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  78/906879

 

The assigned examining attorney has reviewed the referenced application and 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. 2107007.  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 mark is ARB.  The registered mark is ARB American Roof-Brite Authorized Dealer.  The applicant’s mark and the registered mark are likely to create the same commercial impression in the minds of consumers, as they share the common term ARB.  Although the registered mark includes additional wording and a design element, this is insufficient to overcome a likelihood of confusion under Section 2(d).  The marks are compared in their entireties under a Section 2(d) analysis.  Nevertheless, 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).  In this case, given the size and placement of the term ARB, it is clear that ARB is the dominant portion of the registered mark.

 

Next, the examining attorney must consider the services being provided by the applicant and the registrant.  The applicant’s services include “Providing construction, construction management, fabrication, maintenance, replacement, repair and installation services on a custom basis for buildings, plants, structures, storage, operating and processing facilities, namely, water and wastewater treatment plants, power plants, compressor stations, refineries, pipeline and related facilities, manufacturing plants, parking structures, concrete structures, and steel structures in the power and energy, petrochemical, refining, oil and gas, mining, commercial development, utilities, power generation, emission reduction, water/wastewater treatment, food and beverage processing, liquid and bulk materials, and manufacturing industries.” The registrant’s services are “cleaning of roofs and rust removal services.” 

 

The services of both parties are related in that the applicant’s repair and maintenance services could include cleaning and rust removal.  In this case, it is important to note that 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 and/or services is very broad, it is presumed that the application encompasses all goods and/or services 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).

 

Thus, because the applicant’s mark and the registrant’s marks are similar and the services being provided by both parties are related, registration must be refused under Section 2(d) of the Trademark Act.

 

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.

 

The applicant should also note the following, additional ground for refusal.

 

Proposed Mark Fails to Function as a Service Mark

 

Please note: This refusal applies to the services in Class 42 only

 

The examining attorney refuses registration because the proposed mark does not function as a service mark with respect to the services in Class 42.  Trademark Act Sections 1, 3 and 45, 15 U.S.C. §§1051, 1053 and 1127.  The proposed mark neither identifies and distinguishes the services of the applicant from those of others nor indicates their source.  In Re Remington Products Inc., 3 USPQ2d 1714 (TTAB 1987).  TMEP §§ 1301.02 et. seq.  Please note that the proposed mark does not function as a service mark because the specimen submitted with the application is unacceptable as evidence of actual service mark use; therefore, the proposed mark cannot identify and distinguish the applicant's services from those of others nor indicate their source. 

 

The specimen is unacceptable as evidence of actual service mark use because, while the specimen refers to the applicant’s construction services in Class 37, it does not show use of the proposed mark in connection with engineering services in Class 42. 

 

The applicant must demonstrate how the mark is used with the services by submitting an acceptable specimen for the services in Class 42.  In re Restonic Corp., 189 USPQ 248 (TTAB 1975); 37 C.F.R. §2.56; TMEP §§1301.04 et seq. Examples of acceptable specimens are signs, photographs, brochures or advertisements that show the mark used in the sale or advertising of the services.  TMEP §§1301.04 et seq.

 

The applicant must verify, with an affidavit or a declaration under 37 C.F.R. §2.20, that the substitute specimen was in use in commerce at least as early as the filing date of the application.  37 C.F.R. §2.59(a); TMEP §904.09.

 

If an amendment of the dates-of-use clause is necessary in order to state the correct dates of first use, the applicant must verify the amendment with an affidavit or a declaration in accordance with 37 C.F.R. §2.20.  37 C.F.R. §2.71(c); TMEP §§903.05 and 1109.09(a).

 

Sample Declaration

Applicant should add the following declaration paragraph to the end of its response, and include a dated signature by a person authorized under 37 C.F.R. §2.33(a).  37 C.F.R. §2.20.

 

The substitute specimen was in use in commerce at least as early as the filing date of the application.

 

The undersigned, being hereby warned that willful false statements and the like so made are punishable by fine or imprisonment, or both, under 18 U.S.C. §1001, and that such willful false statements and the like may jeopardize the validity of the application or document or any resulting registration, declares that he/she is properly authorized to execute this application on behalf of the applicant; he/she believes the applicant to be the owner of the trademark/service mark sought to be registered, or, if the application is being filed under 15 U.S.C. §§1051(b), 1126(d) or 1126(e), he/she believes the applicant to be entitled to use such mark in commerce; to the best of his/her knowledge and belief no other person, firm, corporation, or association has the right to use the mark in commerce, either in the identical form thereof or in such near resemblance thereto as to be likely, when used on or in connection with the goods/services of such other person, to cause confusion, or to cause mistake, or to deceive; and that all statements made of his/her own knowledge are true and all statements made on information and belief are believed to be true.

 

 

_____________________________

(Signature)

 

_____________________________

(Print or Type Name and Position)

 

_____________________________

(Date)

 

 

 

Pending an adequate response to the above, the examining attorney refuses registration under Trademark Act Sections 1, 3 and 45, 15 U.S.C. §§1051, 1053 and 1127, because the record does not show use of the proposed mark as a service mark.

The applicant should also note the following:

Applicant May Amend To Section  1(b) Basis

If the applicant cannot comply with the requirement for a specimen of use for the 1(a) basis asserted, the applicant may substitute a different basis for filing if the applicant can meet the requirements for the new basis.

 

In this case, the applicant may wish to amend the application to assert a 1(b) basis.

 

To base the application on a bona fide intention to use the mark in commerce, the applicant must submit the following statement:

 

The applicant has had a bona fide intention to use the mark in commerce on or in connection with the goods or services listed in the application since the filing date of the application.

 

This statement must be verified, i.e., supported either by an affidavit or by a declaration under 37 C.F.R. §§2.20 and 2.33.  Trademark Act Section 1(b), 15 U.S.C. §1051(b);  37 C.F.R. §2.34(a)(2)(i); TMEP §806.01(b).

 

Please note: an amendment of the filing basis will not overcome the refusal to register the mark under Section 2(d).

 

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(s) to register, then applicant must also respond to the following requirement(s).

 

Recitation of Services

 

Class 37:

 

The applicant must either clarify what is meant my “fabrication… on a custom basis” or delete the term “fabrication.”  Please note that while construction, repair, and installation services are generally classified in Class 37, services featuring “custom fabrication” are generally classified in Class 40. 

 

Class 42:

 

The services in Class 42 are acceptable.

 

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

 

For your assistance and convenience, the “Acceptable Identifications of Goods and Services Manual” may be searched at the Office’s global network computer website address of  http://www.gov.uspto.report/main/trademarks.htm.

 

Combined Applications

 

If applicant prosecutes this application as a combined, or multiple-class application, then applicant must comply with each of the requirements below for those goods and/or services based on actual use in commerce under Trademark Act Section 1(a):

 

(1)   Applicant must list the goods/services by international class with the classes listed in ascending numerical order;

 

(2)   Applicant must submit a filing fee for each international class of goods and/or services not covered by the fee already paid (current fee information should be confirmed at http://www.uspto.gov); and

 

(3)   For each additional class of goods and/or services, applicant must submit:

 

(a)    dates of first use of the mark anywhere and dates of first use of the mark in commerce, or a statement that the dates of use in the initial application apply to that class; the dates of use, both anywhere and in commerce, must be at least as early as the filing date of the application;

 

(b)   one specimen showing use of the mark for each class of goods and/or services; the specimen must have been in use in commerce at least as early as the filing date of the application;

 

(c)    a statement that “the specimen was in use in commerce on or in connection with the goods and/or services listed in the application at least as early as the filing date of the application;” and

 

(d)   verification of the statements in 3(a) and 3(c) in an affidavit or a signed declaration under 37 C.F.R. §2.20.  (NOTE:  Verification is not required where (1) the dates of use for the added class are stated to be the same as the dates of use specified in the initial application, or (2) the original specimens are acceptable for the added class.)

 

37 C.F.R. §§2.6, 2.34(a), 2.59, 2.71(c), and 2.86(a); TMEP §§810, 904.09, 1403.01 and 1403.02(c).

 

Please note that the specimen(s) of record are acceptable for class(es) 37 only.

 

Significance of Mark

 

Applicant must specify whether “ARB” has any significance in the relevant trade or industry, or as applied to the applicant’s services.  37 C.F.R. §2.61(b).  The applicant must also indicate whether ARB is an acronym, and if so, indicate the term that each letter represents.

 

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

 

 

/Amy Alfieri/

Trademark Attorney, USPTO

Law Office 109

phone: 571.272.9422

fax: 571.273.9109

 

 

 

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.