| PTO Form 1957 (Rev 9/2005) |
| OMB No. 0651-0050 (Exp. 04/2009) |
| Input Field |
Entered |
| SERIAL NUMBER | 78741847 |
| LAW OFFICE ASSIGNED | LAW OFFICE 117 |
| MARK SECTION (no change) | |
| ARGUMENT(S) | |
|
Applicant respectfully traverses the Examiner’s refusal based on Reg. No. 3 039 500. The cited registration covers beds and parts (specifically, “beds, mattresses, spring mattresses, box springs, pillows, cushions, neck support cushions, headboards for beds, bed frames”) for the domestic market whereas Applicant’s goods are for the much more sophisticated medical/patient care market. Furthermore, Applicant’s “wireless communication system”, specifically, a “wireless communication system comprised of (1) a patient handling product, namely, a bed; (2) sensors on the product for sensing bed conditions, room conditions and patient condition; (3) communication module for facilitating a communication of the sensed bed, room and patient conditions through a selected communication network to a data gathering module; and (4) information management system for remotely monitoring and reporting the status of the data gathered by the data gathering module” are clearly distinctively different from the goods in the cited registration such that consumers seeking I-BED beds for domestic use would not look to a source for wireless communication systems for use in a hospital environment for those domestic beds and become likely confused as to the origin of those domestic beds. Similarly, consumers of the wireless communication systems, which consumers are professional purchasers associated with hospitals and the like, would not look for Applicant’s sophisticated type goods at a source for domestic beds.
Applicant respectfully submits that Applicant’s mark and registrant’s mark are mutually exclusive of one another. The mere fact that Applicant’s wireless communication system is designed to be used with a “bed” does not automatically make the technology related to domestic bed technology. The Examiner must recognize the distinctiveness of the respective technologies and the likelihood of those respective technologies interfacing with one another. In this case, Applicant respectfully submits that the respective technologies are mutually exclusive of one another such that there is no likelihood of confusion issue that is in need of consideration. Applicant therefore respectfully requests a withdrawal of the Section 2(d) refusal.
Incidentally, Applicant’s current goods language is being left unchanged because it is identical to the language that appears in a parallel pending application Serial No. 78/483219 covering the mark BEDLINK. A Notice of Allowance has been issued in the aforesaid pending application. Therefore, Applicant respectfully requests that the Examiner reconsider the request for an amendment changing the identification of goods language.
It is furthermore respectfully submitted that the Applicant’s mark IBED is not “primarily merely descriptive” of wireless communication technology associated with a bed product. The Examiner has opined that the “I” in Applicant’s mark stands for “interactive”. A review of the language identifying Applicant’s goods does not reveal any “interactive” characteristics. In actuality, the “I” can stand for many things but “interactive” is not one of them. For example, the “I” can stand for “information” as in the providing of “information” about the patient and the environment surrounding the patient. The “I” can also stand for “intelligent” as in an “intelligent bed”. Applicant respectfully requests a withdrawal of the Section 2(e)(1) refusal. |
|
| SIGNATURE SECTION | |
| RESPONSE SIGNATURE | /David G. Boutell/ |
| SIGNATORY'S NAME | David G. Boutell |
| SIGNATORY'S POSITION | Attorney at Law with Power of Attorney from Applicant |
| DATE SIGNED | 11/07/2006 |
| AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY | YES |
| FILING INFORMATION SECTION | |
| SUBMIT DATE | Tue Nov 07 13:49:02 EST 2006 |
| TEAS STAMP | USPTO/ROA-XX.XXX.XX.XXX-2 0061107134902398343-78741 847-3402aac573dfe187d2aa5 ba7b433122e74d-N/A-N/A-20 061107133127635095 |
| PTO Form 1957 (Rev 9/2005) |
| OMB No. 0651-0050 (Exp. 04/2009) |
Applicant respectfully traverses the Examiner’s refusal based on Reg. No. 3 039 500. The cited registration covers beds and parts (specifically, “beds, mattresses, spring mattresses, box springs, pillows, cushions, neck support cushions, headboards for beds, bed frames”) for the domestic market whereas Applicant’s goods are for the much more sophisticated medical/patient care market. Furthermore, Applicant’s “wireless communication system”, specifically, a “wireless communication system comprised of (1) a patient handling product, namely, a bed; (2) sensors on the product for sensing bed conditions, room conditions and patient condition; (3) communication module for facilitating a communication of the sensed bed, room and patient conditions through a selected communication network to a data gathering module; and (4) information management system for remotely monitoring and reporting the status of the data gathered by the data gathering module” are clearly distinctively different from the goods in the cited registration such that consumers seeking I-BED beds for domestic use would not look to a source for wireless communication systems for use in a hospital environment for those domestic beds and become likely confused as to the origin of those domestic beds. Similarly, consumers of the wireless communication systems, which consumers are professional purchasers associated with hospitals and the like, would not look for Applicant’s sophisticated type goods at a source for domestic beds.
Applicant respectfully submits that Applicant’s mark and registrant’s mark are mutually exclusive of one another. The mere fact that Applicant’s wireless communication system is designed to be used with a “bed” does not automatically make the technology related to domestic bed technology. The Examiner must recognize the distinctiveness of the respective technologies and the likelihood of those respective technologies interfacing with one another. In this case, Applicant respectfully submits that the respective technologies are mutually exclusive of one another such that there is no likelihood of confusion issue that is in need of consideration. Applicant therefore respectfully requests a withdrawal of the Section 2(d) refusal.
Incidentally, Applicant’s current goods language is being left unchanged because it is identical to the language that appears in a parallel pending application Serial No. 78/483219 covering the mark BEDLINK. A Notice of Allowance has been issued in the aforesaid pending application. Therefore, Applicant respectfully requests that the Examiner reconsider the request for an amendment changing the identification of goods language.
It is furthermore respectfully submitted that the Applicant’s mark IBED is not “primarily merely descriptive” of wireless communication technology associated with a bed product. The Examiner has opined that the “I” in Applicant’s mark stands for “interactive”. A review of the language identifying Applicant’s goods does not reveal any “interactive” characteristics. In actuality, the “I” can stand for many things but “interactive” is not one of them. For example, the “I” can stand for “information” as in the providing of “information” about the patient and the environment surrounding the patient. The “I” can also stand for “intelligent” as in an “intelligent bed”. Applicant respectfully requests a withdrawal of the Section 2(e)(1) refusal.