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  78/777048

 

The assigned trademark examining attorney has reviewed the referenced application and has determined the following:

 

2(d) REFUSAL – LIKELIHOOD OF CONFUSION

 

Registration of the proposed mark is refused because of a likelihood of confusion with the mark in U.S. Registration No. 2721446.  Trademark Act Section 2(d), 15 U.S.C. §1052(d); TMEP §§1207.01 et seq.  See the enclosed registration.

 

Taking into account the relevant Du Pont 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. du Pont 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.

 

COMPARISON OF THE MARKS

 

The marks are compared for similarities in sound, appearance, meaning or connotation.  In re E .I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., 476 F.2d 1357, 177 USPQ 563 (C.C.P.A. 1973).  Similarity in any one of these elements may be sufficient to find a likelihood of confusion.  In re White Swan Ltd., 8 USPQ2d 1534, 1536 (TTAB 1988); In re Lamson Oil Co., 6 USPQ2d 1041, 1043 (TTAB 1987); In re Mack, 197 USPQ 755 (TTAB 1977); TMEP §1207.01(b).

 

The applicant’s mark is “PROFLEX”.  The registrant’s mark is “PROFLEX”.  The marks are similar because they are identical.

 

 

COMPARISON OF THE GOODS

 

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).

 

The applicant’s goods are plumbing fittings, namely check valves.  The registrant’s goods are bathtubs.  The goods are related because plumbing fittings, namely valves are commonly marketed under the same mark as bathtubs.  Attached are copies of printouts from the USPTO X-Search database, which show third-party registrations of marks used in connection with the same or similar goods and/or services as those of applicant and registrant in this case.  These printouts have probative value to the extent that they serve to suggest that the goods and/or services listed therein, namely plumbing fittings, namely, valves and bathtubs, are of a kind that may emanate from a single source.  See In re Infinity Broad. Corp., 60 USPQ2d 1214, 1217-1218 (TTAB 2001); In re Albert Trostel & Sons Co., 29 USPQ2d 1783, 1785-86 (TTAB 1993); In re Mucky Duck Mustard Co., Inc., 6 USPQ2d 1467, 1470 at n.6 (TTAB 1988).

 

Furthermore, if the marks of the respective parties are identical, the relationship between the goods or services of the respective parties need not be as close to support a finding of likelihood of confusion as might apply where differences exist between the marks.  Century 21 Real Estate Corp. v. Century Life of America, 970 F.2d 874, 877, 23 USPQ2d 1698, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 1992), cert. denied 506 U.S. 1034 (1992); In re Opus One Inc., 60 USPQ2d 1812, 1815 (TTAB 2001); Amcor, Inc. v. Amcor Industries, Inc., 210 USPQ 70 (TTAB 1981); TMEP §1207.01(a).

 

The similarities among the marks and the goods are so great as to create a likelihood of confusion among consumers.  The examining attorney must resolve any doubt regarding a likelihood of confusion in favor of the prior registrant.  In re Hyper Shoppes (Ohio), Inc., 837 F.2d 463, 6 USPQ2d 1025 (Fed. Cir. 1988). Accordingly, the mark is refused registration on the Principal Register under Section 2(d).

 

Although the trademark examining attorney has refused registration, applicant may respond to the refusal to register by submitting evidence and arguments in support of registration.

 

Applicant should note the following additional ground for refusal.

 

FAILURE TO FUNCTION REFUSAL

 

Registration is refused because the proposed mark, as used on the specimen of record, does not function as a trademark to indicate the source of the identified goods.  Trademark Act Sections 1, 2 and 45, 15 U.S.C. §§1051, 1052 and 1127; In re Remington Products Inc., 3 USPQ2d 1714 (TTAB 1987); TMEP §§1202 et seq.

 

The specimen consists of point of sale advertising and a product invoice and the mark does not function as a trademark on the specimen because invoices, announcements, order forms, bills of lading, leaflets, brochures, publicity releases and other printed advertising material, while normally acceptable for showing use in connection with services, generally are not acceptable specimens for showing trademark use in connection with goods.  In re Bright of America, Inc., 205 USPQ 63 (TTAB 1979); See In re Ultraflight Inc., 221 USPQ 903 (TTAB 1984); TMEP §§904.05 and 904.07.

 

Furthermore, the applicant’s goods are not pictured anywhere on the specimen of use. 

 

Examples of acceptable specimens for goods are tags, labels, instruction manuals, containers, photographs that show the mark on the goods or packaging, or displays associated with the goods at their point of sale.  TMEP §§904.04 et seq.

 

This refusal will be withdrawn if applicant submits both (1) a substitute specimen showing use as a trademark, and (2) a statement that “the substitute specimen was in use in commerce at least as early as the application filing date,” verified with a notarized affidavit or a signed declaration under 37 C.F.R. §2.20.  37 C.F.R. §2.59(a); TMEP §904.09.

 

If an amendment of the dates-of-use clause is necessary in order to state the correct dates of first use, then applicant must verify the amendment with an affidavit or a signed declaration in accordance with 37 C.F.R. §2.20.  37 C.F.R. §2.71(c).

 

EXAMPLE DECLARATION FOR A SUBSTITUTE SPECIMEN

 

The following is a sample declaration under 37 C.F.R. §2.20 with a supporting statement for a substitute specimen:

 

The undersigned being warned that willful false statements and the like are punishable by fine or imprisonment, or both, under 18 U.S.C. §1001, and that such willful false statements and the like may jeopardize the validity of the application or document or any registration resulting there from, declares that the substitute specimen was in use in commerce at least as early as the filing date of the application; all statements made of his/her own knowledge are true; and all statements made on information and belief are believed to be true.

 

 

_____________________________

(Signature)

 

_____________________________

(Print or Type Name and Position)

 

_____________________________

(Date)

 

 

OPTION – AMEND TO 1(b) FILING BASIS

 

If applicant cannot comply with the requirement for a specimen for the 1(a) basis asserted, then applicant may substitute a different basis for filing if applicant can meet the requirements for the new basis. See TMEP §§806.03 et seq.

 

In this case, applicant may wish to amend the application to assert a 1(b) basis. 

 

Where an application is based on a bona fide intention to use the mark in commerce, applicant must submit the following statement:

 

Applicant has had a bona fide intention to use the mark in commerce on or in connection with the goods or services listed in the application as of the filing date of the application.

 

This statement must be verified with a notarized affidavit or a signed declaration under 37 C.F.R. §§2.20 and 2.33.  Trademark Act Section 1(b), 15 U.S.C. §1051(b); 37 C.F.R. §2.34(a)(2); TMEP §806.01(b).

 

Although the trademark examining attorney has refused registration, applicant may respond to the refusal to register by submitting evidence and arguments in support of registration.

 

CORRESPONDENCE GUIDELINES

 

Applicant should include the following information on all correspondence with the Office:  (1) the name and law office number of the trademark examining attorney; (2) the serial number of this application; (3) the mailing date of this Office action; and, (4) applicant's telephone number.  37 C.F.R. §2.194(b)(1); TMEP §302.03(a).

 

TEAS PLUS APPLICANTS MUST SUBMIT DOCUMENTS ELECTRONICALLY OR SUBMIT FEE:  TEAS Plus applicants should submit the following documents using the Trademark Electronic Application System (TEAS) at http://www.gov.uspto.report/teas/index.html:  (1) written responses to Office actions; (2) preliminary amendments; (3) changes of correspondence address; (4) changes of owner’s address; (5) appointments and revocations of attorney; (6) amendments to allege use; (7) statements of use; (8) requests for extension of time to file a statement of use, and (9) requests to delete a §1(b) basis.  If any of these documents are filed on paper, they must be accompanied by a $50 per class fee.  37 C.F.R. §§2.6(a)(1)(iv) and 2.23(a)(i).  Telephone responses will not incur an additional fee.  NOTE:  In addition to the above, applicant must also continue to accept correspondence from the Office via e-mail throughout the examination process in order to avoid the additional fee.  37 C.F.R. §2.23(a)(2).

 

 

 

 

 

/JenniferVasquez/

Trademark Examining Attorney

Law Office 113

(571) 272-8279

Fax: (571) 273-8279

 

 

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.