Offc Action Outgoing

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  78/827053

 

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

 

LIKELIHOOD OF CONFUSION 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 goods/services, so resembles the mark in U.S. Registration No. 2328617 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 (C.C.P.A. 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).  TMEP §§1207.01 et seq. 

 

While the applicant seeks to register the mark “ROADSTER” for sporting articles not included in other classes, the registered mark “ROADSTER” is for golf equipment and accessories,, namely, golf balls, golf glovers, golf bags, skis, tennis rackets, baseballs, basketballs, and skateboards

 

COMPARISON OF THE MARKS

 

The test of likelihood of confusion is not whether the marks can be distinguished when subjected to a side‑by‑side comparison.  The issue is whether the marks create the same overall impression. Visual Information Institute, Inc. v. Vicon Industries Inc., 209 USPQ 179 (TTAB 1980).  The focus is on the recollection of the average purchaser who normally retains a general rather than specific impression of trademarks.  Chemetron Corp. v. Morris Coupling & Clamp Co., 203 USPQ 537 (TTAB 1979); Sealed Air Corp. v. Scott Paper Co., 190 USPQ 106 (TTAB 1975); TMEP §1207.01(b).  The applicant’s mark creates the same overall commercial impression as the registered mark.   The marks are identical.

 

If the marks of the respective parties are identical or highly similar, the examining attorney must consider the commercial relationship between the goods or services of the respective parties carefully to determine whether there is a likelihood of confusion.  In re Concordia International Forwarding Corp., 222 USPQ 355 (TTAB 1983).  TMEP §1207.01(a). 

 

COMPARISON OF THE GOODS

 

The goods/services of the parties need not be identical or directly competitive to find a likelihood of confusion.  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/services come from a common source.  In re Martin’s Famous Pastry Shoppe, Inc., 748 F.2d 1565, 223 USPQ 1289 (Fed. Cir. 1984); In re Corning Glass Works, 229 USPQ 65 (TTAB 1985); In re Rexel Inc., 223 USPQ 830 (TTAB 1984); Guardian Products Co., Inc. v. Scott Paper Co., 200 USPQ 738 (TTAB 1978); In re International Telephone & Telegraph Corp., 197 USPQ 910 (TTAB 1978).  TMEP §1207.01(a)(i).   “CONFIRMCELLS”); In re Riddle, 225 USPQ 630 (TTAB 1985) (“ACCUTUNE” and “RICHARD PETTY’S ACCU TUNE”); In re Cosvetic Laboratories, Inc., 202 USPQ 842 (TTAB 1979) (“HEAD START” and “HEAD START COSVETIC”).  TMEP §1207.01(b)(iii).  The applicant’s goods, namely, sporting articles not included in other classes are so closely related to the registrant’s goods, namely, golf balls, golf glovers, golf bags, skis, tennis rackets, baseballs, basketballs, and skateboards, that consumers are likely to presume that they emanate from the same source.

Likelihood of confusion is determined on the basis of the goods or services as they are identified in the application and the registration.  Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce v. Wells Fargo Bank, 811 F.2d 1490, 1 USPQ2d 1813 (Fed. Cir. 1987); Paula Payne Products Co. v. Johnson Publishing Co., Inc., 473 F.2d 901, 177 USPQ 76 (C.C.P.A. 1973).  Since the identification of the applicant’s goods is broad, it is presumed that the application encompasses all goods of the type described, including those in the registrant’s more specific identification, that they move in all normal channels of trade, and that they are available to all potential customers.  TMEP §1207.01(a)(iii).

 

If the mark in the cited registration has been assigned to applicant, then applicant must prove ownership of that mark.  TMEP §812.01.  Applicant may record the assignment with the Assignment Services Division of the Office.  Trademark Act Section 10, 15 U.S.C. §1060; 37 C.F.R. §3.25; TMEP §§503 et seq.  Applicant should then notify the examining attorney when the assignment has been recorded.

 

In the alternative, applicant may submit evidence of the assignment of the mark to the applicant, such as: (1) documents evidencing the chain of title; or (2) an explanation of the chain of title (specifying each party in the chain, the nature of each conveyance, and the relevant dates), supported by a notarized affidavit or signed declaration under 37 C.F.R. §2.20.  37 C.F.R. §3.73; TMEP §502.01.

 

In conclusion, the similarity between the marks and the goods/ services of the parties is sufficient to establish a likelihood of confusion.  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).

 

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).

 

DUAL BASIS

 

The applicant has filed relying on its claim of a bona fide intention to use the mark in commerce under Trademark Act Section 1(b), 15 U.S.C. §1051(b), and on a foreign registration under Section 44(e), 15 U.S.C. §1126(e).  The foreign registration alone may serve as the basis for obtaining a U.S. registration resulting from this application.  The applicant must advise the examining attorney, however, if the applicant intends to rely solely on the foreign registration as the basis for registration. 

 

Unless the applicant indicates otherwise, this Office will presume that the applicant wishes to rely on Section 1(b) as well as on Section 44(e) as the bases for registration.  In this case, although the application may be approved for publication, the mark will not be registered until an acceptable allegation of use has been filed. 

 

 

 

CERTIFICATE OF REGISTRATION

 

Applicant must submit a copy of the foreign registration.  If the foreign certificate of registration is not written in English, then applicant must provide an English translation signed by the translator.  See TMEP §§1004.01 and 1004.01(b).

 

The application does not presently contain a copy of the foreign registration.  An application filed under Trademark Act Section 44(e), 15 U.S.C. §1126(e), must include a true copy, photocopy, certification or certified copy of a foreign registration from the applicant’s country of origin.  Applicant’s country of origin must either be a party to a convention or treaty relating to trademarks to which the United States is also a party, or must extend reciprocal registration rights to nationals of the United States by law.  See TMEP §§1002.01 and 1004.

 

IDENTIFICATION OF GOODS

 

The identification of goods is unacceptable because it is indefinite.  The applicant must amend the identification by listing each item by its common commercial name.  TMEP §§1401.04(b), 1402.01 and 1402.03.

 

The applicant may adopt the following identification of goods, if accurate:

 

International Class 028

 

Sporting articles, namely, [specify e.g. golf clubs]

 

To the extent the suggested identification is incomplete or inaccurate, the applicant is further advised that the Manual of Acceptable Identification of Goods and Services is accessible via the PTO homepage at http://www.gov.uspto.report/web/offices/tac/doc/gsmanual/.

 

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 goods set forth 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.

 

/ Evelyn Bradley/

Evelyn Bradley

Trademark Examiner

Law Office 105

(571) 272-9292

 

 

 

 

 

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.