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. 

 

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  78/688459

 

The assigned trademark attorney has reviewed the referenced application and has 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 marks in U.S. Registration Nos. 2949731 and 2979167 as to be likely to cause confusion, to cause mistake, or to deceive.  TMEP §§1207.01 et seq.  See the enclosed registrations.

 

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).  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.  Second, the examining attorney must compare the goods/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. 

 

The registrants’ marks are:

GARMIN AT for "Avionics, communications, navigational and vehicle monitoring equipment, namely, radio, navigational and global positioning system receivers; data radio communications transceivers, data processors and data processing consoles."

GARMIN AUTHORIZED DEALER plus design for "dealership services in the fields of communications, navigation and avionics equipment."

The applicant’s mark is:

GARMIN MOBILE LITE for "Computer software for providing map, navigation, traffic, weather and point-of-interest information via a communications network; and computer software for providing map, navigation, traffic, weather and point-of-interest information on a cellular telephone or wireless navigation device"; and

"Providing map, navigation, traffic, weather and point-of-interest information via a communications network; and providing map, navigation, traffic, weather and point-of-interest information on a cellular telephone or wireless navigation device."

 

Comparison of Marks

When 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, 40, 108 USPQ 161 (D.C. Cir. 1956) (internal citation omitted). 

 

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).

 

The literal portions are generally the dominant and most significant features of marks because consumers will call for the goods or services in the marketplace by that portion.  In re Appetito Provisions Co., 3 USPQ2d 1553 (TTAB 1987); In re Drug Research Reports, Inc., 200 USPQ 554 (TTAB 1978).  For this reason, greater weight is often given to the literal portions of marks in determining whether there is a likelihood of confusion.  TMEP §1207.01(c)(ii).

 

Disclaimed matter is typically less significant or less dominant when comparing marks.  Although a disclaimed portion of a mark certainly cannot be ignored, and the marks must be compared in their entireties, one feature of a mark may be more significant in creating a commercial impression.  In re Dixie Restaurants Inc., 105 F.3d 1405, 41 USPQ2d 1531 (Fed. Cir. 1997); In re National Data Corporation, 753 F.2d 1056, 224 USPQ 749 (Fed. Cir. 1985); and In re Appetito Provisions Co. Inc., 3 USPQ2d 1553 (TTAB 1987).  See also Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Packard Press Inc., 281 F.3d 1261, 62 USPQ 2d 1001 (Fed. Cir. 2002); Tektronix, Inc. v. Daktronics, Inc., 534 F.2d 915, 189 USPQ 693 (C.C.P.A. 1976); In re El Torito Rests. Inc., 9 USPQ2d 2002 (TTAB 1988); In re Equitable Bancorporation, 229 USPQ 709 (TTAB 1986).

 

The dominant features of the marks in question are the literal portions GARMIN, which are identical/similar in appearance, sound, connotation and commercial impression.  The differences created by the less significant disclaimed matter and/or design elements, will not suffice to overcome the likelihood of confusion.   

 

Comparison of Goods and 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.  On-line Careline Inc. v. America Online Inc., 229 F.3d 1080, 56 USPQ2d 1471 (Fed. Cir. 2000); 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).

 

Regarding U.S. Registration No. 2979167, the attached third party registration-evidence proves that the goods of the respective parties are so related that they are often marketed and sold together under the same mark.  Regarding U.S. Registration No. 2949731, the computer software proposed by the Applicant will be used in conjunction with the type of equipment currently being sold under the Registrant’s mark.  Therefore, the respective goods and services are so related that they could very well be encountered by the same purchasers under circumstances likely to give rise to confusion, that is, a mistaken belief that the goods come from a common source.   

 

Conclusion

The dominant literal portions of the marks of the respective parties are identical, and the underlying goods and services are closely related.  Therefore, a likelihood of confusion exists.  Any doubt regarding a likelihood of confusion is resolved 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).  Consequently, registration is refused under Section 2(d).  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.

 

If the applicant chooses to respond to the refusal(s) to register, the applicant must also respond to the following:

IDENTIFICATION/RECITATION AND CLASSIFICATION OF GOODS/SERVICES

The identification/recitation of goods/services needs clarification because:  1) the wording “Computer software for providing” is indefinite; and 2) it is too broad in that it could include services in other classes.  Applicant may substitute the following wording, if accurate:

 

Computer software to enable the transmission of mapping, navigation, traffic, weather and point-of-interest information to telecommunication networks, cellular telephones and navigation devices, in International Class 9; 

Providing mapping, navigation, traffic and point-of-interest information via telecommunication networks, cellular telephone and wireless navigation devices, in International Class 39;

Providing weather information via a telecommunication networks, cellular telephone and wireless navigation devices, in International Class 42

 

TMEP §§1402.01

 

The Acceptable Identification of Goods and Services Manual sets out acceptable language for identifying goods and services of various types.  Utilizing identification language from the Manual may enable trademark owners to avoid problems relating to indefiniteness with respect to the goods or services identified in their applications for registration; however, applicants should note that they must assert actual use in commerce or a bona fide intent to use the mark in commerce for the goods or services specified.  TMEP Section 1402.04.

 

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.

 

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

COMBINED APPLICATION

Although the examining attorney has not suggested more than one class, 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, as illustrated above.  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.  The filing fee for adding classes to an application is as follows:

 

(a)  $325 per class, when the fees are submitted with a response filed online via the Trademark Electronic Application System (TEAS) at http://www.gov.uspto.report/teas/index.html; and

 

(b)  $375 per class, when the fees are submitted with a paper response. 

 

37 C.F.R. §§2.6(a)(i) and (ii); TMEP §810.

 

 

DISCLAIMER

Applicant must insert a disclaimer of MOBILE in the application, because the term appears to be generic for and/or merely describes a characteristic, function and/or feature of the proposed goods and services, which facilitate the transmission of information to mobile devices.  Trademark Act Section 6, 15 U.S.C. §1056; TMEP §§1213 and 1213.08(a)(i).  See the attached evidence for the definition of the term “mobile.”

 

Trademark Act Section 6(a), 15 U.S.C. §1056(a), permits the Office to require a disclaimer of an unregistrable component of a mark.  Trademark Act Section 2(e), 15 U.S.C. §1052(e), bars the registration of a mark which is merely descriptive or deceptively misdescriptive, or primarily geographically descriptive of the goods. Therefore, the examining attorney may require the disclaimer of a portion of a mark which, when used in connection with the goods or services, is merely descriptive or deceptively misdescriptive, or primarily geographically descriptive.  If an applicant does not comply with a disclaimer requirement, the examining attorney may refuse registration of the entire mark.  TMEP §1213.01(b).  A “disclaimer” is a written statement that an applicant adds to the application record that states that applicant does not have exclusive rights, separate and apart from the entire mark, to particular wording and/or to a design aspect.  The appearance of the applied-for mark does not change.  A disclaimer does not remove the disclaimed matter form the mark.  It is simply a statement that the applicant does not claim exclusive rights in the disclaimed wording or design apart from the mark as shown.  The following cases explain the disclaimer requirement more fully: In re Kraft, Inc. 218 USPQ 571 (TTAB 1983); In re EBS Data Processing, Inc., 212 USPQ 964 (TTAB 1981); In re National Presto Industries, Inc., 197 USPQ 188 (TTAB 1977); In re Pendelton Tool Industries, Inc., 157 USPQ 114 (TTAB 1968). 

 

The computerized printing format for the Office’s Trademark Official Gazette requires a standardized format for a disclaimer.  TMEP §1213.08(a)(i).  The following is the standard format used by the Office:

 

No claim is made to the exclusive right to use MOBILE apart from the mark as shown.

 

See In re Owatonna Tool Co., 231 USPQ 493 (Comm’r Pats. 1983).

 

REVOCATION/APPOINTMENT OF ATTORNEY

Applicant’s Revocation/Appointment of Attorney, dated 09/25/2005, was received and is acceptable.

CLOSING

If applicant has questions about its application or needs assistance in responding to this Office Action, please telephone the assigned trademark attorney directly at the number below.

 

 

/Ray Thomas/

Ray Thomas, Jr.

Trademark Attorney, Law Office 102

United States Patent and Trademark Office

(571) 272-5593

 

 

HOW TO RESPOND TO THIS OFFICE ACTION:

• ONLINE RESPONSE:  You may respond using the Office’s Trademark Electronic Application System (TEAS) Response to Office action form available on our website at http://www.gov.uspto.report/teas/index.html.  If the Office action issued via e-mail, you must wait 72 hours after receipt of the Office action to respond via TEAS.  NOTE:  Do not respond by e-mail.  THE USPTO WILL NOT ACCEPT AN E-MAILED RESPONSE.
• 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.  NOTE:  The filing date of the response will be the date of receipt in the Office, not the postmarked date.  To ensure your response is timely, use a certificate of mailing.  37 C.F.R. §2.197.

 

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.