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  78/842574

 

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

 

Section 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. 2159263.  Trademark Act Section 2(d), 15 U.S.C. §1052(d); 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. 

 

The applicant’s proposed mark TOPLINE is virtually identical to the registered mark TOP LINE.  The only difference between the marks is that, in the applicant’s mark, the two words TOP LINE have been combined into one compound word.  This does not change the overall commercial impression of the mark, which is of the words “TOP LINE”.  Thus, the marks are basically the same in sound, appearance, and commercial impression.

 

In addition, the goods of the parties are related.  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 could be encountered by the same purchasers under circumstances that could give rise to the mistaken belief that they 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).

 

That is the case here, as the goods of the applicant and registrant are complementary and perform the same function, which is to get rid of unwanted organisms.  The applicant seeks to register the mark for use with fungicides.  The registered mark is used on “parasiticides for farm animals”.  First, likelihood of confusion is determined on the basis of the goods or services as they are identified in the application and the registration.  Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Packard Press Inc., 281 F.3d 1261, 62 USPQ2d 1001 (Fed. Cir. 2002); In re Shell Oil Co., 992 F.2d 1204, 26 USPQ2d 1687, 1690 n.4 (Fed. Cir. 1993); J & J Snack Foods Corp. v. McDonald’s Corp., 932 F.2d 1460, 18 USPQ2d 1889 (Fed. Cir. 1991); Octocom Systems Inc. v. Houston Computer Services Inc., 918 F.2d 937, 16 USPQ2d 1783 (Fed. Cir. 1990).  Since the identification of the applicant’s goods is very broad, in that the precise use of the goods is not provided, it is presumed that the application encompasses all goods of the type described, that they move in all normal channels of trade and that they are available to all potential customers.  TMEP §1207.01(a)(iii).  Thus, it is presumed that the applicant’s fungicides include those for agricultural as well as animal use.  In addition, parasiticides and fungicides are goods often used by the same purchasers in the course of business, particularly farmers or others who raise animals.  In such cases, the parasiticides may be used for the animals and the fungicides for the agricultural area in which the animals live.

 

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 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 listed therein, namely fungicides and parasiticides, are of a kind that may emanate from a single source.  In re Infinity Broadcasting Corp. of Dallas, 60 USPQ2d 1214, 1218 (TTAB 2001), citing In re Albert Trostel & Sons Co., 29 USPQ2d 1783, 1785-86 (TTAB 1993); and In re Mucky Duck Mustard Co., Inc., 6 USPQ2d 1467, 1470 at n.6 (TTAB 1988).

 

The applicant’s mark is virtually identical to the registered mark, and the goods of the parties are related because they are or can be used by the same users in performing the same or complementary functions.  Especially given the high degree of similarity between the marks, consumers encountering the marks on the goods of the parties in this case could reasonably believe that the parasiticides and fungicides come from the same source.  Therefore, registration of the applicant’s mark is refused based on a likelihood of confusion with the mark in U.S. Registration No. 2159263.

 

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

Signed Declaration Required

Applicant must submit a statement attesting to the facts set forth in the application, dated and signed by a person authorized to sign under 37 C.F.R. §2.33(a), and verified with a notarized affidavit or signed declaration under 37 C.F.R. §2.20.  37 C.F.R. §§2.32(b) and 2.33.  No signed verification was provided with the application.

 

In an application based on Trademark Act Section 1(b) or 44, 15 U.S.C. §1051(b) or §1126, the verified statement must include an allegation that “applicant 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 application filing date.”  15 U.S.C. §1051(b)(3)(B); 37 C.F.R. §§2.34(a)(2)(i), 2.34(a)(3)(i) and 2.34(a)(4)(ii); TMEP §§804.02, 806.01(b), 806.01(c), 806.01(d) and 1101.

 

If the applicant has any questions or needs assistance in responding to this Office Action, please contact the assigned examining attorney.

 

 

 

 

/Kimberly Frye/

Trademark Examining Attorney

Law Office 113

(571) 272-9430 (Phone)

(571) 273-9430 (Fax)

 

 

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.