To: | Mars Advertising Company, Inc. (docket@ybpc.com) |
Subject: | TRADEMARK APPLICATION NO. 78709941 - G3 - MAT-187-TM |
Sent: | 3/22/2006 10:28:37 AM |
Sent As: | ECOM114@USPTO.GOV |
Attachments: | Attachment - 1 Attachment - 2 Attachment - 3 Attachment - 4 Attachment - 5 Attachment - 6 Attachment - 7 Attachment - 8 Attachment - 9 Attachment - 10 Attachment - 11 Attachment - 12 Attachment - 13 Attachment - 14 Attachment - 15 Attachment - 16 Attachment - 17 |
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
SERIAL NO: 78/709941
APPLICANT: Mars Advertising Company, Inc.
|
|
CORRESPONDENT ADDRESS: |
RETURN ADDRESS: Commissioner for Trademarks P.O. Box 1451 Alexandria, VA 22313-1451
|
MARK: G3
|
|
CORRESPONDENT’S REFERENCE/DOCKET NO: MAT-187-TM
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 78/709941
The assigned trademark examining attorney has reviewed the referenced application and has determined the following:
Registration of the proposed mark is refused because of a likelihood of confusion with the mark in U.S. Registration Nos. 2630186, 2769594 and 2780808. 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 applicant’s mark, G3, is identical to registrant’s marks, G3, and similar to SUPER G3, because they are similar in sound, appearance, connotation and overall commercial impression. 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 word G3 is the whole of applicant’s mark and the dominant term in registrant’s mark. Therefore, G3 is the dominant feature of both marks which creates the commercial impression of a single source of ownership that a likelihood of confusion would result among purchasers. The mere deletion of wording, namely SUPER, 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.
The applicant’s goods, “magazines featuring electronics”, is legally identical to registrant’s goods, “machines and circuit boards and parts therefor; computer software for operating facsimile machines; computer hardware, namely, desktop computers and servers; computer software programs for managing single and multi-servers on a global computer network; computer software for facilitating user interface design for multi-environment services on a global computer network; computer software for computer language translation for use on a global computer network; and computer software for parallel server architecture for use in integrated server systems; Solvent type processing compositions for use in the electronics industry”, because the subject matter of applicant’s goods is broad enough to include the more specific goods of the registrant’s. 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 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).
Since the marks are identical and otherwise similar and the goods legally identical, it is likely that prospective purchasers would have the mistaken belief that the goods come from the same source and move in the same channels of trade as to cause a likelihood of confusion. 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.
Information regarding pending Application Serial Nos. 76472048, 78464801, 78593294, 78593301 and 78732899 are 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 application.
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.
/William T. Verhosek/
USPTO
LO 114
571-272-9464
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.