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  78/893134

 

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

 

Trademark Act Section 2(d) Refusal to Register – Likelihood of Confusion:

 

Registration of the proposed mark is refused because of a likelihood of confusion with the mark in U.S. Registration No. 3008815 (MXC).  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/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 Marks are Similar:

 

Although the marks are compared in their entireties under a Section 2(d) analysis, one feature of a mark may be recognized as more significant in creating a commercial impression.  Greater weight is given to that dominant feature in determining whether there is a likelihood of confusion.  In re National Data Corp., 753 F.2d 1056, 224 USPQ 749 (Fed. Cir. 1985); Tektronix, Inc. v. Daktronics, Inc., 534 F.2d 915, 189 USPQ 693 (C.C.P.A. 1976). In re J.M. Originals Inc., 6 USPQ2d 1393 (TTAB 1987); TMEP §1207.01(b)(viii).

 

The marks may be confusingly similar in appearance where there are similar terms or phrases or similar parts of terms or phrases appearing in both applicant’s and registrant’s mark.  See e.g., Crocker Nat’l Bank v. Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce, 228 USPQ 689 (TTAB 1986), aff’d 1 USPQ2d 1813 (Fed. Cir. 1987) (COMMCASH and COMMUNICASH); In re Phillips-Van Heusen Corp., 228 USPQ 949 (TTAB 1986) (21 CLUB and “21” CLUB (stylized)); In re Corning Glass Works, 229 USPQ 65 (TTAB 1985) (CONFIRM and CONFIRMCELLS); In re Collegian Sportswear Inc., 224 USPQ 174 (TTAB 1984) (COLLEGIAN OF CALIFORNIA and COLLEGIENNE); In re Pellerin Milnor Corp., 221 USPQ 558 (TTAB 1983) (MILTRON and MILLTRONICS); In re BASF A.G., 189 USPQ 424 (TTAB 1975) (LUTEXAL and LUTEX); TMEP §§1207.01(b)(ii) and (b)(iii).

 

Here, applicant’s mark consists of the lettering “MXC,” which is identical to the lettering of the mark of the prior registrant.  Although the applicant’s mark has some minor design elements, consisting of a border and some shading, when a mark consists of a word portion and a design portion, the word portion is more likely to be impressed upon a purchaser’s memory and to be used in calling for the goods or services.  Therefore, the word portion is normally accorded greater weight in determining likelihood of confusion.  In re Dakin’s Miniatures Inc., 59 USPQ2d 1593, 1596 (TTAB 1999); In re Appetito Provisions Co., 3 USPQ2d 1553 (TTAB 1987); Amoco Oil Co. v. Amerco, Inc., 192 USPQ 729 (TTAB 1976); TMEP §1207.01(c)(ii).  Ultimately, purchasers familiar with the mark of the cited registration, upon seeing applicant’s mark, would be likely to conclude that applicant’s goods/services emanated from the same source or that applicant’s goods/services were associated with or sponsored by the prior registrant.

 

The Goods/Services 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 are such that they would be encountered by the same purchasers under circumstances that would give rise to the mistaken belief that the goods/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 goods or services of the respective parties are closely related, the degree of similarity between marks required to support a finding of likelihood of confusion is not as great as would apply with diverse goods or services.  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 J.M. Originals Inc., 6 USPQ2d 1393 (TTAB 1987); ECI Division of E-Systems, Inc. v. Environmental Communications Inc., 207 USPQ 443 (TTAB 1980); TMEP §1207.01(b).

 

Consumers are likely be confused by the use of similar marks on or in connection with goods and with services featuring or related to those goods.  See In re Hyper Shoppes (Ohio), Inc., 837 F.2d 463, 6 USPQ2d 1025 (Fed. Cir. 1988) (BIGG’S for retail grocery and general merchandise store services held confusingly similar to BIGGS for furniture); In re U.S. Shoe Corp., 229 USPQ 707 (TTAB 1985) (CAREER IMAGE (stylized) for retail women’s clothing store services and clothing held likely to be confused with CREST CAREER IMAGES (stylized) for uniforms); In re United Service Distributors, Inc., 229 USPQ 237 (TTAB 1986) (design for distributorship services in the field of health and beauty aids held likely to be confused with design for skin cream); In re Phillips-Van Heusen Corp., 228 USPQ 949 (TTAB 1986) (21 CLUB for various items of men’s, boys’, girls’ and women’s clothing held likely to be confused with THE “21” CLUB (stylized) for restaurant services and towels); Steelcase Inc. v. Steelcare Inc., 219 USPQ 433 (TTAB 1983) (STEELCARE INC. for refinishing of furniture, office furniture, and machinery held likely to be confused with STEELCASE for office furniture and accessories); Mack Trucks, Inc. v. Huskie Freightways, Inc., 177 USPQ 32 (TTAB 1972) (use of similar marks for trucking services and on motor trucks and busses is likely to cause confusion).

 

Moreover, the fact that the United States Patent and Trademark Office classifies goods or services in different classes does not establish that the goods and services are unrelated under Trademark Act Section 2(d), 15 U.S.C. §1052(d).  The determination concerning the proper classification of goods or services is a purely administrative determination unrelated to the determination of likelihood of confusion.  Jean Patou Inc. v. Theon Inc., 9 F.3d 971, 29 USPQ2d 1771 (Fed. Cir. 1993); National Football League v. Jasper Alliance Corp., 16 USPQ2d 1212, 1216 n.5 (TTAB 1990); TMEP §1207.01(d)(v).

 

In its identification, applicant offers the following services: “Entertainment, namely a continuing comedy show broadcast over television, satellite, audio, and video media,” in International Class 41.  Prior registrant offers “entertainment services in the nature of an ongoing television series featuring live action, comedy and drama; providing information in the field of entertainment concerning television programs” under its mark, also in International Class 41.  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); see TMEP §1207.01(a)(iii).

 

Although applicant’s services appear to be a bit more broadly distributed, in that the program is “broadcast over television, satellite, audio, and video media,” and although registrant’s services are broader in that they encompass “providing information in the field of entertainment concerning television programs,” the services offered nevertheless overlap and are nearly identical.  If the applicant’s or registrant’s identification describes the goods and/or services broadly and there are no limitations as to their nature, type, channels of trade or classes of purchasers, it is presumed that the identification encompasses all goods and/or services of the type described, that they move in all normal channels of trade, and that they are available to all potential customers.  See In re Melville Corp., 18 USPQ2d 1386, 1388 (TTAB 1991) (“With reference to the channels of trade, applicant’s argument that its goods are sold only in its own retail stores is not persuasive …There is no restriction [in its identification of goods] as to the channels of trade in which the goods are sold”); TMEP §1207.01(a)(iii).

 

Viewing all of the factors together, based on the similarity of the registered mark to the proposed mark and the identity of services, confusion as to source is likely.  Accordingly, the registration is refused due to the likelihood of confusion.  Please note that any doubt regarding a likelihood of confusion is resolved in favor of registrant.  Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Packard Press Inc., 281 F.3d 1261, 62 USPQ2d 1001, 1004 (Fed. Cir. 2002); In re Hyper Shoppes (Ohio), Inc., 837 F.2d 463, 6 USPQ2d 1025 (Fed. Cir. 1988); TMEP §§1207.01(d)(i).

 

Responding to Refusal to Register:

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 requirements.

 

Unnecessary Section 2(f) Claim Should be Deleted or Explained:

Applicant must either delete the statement of acquired distinctiveness from the application or explain why it believes that a claim of distinctiveness is necessary, because the mark appears to be inherently distinctive.  Trademark Act Section 2(f), 15 U.S.C. §1052(f); TMEP §1212.02(d).  A claim of distinctiveness is not needed in this case.

 

Applicant May Withdraw Voluntary Disclaimer of Registrable Matter (Advisory):

Applicant is requested to either (1) confirm the inclusion in the record of the voluntary disclaimer of MXC, or (2) request that it be withdrawn.  The trademark examining attorney would not have required a disclaimer of this wording because it is not descriptive applicant’s services, and any recognition it may have acquired in the marketplace appears to be from publicity related to a single program.  “MXC” is not a term of art in the relevant industry that has meaning apart from the one program that it apparently describes.

 

While an applicant may voluntarily disclaim registrable matter, if applicant in this case entered the disclaimer under the mistaken belief that it would have been required, then applicant may withdraw the disclaimer.  TMEP §1213.01(c).

 

Response Guidelines (for Pro Se Applicants):

Please note, there is no required format or form for responding to this Office action.  The Office recommends applicants use the Trademark Electronic Application System (TEAS) to respond to Office actions online at http://www.gov.uspto.report/teas/index.html.  However, if applicant responds on paper via regular mail, the response should include the following information:  (1) the name and law office number of the examining attorney; (2) the serial number of this application; (3) the mailing date of this Office action; and, (4) applicant's telephone number.

 

When responding to this Office action, applicant must make sure to respond to each refusal and requirement raised.  If there is a refusal to register the proposed mark, then applicant may wish to argue against the refusal, i.e., submit arguments and/or evidence as to why the refusal should be withdrawn and why the mark should register.  If there are other requirements, then applicant should simply set forth in writing the required changes or statements and request that the Office enter them into the application record.  Applicant must also sign and date its response.

 

Pro Se Applicant May Wish to Seek Trademark Counsel:

Applicant may wish to hire a specialist attorney to assist in prosecuting this application because of the technicalities involved.  The Office cannot aid in the selection of a trademark attorney.  37 C.F.R. §2.11.  Applicant may wish to consult the Yellow Pages for a listing of attorneys specializing in trademark or intellectual property law, or seek guidance from its local Bar Association attorney-referral service.

 

TEAS Plus Applicants – Documents Must Be Submitted via TEAS or Fee Required:

 

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).

 

If applicant has questions about its application or needs assistance, please telephone the assigned trademark examining attorney directly at the number below.

 

 

 

 

James W. MacFarlane

/James W. MacFarlane/

Trademark Examining Attorney

Law Office 104

Phone: 571-270-1512

Fax: 571-270-25

 

 

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.