To: | APC Company, Inc. (sturm@hsllp.com) |
Subject: | TRADEMARK APPLICATION NO. 78773932 - APC - 2-1031-064 |
Sent: | 6/8/2007 9:02:27 AM |
Sent As: | ECOM109@USPTO.GOV |
Attachments: | Attachment - 1 Attachment - 2 |
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
SERIAL NO: 78/773932
APPLICANT: APC Company, Inc.
|
|
CORRESPONDENT ADDRESS: |
RETURN ADDRESS: Commissioner for Trademarks P.O. Box 1451 Alexandria, VA 22313-1451
|
MARK: APC
|
|
CORRESPONDENT’S REFERENCE/DOCKET NO: 2-1031-064
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 78/773932
The assigned examining attorney has reviewed the referenced application and 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 mark in U.S. Registration No. 3216083 as to be likely to cause confusion, or 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 (CCPA 1973). Second, the examining attorney must compare the goods or 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).
Applying the above analysis, the trademark attorney must first note that the marks are similar. The applicant is proposing to register the mark APC and design for “Animal feed additives for nutritional purposes, namely, animal blood, plasma or serum all for use as feed ingredient” in International Class 31.
The cited registered mark is APC+ for " PLATELET RICH BLOOD PLASMA" in International Class A.
The marks are the same as to APC. The applicant has merely deleted the “+” and added a design. Marks may be confusingly similar in appearance despite the addition, deletion or substitution of letters or words. See, e.g., Weiss Associates Inc. v. HRL Associates, Inc., 902 F.2d 1546, 14 USPQ2d 1840 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (TMM held confusingly similar to TMS, both for systems software); Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce, N.A., v. Wells Fargo Bank, 811 F.2d 1490, 1 USPQ2d 1813 (Fed. Cir. 1987) (COMMCASH held likely to be confused with COMMUNICASH, both for banking services); In re Lamson Oil Co., 6 USPQ2d 1041 (TTAB 1987) (TRUCOOL for synthetic coolant held likely to be confused with TURCOOL for cutting oil); In re Curtice-Burns, Inc., 231 USPQ 990 (TTAB 1986) (MCKENZIE’S (stylized) for processed frozen fruits and vegetables held likely to be confused with McKenzie for canned fruits and vegetables); In re Pix of America, Inc., 225 USPQ 691 (TTAB 1985) (NEWPORTS for women’s shoes held likely to be confused with NEWPORT for outer shirts); In re Pellerin Milnor Corp., 221 USPQ 558 (TTAB 1983) (MILTRON for microprocessor used in commercial laundry machines held likely to be confused with MILLTRONICS (stylized) for electronic control devices for machinery); In re BASF A.G., 189 USPQ 424 (TTAB 1975) (LUTEXAL for resinous chemicals used in dyeing textiles held likely to be confused with LUTEX for non-resinous chemicals used in the textile industry).
As to the second half of the test, the goods are the same as to plasma and are otherwise closely related. Consumers encountering the applicant’s mark are likely to believe that because the marks are similar and the goods are the same, the mark is associated with the registrant. In fact, the registrant’s plasma is likely to be an ingredient in the applicant’s goods. In addition, consumers are likely to believe that the applicant’s mark certifies the goods just lie the registrant’s mark. Thus, since the marks are similar and the goods are the same, there is a likelihood of confusion and registration must be refused.
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 applicant chooses to respond to the refusal(s) to register, then applicant must also respond to the following requirement(s).
The amended identification of goods is incorrectly classified. Animal feed additives for nutritional purposes are in IC 5, not IC 31. Therefore the goods must be reclassified.
In the identification of goods, applicant must use the common commercial or generic names for the goods, be as complete and specific as possible, and avoid the use of indefinite words and phrases. If applicant chooses to use indefinite terms such as "accessories," "components," "devices," "equipment," "materials," "parts," "systems" and "products," then such terms must be followed by the word "namely" and a list of the specific goods identified by their common commercial or generic names. TMEP §§1402.01 and 1402.03(a).
Please note that, while an application may be amended to clarify or limit the identification, additions to the identification are not permitted. 37 C.F.R. §2.71(a); TMEP §1402.06. Therefore, the applicant may not amend to include any goods that are not within the scope of the goods recited in the present identification.
If the applicant has any questions or needs assistance in responding to this Office action, please telephone the assigned examining attorney.
Mrs. A.D. Saunders
/Mrs. A. D. Saunders/
Trademark Attorney
LO 109
(571) 272-9349
(571) 273-9109 (formal responses only)
NOTICE OF NEW PROCEDURE FOR E-MAILED OFFICE ACTIONS: In late spring 2007, for any applicant who authorizes e-mail communication with the USPTO, the USPTO will no longer directly e-mail the actual Office action to the applicant. Instead, upon issuance of an Office action, the USPTO will e-mail the applicant a notice with a link/web address to access the Office action using Trademark Document Retrieval (TDR), which is located on the USPTO website at http://portal.gov.uspto.report/external/portal/tow. The Office action will not be attached to the e-mail notice. Upon receipt of the notice, the applicant can then view and print the actual Office action and any evidentiary attachments using the provided link/web address. TDR is available 24 hours a day, seven days a week, including holidays and weekends. This new process is intended to eliminate problems associated with e-mailed Office actions that contain numerous attachments.
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.