To: | Kirsh Productions, LLC (ideas@arthurjacob.com) |
Subject: | TRADEMARK APPLICATION NO. 78771099 - PODIUM - A-05.71 |
Sent: | 6/19/2006 6:31:31 PM |
Sent As: | ECOM114@USPTO.GOV |
Attachments: | Attachment - 1 Attachment - 2 |
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
SERIAL NO: 78/771099
APPLICANT: Kirsh Productions, LLC
|
|
CORRESPONDENT ADDRESS: |
RETURN ADDRESS: Commissioner for Trademarks P.O. Box 1451 Alexandria, VA 22313-1451
|
MARK: PODIUM
|
|
CORRESPONDENT’S REFERENCE/DOCKET NO: A-05.71
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 78/771099
The assigned examining attorney has reviewed the referenced application and determined the following.
Statutory Refusal
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 services, so resembles the mark in U.S. Registration No. 3,017,106 as to be likely to cause confusion, to cause mistake, or to deceive. TMEP §§1207.01 et seq. 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 (C.C.P.A. 1973). Second, the examining attorney must compare the 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.
There is a likelihood of confusion because the applicant’s mark, PODIUM, is incorporated and represents a salient feature of registrant’s mark, PEN & PODIUM, and since the services, consisting of arranging and providing lectures are identical and directly competing, confusion as to source is likely on the part of applicant’s and registrant’s customers.
Further action awaits response to the above.
/RaulCordova/
Law Office 114
571-272-9448
RightFax 571-273-9448
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.