[Important Email Information]

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  78/856454

 

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 mark in U.S. Registration No. 2325411.  Trademark Act Section 2(d), 15 U.S.C. §1052(d); TMEP §§1207.01 et seq.  See the enclosed registration.

 

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 and/or services, to cause confusion, mistake or to deceive the potential consumer as to the source of the goods and/or services.  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 and/or services.  The overriding concern is to prevent buyer confusion as to the source of the goods and/or services.  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).

 

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.

 

A.        The Marks are Identical

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).

 

Applicant has applied to register the mark PROFILE, which is identical to registrant’s mark.  Because the marks are identical, they share the same sound, appearance and meaning.  Consequently, confusion among consumers is likely.

 

B.        The Goods are Related

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).

 

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).

 

Applicant has applied to register the mark PROFILE for “windshield wiper blades.”  The cited registration is for the identical mark, PROFILE, for “automobile and truck accessories, namely taillight covers, bug deflectors, air deflectors, rain deflectors, and running boards.”  Although applicant’s and registrant’s goods are not identical, both applicant’s and registrant’s goods can be classified as automotive parts or accessories. 

 

The Trademark Trial and Appeal Board has generally held that marketing by different parties of different types of automotive parts and accessories under the same or similar marks is likely to cause confusion.  See In re Jeep Corporation, 222 USPQ 333, 334 (TTAB 1984) (citing Monarch Mufflers, Inc., v. Goerlick's, Inc., 148 USPQ 20 (TTAB 1965) (MONARCH for brake linings for automotive use likely to cause confusion with MONARCH for exhaust mufflers for motor vehicles); AP Parts Corp. v. Automotive Products Associated, 156 USPQ 254 (TTAB 1967) (AP for clutches, brakes, steering joints, tie-rod joints, and suspension joints for land vehicles, aircraft or watercraft likely to cause confusion with AP for mufflers for explosive engines); Sieberling Rubber Co. v. General Battery and Ceramic Corp., 167 USPQ 766 (TTAB 1964) (HOLIDAY for storage batteries likely to cause confusion with HOLIDAY for pneumatic rubber tires and automobile floor mats); In re Market Tire Co. of Maryland, Inc., 171 USPQ 636 (TTAB 1971) (ADMIRAL for vehicle tires likely to cause confusion with ADMIRAL for radiator antifreeze); In re Uniroyal, Inc., 177 USPQ 29 (TTAB 1973) (KODIAK for vehicle tires likely to cause confusion with KODIAK and design for antifreeze and KODIAK for automobile heaters); In re Magic Muffler Service, Inc., 184 USPQ 125 (TTAB 1984) (MAGIC for vehicle parts, namely mufflers likely to cause confusion with MAGIC for motors for motor vehicles); In re Trelleborgs Gummifabriks Aktiebolag, 189 USPQ 106 (TTAB 1975) (T and design for, inter alia, hoses, namely rubber hoses and inner tubes for tires and pneumatic, semisolid and solid tires likely to cause confusion with T and design for, inter alia, motor oil, oil additives and fuel additives); In re Red Diamond Battery Co., 203 USPQ 472 (TTAB 1979) (RED DIAMOND for storage batteries likely to cause confusion with DIAMOND for pneumatic rubber automobile and vehicle tires); In re Delbar Products, Inc., 217 USPQ 859 (TTAB 1981) (ULTRA for outside mounted vehicle mirrors likely to cause confusion with ULTRA and design for automobile parts, namely pistons and pins, valves, water pumps, oil pumps, universal joints, gears, axle shafts, hydraulic brake parts, automatic transmission repair kits and parts, engine bearings and jacks).

 

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 “windshield wiper blades” and “automobile and truck accessories, namely, taillight covers, bug deflectors, air deflectors, rain deflectors, and running boards,” 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).

 

Any goods or services in the registrant’s normal fields of expansion must also be considered in order to determine whether the registrant’s goods or services are related to the applicant’s identified goods or services for purposes of analysis under Section 2(d).  In re General Motors Corp., 196 USPQ 574 (TTAB 1977).  The test is whether purchasers would believe the product or service is within the registrant’s logical zone of expansion.  CPG Prods. Corp. v. Perceptual Play, Inc., 221 USPQ 88 (TTAB 1983); TMEP §1207.01(a)(v).

 

Registrant has reportedly been using its PROFILE mark in connection with various automobile and truck accessories since 1990.  It is reasonable for consumers to expect that registrant is now offering related products, specifically “windshield wiper blades” under the same mark. 

 

Additionally, as shown by the attached representative evidence printed from the Internet, windshield wiper blades and other types of automotive accessories, including running boards, taillight covers and deflectors are frequently sold in the same locations, e.g., automotive parts and supply stores.  See attached web pages from www.napaonline.com, www.partsamerica.com, http://store.racinglab.com, http://global4autoparts.dealorstore.net, and www.jcwhitney.com. 

 

Because the marks of the parties are identical and the goods are related, consumer confusion is likely and registration is refused under Section 2(d). 

 

Applicant May Respond

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 the applicant has any questions or needs further assistance, please telephone the assigned examining attorney. 

 

/Kate DuBray/

Trademark Examining Attorney, Law Office 105

Tel: (571) 272-4815

Fax: (571) 273-4815

 

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.

 

 

Note:

 

In order to avoid size limitation constraints on large e-mail messages, this Office Action has been split into 4 smaller e-mail messages.  The Office Action in its entirety consists of this message as well as the following attachments that you will receive in separate messages:

 

Email 1 includes the following 23 attachments  

1. 75497358P001OF002  

2. 75497358P002OF002  

3. 76169644P001OF003  

4. 76169644P002OF003  

5. 76169644P003OF003  

6. 76447803P001OF003  

7. 76447803P002OF003  

8. 76447803P003OF003  

9. 76498192P001OF003  

10. 76498192P002OF003  

11. 76498192P003OF003  

12. 76516471P001OF003  

13. 76516471P002OF003  

14. 76516471P003OF003  

15. 76573713P001OF003  

16. 76573713P002OF003  

17. 76573713P003OF003  

18. 78043956P001OF002  

19. 78043956P002OF002  

20. 78230315P001OF004  

21. 78230315P002OF004  

22. 78230315P003OF004  

23. 78230315P004OF004  

 

Email 2 includes the following 16 attachments  

1. 78659315P001OF003  

2. 78659315P002OF003  

3. 78659315P003OF003  

4. NapaOnline - Wiper blades  

5. NapaOnline - Wind deflector  

6. PartsAmerica - Wiper blades  

7. PartsAmerica - Wind deflector  

8. RacingLab - Wiper blade  

9. RacingLab - Side skirt  

10. Global4Auto - Wiper blades  

11. Global4Auto - Bug deflector  

12. Global4Auto - Taillight covers  

13. Global4Auto - Wind deflector 2  

14. Global4Auto - Wind deflector  

15. JCWitney1-1  

16. JCWitney1-2  

 

Email 3 includes the following 7 attachments  

1. JCWitney1-3  

2. JCWitney1-4  

3. jcwhitney2-1  

4. jcwhitney2-2  

5. jcwhitney2-3  

6. jcwhitney2-4  

7. jcwhitney3-1  

 

Email 4 includes the following 3 attachments  

1. jcwhitney3-2  

2. jcwhitney3-3  

3. jcwhitney3-4  

 

Please ensure that you receive all of the aforementioned attachments, and if you do not, please contact the assigned-examining attorney.