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  78/469451

 

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

 

 

LIKELIHOOD OF CONFUSION – SECTION 2(d)

 

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. 2211749, 2468256, 2495939, 2501746, and 2732404 as to be likely to cause confusion, to cause mistake, or to deceive.  TMEP section 1207.  See the enclosed registrations.

 

The examining attorney also encloses information regarding pending Application Serial No. 76587161.  The filing date of the referenced application precedes the applicant's filing date.  There may be a likelihood of confusion between the two marks under Trademark Act Section 2(d), 15 U.S.C. Section 1052(d).  If the referenced application matures into a registration, the examining attorney may refuse registration in this case under Section 2(d).  37 C.F.R. Section 2.83; TMEP section 1208.01.

 

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’s mark is XRAY for “radio-controlled cars and car kits, comprising plastic, metal and carbon-fiber parts, sold fully assembled and in separate components to be assembled.”  The registrant’s mark is X-RAY RIFLE for “mechanical action toys, electrical action toys, cases for action figures, cases for play accessories, cases for toy vehicles, toy gliders, toy target launchers, wind-up walking toys, action figures and action figure accessories, toy vehicles, playsets for action figures, miniature playsets for action figures, robotic play figures, inflatable toys showing decorative pictures, toy guns, plush toys, animated plush toys, mechanical plush toys,” X-RAY DEFENSE for “toy vehicles and accessories therefore,” X-RAY LIGHTSPEED RACER for “toys and playthings, namely toy action figures and accessories therefore;  toy vehicles, mechanical action toys,” X-RAY RESCUE MEGAZORD for “toys and playthings, namely, toy action figures and accessories therefore; toy vehicles; mechanical action toys,” and X-RAY CRUISER for “toy vehicles and accessories therefore.”

 

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).

 

The marks share the identical dominant term XRAY or X-RAY.  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).  Please note that disclaimed terms are less significant.  Accordingly, the marks are highly similar and create the same commercial impression.

 

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).  The goods of the parties are identical and/or highly related, namely, toy vehicles including radio-controlled cars.

 

The marks are virtually identical.  The goods are very highly related.  The similarities among the marks and the goods are so great as to create a likelihood of confusion among consumers. 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).

 

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 also respond to the following informalities.

 

 

IDENTIFICATION OF GOODS

 

The identification of goods is unacceptable as indefinite because the precise nature of the goods is unclear from the present wording.  The applicant must amend the identification to specify the commercial name of the goods.  If there is no common commercial name for the product, the applicant must describe the product and its intended uses. TMEP §1402.01.

 

The applicant may adopt the following identification, if accurate: 

 

Class 28

Toys, namely, radio-controlled toy cars and toy car kits comprised of plastic, metal and carbon-fiber parts, sold fully assembled and in separate components to be assembled, in International Class 28.

 

TMEP section 1402.

 

Applicant may wish to refer to the on-line identification manual on the PTO homepage for acceptable names of goods and services.  The web page address is:

 

            http://www.gov.uspto.report/web/office/tac/doc/gsmanual/

 

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.

 

 

SPECIMEN - Goods

 

The specimen is unacceptable as evidence of actual trademark use because the specimen does not show use of the mark for any of the goods listed in the application.  The specimen appears to be a printout of a digital image of the mark on a white piece of paper, not an actual label.  Invoices, announcements, order forms, bills of lading, leaflets, brochures, publicity releases and other printed advertising material generally are not acceptable specimens.  In re Bright of America, Inc., 205 USPQ 63 (TTAB 1979); TMEP §§904.05 and 904.07.  See In re Ultraflight Inc., 221 USPQ 903 (TTAB 1984).  The applicant must submit a specimen showing the mark as it is used in commerce.  37 C.F.R. §2.56.  Examples of acceptable specimens are tags, labels, instruction manuals, containers, and photographs that show the mark on the goods or packaging.  TMEP §§904.04 et seq.  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); TMEP §904.09.

 

The statement supporting use of the substitute specimen must read as follows: 

 

The substitute specimen was in use in commerce at least as early as the filing date of the application.

 

The applicant must sign this statement either in affidavit form or with a declaration under 37 C.F.R. §2.20; TMEP §904.09.  The following is a properly worded declaration under 37 C.F.R. Section 2.20.  At the end of the response, the applicant should insert the declaration signed by someone authorized to sign under 37 C.F.R. Section 2.33(a).

 

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, or, if the application is being filed under 15 U.S.C. §§1051(b), 1126(d) or 1126(e), he/she believes the applicant to be entitled to use such mark in commerce; 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)

 

 

Electronic Responses

 

Applicant may respond to this Office action using the Office’s Trademark Electronic Application System (TEAS) at <http://www.gov.uspto.report/teas/index.html>.  When using TEAS the data the applicant submits is directly uploaded into the Office’s database, which reduces processing time and eliminates the possibility of data entry errors by the Office.  Applicants are strongly encouraged to use TEAS to respond to Office actions.  Applicants using TEAS should not submit a duplicate paper copy of the response.

 

 

Status of Application

 

The Trademark Applications and Registrations Retrieval (TARR) database on the USPTO website at http://tarr.uspto.gov provides detailed, up to the minute information about the status and prosecution history of trademark applications and registrations.  The TARR database is available 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.  Status and status date information is also available via push-button telephone at (703) 305‑8747 from 6:30 a.m. until midnight, Eastern Time, Monday through Friday. 

 

 

Change In USPTO Trademark Contact Information

 

The USPTO Trademark Operations will be moving to the new Alexandria, Virginia campus in October and November 2004.  During that time, you are strongly encouraged to communicate with the USPTO through the Trademark Electronic Application System (TEAS) which can be found at www.uspto.gov.

 

Effective October 4, 2004, all Trademark-related paper mail must be sent to:

 

            Commissioner for Trademarks

            P.O. Box 1451

            Alexandria, VA  22313-1451

 

My Law Office will move on October 18, 2004.  To reach me by phone after that date call (571) 272-9195. 

 

To submit a fax response to this Office action after that date, send your response to the Law Office fax number, namely (571) 273-9116.

 

 

NOTICE:  FEE CHANGE   

 

Effective January 31, 2005 and pursuant to the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2005, Pub. L. 108-447, the following are the fees that will be charged for filing a trademark application:

 

(1) $325 per international class if filed electronically using the Trademark Electronic Application System (TEAS); or 

 

(2)   $375 per international class if filed on paper

 

These fees will be charged not only when a new application is filed, but also when payments are made to add classes to an existing application. If such payments are submitted with a TEAS response, the fee will be  $325 per class, and if such payments are made with a paper response, the fee will be $375 per class.

 

The new fee requirements will apply to any fees filed on or after January 31, 2005.

 

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.

 

 

/Sharon A. Meier/

________________________________

Sharon A. Meier

Trademark Attorney, Law Office 112

571-272-9195 - phone

571-273-9112 - fa

 

 

HOW TO RESPOND TO THIS OFFICE ACTION:

• ONLINE RESPONSE:  You may respond formally using the Office’s Trademark Electronic Application System (TEAS) Response to Office Action form (visit http://www.gov.uspto.report/teas/index.html and follow the instructions, but if the Office Action issued via email you must wait 72 hours after receipt of the Office Action to respond via TEAS).
• REGULAR MAIL RESPONSE:  To respond by regular mail, your response should be sent to the mailing return address above and include the serial number, law office number and examining attorney’s name in your response.

 

STATUS OF APPLICATION: To check the status of your application, visit the Office’s Trademark Applications and Registrations Retrieval (TARR) system at http://tarr.uspto.gov.

 

VIEW APPLICATION DOCUMENTS ONLINE: Documents in the electronic file for pending applications can be viewed and downloaded online at http://portal.gov.uspto.report/external/portal/tow.

 

GENERAL TRADEMARK INFORMATION: For general information about trademarks, please visit the Office’s website at http://www.gov.uspto.report/main/trademarks.htm

 

FOR INQUIRIES OR QUESTIONS ABOUT THIS OFFICE ACTION, PLEASE CONTACT THE ASSIGNED EXAMINING ATTORNEY SPECIFIED ABOVE.