Torito Rests. Inc., 9 USPQ2d 2002 (TTAB 1988) (“MACHO” and “MACHO COMBOS”); In re United States Shoe Corp., 229 USPQ 707 (TTAB 1985) (“CAREER IMAGE” and “CREST CAREER IMAGES”); In re Corning Glass Works, 229 USPQ 65 (TTAB 1985) (“CONFIRM” and “CONFIRMCELLS”); In re Riddle, 225 USPQ 630 (TTAB 1985) (“ACCUTUNE” and “RICHARD PETTY’S ACCU TUNE”); In re Cosvetic Laboratories, Inc., 202 USPQ 842 (TTAB 1979) (“HEAD START” and “HEAD START COSVETIC”); TMEP §1207.01(b)(iii). The converse is true in this case.

 

Furthermore, the addition of the design element does not obviate the similarity between the marks.  In re Shell Oil Company, 992 F.2d 1204, 26 USPQ2d 1687 (Fed. Cir. 1993); Coca-Cola Bottling Co. v. Joseph E. Seagram & Sons, Inc., 526 F.2d 556, 188 USPQ 105 (C.C.P.A. 1975); TMEP §§1207.01(b)(viii) and 1207.01(c)(ii).

 

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). 

 

Similarity of 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/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, the applicant and registrants’ provide filtration products. The nature of the applicant’s goods is unknown due to indefinite identification of goods. The examining attorney must assume that the registrant’s goods are in within the identification of the applicant.

 

The marks are highly similar. The goods are highly related. 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). 

 

Therefore, confusion is likely.

 

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.

 

Informalities

If the applicant chooses to respond to the refusal to register, the applicant must address the following informalities as well.

 

Goods Indefinite

The identification of goods is indefinite. The applicant must clarify the identification of goods to specify the common commercial or generic name for the goods.  If there is no common commercial or generic name, then applicant must describe the product and intended consumer as well as its main purpose and intended uses. The applicant has not stated the commercial names for the goods or the specific purpose of these goods. It is likely that the goods belong in Int. Cl. 7, not Int. Cl. 11 as stated by the applicant. The filters are likely for some type of mechanical use. Once the nature of the goods is known, a proper classification can be identified.  For assistance with identifying goods and/or services in trademark applications, please see the online searchable Manual of Acceptable Identifications of Goods and Services at http://tess2.gov.uspto.report/netahtml/tidm.html. Applicant may adopt the following identification of goods, if accurate:  TMEP § 1402.01.

 

Oil and fuel mesh particulate filters made of alumina of ceramic material for use in mechanical purposes for the oil and gas industry, namely for the purpose of removing particulates from oil and gasoline in Int. Cl. 7.

 

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.

 

Specimens Do Not Match Drawing

The mark as depicted on the drawing does not agree with the mark as it appears on the specimen, and clarification is required.  In the present case, the drawing displays the mark as AFS, and the specimen shows the mark as AFS-1050HA and AFS-1010HA.  37 C.F.R. §2.72(a); TMEP §§807.14, 807.14(a) and 807.14(a)(i).  Applicant may not submit an amended drawing to conform to the display on the specimen because the character of the mark would be materially altered, i.e., the mark on the specimens creates a different commercial impression from the mark on the drawing.

 

Therefore, applicant must do one of the following:

 

(1)   submit a substitute specimen showing use of the mark as it appears on the drawing, with a statement that “the substitute specimen was in use in commerce at least as early as the filing date of the application,” verified with a notarized affidavit or a signed declaration under 37 C.F.R. §2.20; 37 C.F.R. §§2.59(a) and 2.72(a); TMEP §904.09; or

 

(2)   amend the basis to Section 1(b) and satisfy all the requirements for this new basis.  37 C.F.R. §2.51; TMEP §807.14.

 

The following declaration is provided for the applicant's convenience:

 

The undersigned, being hereby warned that willful false statements and the like so made are punishable by fine or imprisonment, or both, under 18 U.S.C. 1001, and that such willful false statements may jeopardize the validity of the application or any resulting registration, declares that he/she is properly authorized to execute this application on behalf of the applicant; he/she believes the applicant to be the owner of the trademark/service mark sought to be registered, that the mark is in use in commerce and was in use in commerce on or in connection with the goods or services listed in the application as of the application filing date; that to the best of his/her knowledge and belief no other person, firm, corporation, or association has the right to use the mark in commerce, either in the identical form thereof or in such near resemblance thereto as to be likely, when used on or in connection with the goods/services of such other person, to cause confusion, or to cause mistake, or to deceive; and that all statements made of his/her own knowledge are true and all statements made on information and belief are believed to be true.

 

_____________________________

(Signature)

 

_____________________________

(Print or Type Name and Position)

 

_____________________________

(Date)

 

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

 

NOTICE:  TRADEMARK OPERATION RELOCATION

 

The Trademark Operation has relocated to Alexandria, Virginia.  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, attorneys and other Trademark customers are strongly encouraged to correspond with the USPTO online via the Trademark Electronic Application System (TEAS), at http://www.gov.uspto.report/teas/index.html.

 

 

/srb/

Steven R. Berk

Examining Attorney

Law Office 102

(571)272-9246 (phone)

(571)273-9246 (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.