Offc Action Outgoing

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE

 

 

 

OFFICE ACTION

 

RESPONSE TIME LIMIT:  TO AVOID ABANDONMENT, THE OFFICE MUST RECEIVE A PROPER RESPONSE TO THIS OFFICE ACTION WITHIN 6 MONTHS OF THE MAILING OR E-MAILING DATE. 

 

 

Serial Number  78/589299

 

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

 

Section 2(d) Refusals—Likelihood of Confusion

          

Registration of the proposed mark is refused because of a likelihood of confusion with the mark in U.S. Registration Nos. 1237819, 1442872, 1566799, 2033233, 2298907, 2328903, 2345902, 2439123, 2535549, 2566855, 2670860, 2676371, 2751984, 2806120, 2906930.  Trademark Act Section 2(d), 15 U.S.C. §1052(d); TMEP §§1207.01 et seq.  See the enclosed registrations.

 

Taking into account the relevant DuPont factors, a likelihood of confusion determination in this case involves a two-part analysis.  First, the marks are compared 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 goods or services are compared to determine whether they are similar or related or whether the activities surrounding their marketing are such that confusion as to origin is likely.  In re National Novice Hockey League, Inc., 222 USPQ 638 (TTAB 1984); In re August Storck KG, 218 USPQ 823 (TTAB 1983); In re Int’l Tel. and Tel. Corp., 197 USPQ 910 (TTAB 1978); Guardian Prods. Co., v. Scott Paper Co., 200 USPQ 738 (TTAB 1978); TMEP §§1207.01 et seq.

 

The marks are compared in their entireties under a Section 2(d) analysis.  Nevertheless, one feature of a mark may be recognized as more significant in creating a commercial impression.  Greater weight is given to that dominant feature in determining whether there is a likelihood of confusion.  In re National Data Corp., 753 F.2d 1056, 224 USPQ 749 (Fed. Cir. 1985); Tektronix, Inc. v. Daktronics, Inc., 534 F.2d 915, 189 USPQ 693 (C.C.P.A. 1976). In re J.M. Originals Inc., 6 USPQ2d 1393 (TTAB 1987); TMEP §1207.01(b)(viii).  Therefore, PRIORITY is the dominant feature of all the marks which creates the commercial impression of a single source of ownership that a likelihood of confusion would result among purchasers.  Moreover, in some cases, the mere deletion of wording from a registered mark is not sufficient to overcome a likelihood of confusion under Section 2(d).  See In re Optical Int’l, 196 USPQ 775 (TTAB 1977) (where applicant filed to register the mark OPTIQUE for optical wear, deletion of the term BOUTIQUE is insufficient to distinguish the mark, per se, from the registered mark OPTIQUE BOUTIQUE when used in connection with competing optical wear).  In the present case, applicant’s mark does not create a distinct commercial impression because it contains the same common wording as registrant’s mark, and there is no other wording to distinguish it from registrant’s mark.  Furthermore, when a mark consists of a word portion and a design portion, the word portion is more likely to be impressed upon a purchaser’s memory and to be used in calling for the goods or services.  Therefore, the word portion is controlling in determining likelihood of confusion.  In re Dakin’s Miniatures Inc., 59 USPQ2d 1593, 1596 (TTAB 1999); In re Appetito Provisions Co., 3 USPQ2d 1553 (TTAB 1987); Amoco Oil Co. v. Amerco, Inc., 192 USPQ 729 (TTAB 1976); TMEP §1207.01(c)(ii).

 

The applicant’s goods, “computer software and hardware”, is legally identical to all registrants’ goods and services because the applicant’s identification of goods is broad enough to include the more specific goods and services of the registrants’ goods and services.  Likelihood of confusion is determined on the basis of the goods or services as they are identified in the application and the registration.  Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Packard Press Inc., 281 F.3d 1261, 62 USPQ2d 1001 (Fed. Cir. 2002); In re Shell Oil Co., 992 F.2d 1204, 26 USPQ2d 1687, 1690 n.4 (Fed. Cir. 1993); J & J Snack Foods Corp. v. McDonald’s Corp., 932 F.2d 1460, 18 USPQ2d 1889 (Fed. Cir. 1991); Octocom Systems Inc. v. Houston Computer Services Inc., 918 F.2d 937, 16 USPQ2d 1783 (Fed. Cir. 1990).  Since the identification of the applicant’s goods is very broad, it is presumed that the application encompasses all goods and 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 to all potential customers.  TMEP §1207.01(a)(iii).

 

Any doubt regarding a likelihood of confusion is resolved in favor of the prior registrant.  Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Packard Press Inc., 281 F.3d 1261, 62 USPQ2d 1001, 1004 (Fed. Cir. 2002); In re Hyper Shoppes (Ohio), Inc., 837 F.2d 463, 6 USPQ2d 1025 (Fed. Cir. 1988); TMEP §§1207.01(d)(i).  Accordingly, the mark is refused registration under section 2(d) on the Principal Register.

 

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.

 

Prior Pending Applications

 

Information regarding pending Application Serial Nos. 76474744, 76474745, 76475060, 76593600, 76593601, 78236041 and 78497907 is enclosed.  The filing date of the referenced applications precede applicant’s filing date.  There may be a likelihood of confusion between the marks under Trademark Act Section 2(d), 15 U.S.C. §1052(d).  If the referenced applications register, registration may be refused in this case under Section 2(d).  37 C.F.R. §2.83; TMEP §§1208 et seq.  Therefore, upon entry of a response to this Office action, action on this case may be suspended pending final disposition of the earlier-filed applications.

 

If applicant believes there is no potential conflict between this application and the earlier-filed applications, then applicant may present arguments relevant to the issue in a response to this Office action.  The election not to submit arguments at this time in no way limits applicant’s right to address this issue at a later point.

 

Informalities

 

If the applicant chooses to respond to the refusal to register, the applicant must also respond to the following informalities in order for the application to proceed.  Please note, compliance with the below mentioned informalities is insufficient, in and of itself, to overcome the above mentioned deficiencies.

 

Definite Identification of Goods and Additional Information Requirement

 

Amendment of Identification

Applicant must indicate the purpose(s) or function(s) of the computer program(s). If the software is field-specific, then applicant must also specify the field of use.  TMEP §1402.03(d).  This additional information is necessary to permit proper examination of the application and to enable the Office to make appropriate decisions concerning possible conflicts between the applicant's mark and other marks.  See In re NA.D. Inc., 57 USPQ2d 1872 (TTAB 2000); In re Linkvest S.A., 24 USPQ2d 1716 (TTAB 1992).

 

In the identification of goods, applicant must use the common commercial or generic names for the goods, be as complete and specific as possible, and avoid the use of indefinite words and phrases.  If applicant chooses to use indefinite terms such as "accessories," "components," "devices," "equipment," "materials," "parts," "systems" and "products," then such terms must be followed by the word "namely" and a list of the specific goods identified by their common commercial or generic names.  TMEP §§1402.01 and 1402.03(a).  Generally, medical goods may indicate devices, apparatus, etc., if there is no common commercial names for the goods.  The applicant must however indicate the use or area of use or both.  See suggestion below.

 

The applicant may adopt the following identification, if accurate:

 

Compute hardware and computer software for [specify the function of the programs, e.g., use in database management, use as a spreadsheet, word processing, etc. and, if software is content- or field-specific, the content or field of use] in International Class 09.

 

Medical devices, namely [specify common commercial name(s), e.g., medical cutting devices] in International Class 10.

 

TMEP §1402.01.

 

Additional Information

Applicant must submit samples of advertisements or promotional materials and a photograph of the identified goods because the nature of the goods on which applicant uses or intends to use its mark is not clear from the present record.  If such materials are not available, then applicant must submit samples of advertisements or promotional materials and a photograph of similar goods.  In addition, applicant must describe in some detail the nature, purpose and channels of trade of the goods listed in the application.  37 C.F.R. §2.61(b); TMEP §§814 and 1402.01(e).

 

Additions to Identification Not Permitted and Identification Manual

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.

 

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.

 

Combined Application Requirements

If applicant prosecutes this application as a combined, or multiple-class application, then applicant must comply with each of the following for those goods and/or services based on an intent to use the mark in commerce under Trademark Act Section 1(b):

 

(1)   Applicant must list the goods and/or services by international class with the classes listed in ascending numerical order.  TMEP § 1403.01; and

 

(2)   Applicant must submit a filing fee for each international class of goods and/or services not covered by the fee already paid (current fee information should be confirmed at http://www.uspto.gov).  37 C.F.R. §2.86(a)(2); TMEP §§810 and 1403.01.

 

 

 

 

/William T. Verhosek/

USPTO

LO 114

571-272-9464

 

 

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 has been 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.