To: | DAP TECHNOLOGIES LTD. (dcohen@reedsmith.com) |
Subject: | TRADEMARK APPLICATION NO. 78643384 - MICROFLEX - N/A |
Sent: | 12/24/2005 9:29:39 PM |
Sent As: | ECOM112@USPTO.GOV |
Attachments: | Attachment - 1 Attachment - 2 |
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
SERIAL NO: 78/643384
APPLICANT: DAP TECHNOLOGIES LTD.
|
|
CORRESPONDENT ADDRESS: |
RETURN ADDRESS: Commissioner for Trademarks P.O. Box 1451 Alexandria, VA 22313-1451
|
MARK: MICROFLEX
|
|
CORRESPONDENT’S REFERENCE/DOCKET NO: N/A
CORRESPONDENT EMAIL ADDRESS: |
Please provide in all correspondence:
1. Filing date, serial number, mark and applicant's name. 2. Date of this Office Action. 3. Examining Attorney's name and Law Office number. 4. Your telephone number and e-mail address.
|
MAILING/E-MAILING DATE INFORMATION: If the mailing or e-mailing date of this Office action does not appear above, this information can be obtained by visiting the USPTO website at http://tarr.gov.uspto.report/, inserting the application serial number, and viewing the prosecution history for the mailing date of the most recently issued Office communication.
Serial Number 78/643384
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 mark in U.S. Registration No. 2303608 as to be likely to cause confusion, to cause mistake, or to deceive. TMEP section 1207. See the enclosed registration.
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 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).
A. Similarity between the Marks
The marks are identical. If the marks of the respective parties are identical, the relationship between the goods or services of the respective parties need not be as close to support a finding of likelihood of confusion as might apply where differences exist between the marks. Century 21 Real Estate Corp. v. Century Life of America, 970 F.2d 874, 877, 23 USPQ2d 1698, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 1992), cert. denied 506 U.S. 1034 (1992); In re Opus One Inc., 60 USPQ2d 1812, 1815 (TTAB 2001); Amcor, Inc. v. Amcor Industries, Inc., 210 USPQ 70 (TTAB 1981); TMEP §1207.01(a).
B. Similarity between 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 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).
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 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). Both the applicant’s and registrant’s goods feature computers. Therefore, there is a likelihood that potential purchasers might erroneously believe that the applicant’s and registrant’s goods emanate from a common source.
In conclusion, the similarity between the marks and the goods of the parties is sufficient to establish a likelihood of confusion. 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.
No set form is required for response to this Office action. The applicant must respond to each point raised. The applicant should simply set forth the required changes or statements and request that the Office enter them. The applicant must sign the response. Please note that all electronic communications must be signed using the "/name/" format. TMEP section 710.03(c).
Applicants may now respond formally 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 the time it takes to process the applicant’s response, while also eliminating the possibility of data entry errors by the Office. Applicants are strongly encouraged to use TEAS to respond to office actions.
PLEASE NOTE: Because it delays processing, submission of duplicate papers is discouraged. Unless specifically requested to do so by the Office, parties should not mail follow up copies of documents transmitted electronically or by fax. TMEP 306.04; Cf. ITC Entertainment Group Ltd. V. Nintendo of America Inc. 45 USPQ2d 2021 (TTAB 1998).
//jmb//
Josette M. Beverly
Trademark Attorney
Law Office 112
(571) 272-9399
(571) 273-9112 (fax)
http://www.gov.uspto.report/teas/index.html (file responses)
josette.beverly@uspto.gov (submit questions only)
Please note: All electronic communications must be signed using the "/name/" format. TMEP section 710.03(c).
HOW TO RESPOND TO THIS OFFICE ACTION:
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.