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  78/799032

 

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

 

Section 2(d) - Likelihood of Confusion Refusal

 

Registration of the proposed mark is refused because of a likelihood of confusion with the marks in U.S. Registration Nos. 2232637 and 2037571.  Trademark Act Section 2(d), 15 U.S.C. §1052(d); TMEP §§1207.01 et seq.  See the enclosed registrations.

 

Trademark Act Section 2(d) bars registration where an applied-for mark so resembles a registered mark that it is likely, when applied to the goods, to cause confusion, mistake or to deceive the potential consumer as to the source of the goods.  TMEP §1207.01.  The Court in In re E. I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., 476 F.2d 1357, 177 USPQ 563 (C.C.P.A. 1973), listed the principal factors to consider in determining whether there is a likelihood of confusion.  Among these factors are the similarity of the marks as to appearance, sound, meaning and commercial impression, and the relatedness of the goods.  The overriding concern is to prevent buyer confusion as to the source of the goods.  In re Shell Oil Co., 992 F.2d 1204, 1208, 26 USPQ2d 1687, 1690 (Fed. Cir. 1993).  Therefore, any doubt as to the existence of a likelihood of confusion must be resolved in favor of the registrant.  In re Hyper Shoppes (Ohio), Inc., 837 F.2d 463, 6 USPQ2d 1025 (Fed. Cir. 1988); Lone Star Mfg. Co. v. Bill Beasley, Inc., 498 F.2d 906, 182 USPQ 368 (C.C.P.A. 1974).

 

A likelihood of confusion determination 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.

 

The applicant applied to register the mark “MILLENNIUM” for “water filtration and purification systems and component parts.”  The registered marks are “MILLENNIUM” for “chillers for water and other liquids used in cooling water in commercial air conditioning systems” and “refrigerated beverage dispensing units and component parts therefor, all for restaurants, commercial dining facilities, and large-volume beverage dispensing requirements.”

 

Similarity 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 marks are nearly identical.  The only difference, if applicant does not intend its mark as a standard character mark, is that applicant’s mark is restricted to lower-case letters except for the capital “M” that begins the word.  Otherwise, the marks are identical. 

 

Comparison of Goods

 

The goods 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 would be encountered by the same purchasers under circumstances that could give rise to the mistaken belief that the goods 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).

 

Here, all of the goods are conditioning systems for water.  Water filtration and purification systems may be used with water chillers and beverage dispensers.  They are often sold and marketed together, under the same brand names, and even may occur within the same products.  See attached Internet evidence showing water chiller, beverage dispensers, and water filtration and purification systems being sold and marketed together.

 

Because the marks are identical or nearly identical and because the marks refer to closely related goods, consumers would be likely to mistakenly believe that the goods emanate from a single source.  Accordingly, registration is refused under Trademark Section 2(d).

 

If applicant chooses to respond to the refusal to register, then applicant must also respond to the following requirements.

 

 

Identification of Goods

 

The wording “water filtration and purification systems and component parts” in the identification of goods needs clarification because it is indefinite and may refer to goods in more than one class.  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).

 

Applicant may adopt any or all of the following as its identification of goods, if accurate:

 

Water treatment equipment, namely, {specify, e.g., cartridge filtration units, reverse osmosis filtration units, ion exchange water softeners}; water purification units, water purifier apparatus, water filters, in International Class 11.

 

Water filter controllers, in International Class 9.

 

Please note that, while the identification of goods may be amended to clarify or limit the goods, adding to the goods or broadening the scope of the goods is not permitted.  37 C.F.R. §2.71(a); TMEP §1402.06.  Therefore, applicant may not amend the identification to include goods that are not within the scope of the goods set forth in the present identification.

 

Applicant must remove any parentheses from the identification of goods and incorporate the parenthetical information into the description.  Parentheses are used in the suggested wording above only where the applicant must provide more specific information.  Generally, parentheses and brackets should not be used in identifications.  Parenthetical information is only permitted in identifications if it serves to explain or translate the matter immediately preceding the parenthetical phrase in such a way that it does not affect the clarity of the identification, e.g., “obi (Japanese sash).”  TMEP §1402.12. 

 

For assistance with identifying goods and/or services in trademark applications, please see the online searchable Manual of Acceptable Identifications of Goods and Services at http://tess2.gov.uspto.report/netahtml/tidm.html.

 

Standard Character Claim

 

If applicant intends the mark to be a standard character mark, applicant must submit the following standard character claim:  “The mark consists of standard characters without claim to any particular font, style, size, or color.”  37 C.F.R. §2.52(a); TMEP §807.03(a).

 

If applicant does not intend the mark to be a standard character mark, applicant must respond to the following requirement.

 

Drawing and Specimen Do Not Match

 

The mark as depicted on the drawing does not agree with the mark as it appears on the specimens, and clarification is required.  37 C.F.R. §2.51; TMEP §807.12.  Specifically, the drawing displays the mark as “Millennium,” and the specimen depicts the mark as “MILLENIUM.”

 

Applicant must either:

 

(1)   submit a new drawing of the mark that agrees with the mark as it appears on the specimen and that is not a material alteration of the original mark; 37 C.F.R. §2.72(a); TMEP §§807.14 et seq;

 

(2)   submit a substitute specimen that shows use of the mark as it presently appears on the drawing and is accompanied by a statement that “the substitute specimen was in use in commerce at least as early as the filing date of the application,” verified with an affidavit or a signed declaration under 37 C.F.R. §2.20; 37 C.F.R. §§2.59(a) and 2.72(a); TMEP §904.09; or

 

(3)   amend the application basis to intent-to-use under Section 1(b), and satisfy all the requirements for this new basis.  TMEP §806.03(c).

 

If applicant has questions about its application or needs assistance in responding to this Office action, please telephone the assigned trademark examining attorney directly at the number below.

 

 

 

 

 

 

/kristindahling/

Kristin M. Dahling

Trademark Attorney, Law Office 113

U.S. Patent and Trademark Office

(571) 272-8277

 

 

 

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.