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. 

 

 

Serial Number  79/011904

 

INTERNATIONAL REGISTRATION NO. 0852695

 

This is a PROVISIONAL FULL REFUSAL of the trademark and/or service mark in the above-referenced U.S. application.  15 U.S.C. §1141h(c).

 

APPLICANT OR ATTORNEY CAN RESPOND TO PROVISIONAL REFUSAL:

 

Applicant may respond directly to this provisional refusal Office action, or applicant’s attorney may respond on applicant’s behalf. 

 

NOTE:  Attorneys hired to represent an applicant in a trademark matter before the Office must be eligible under 37 C.F.R. §10.14:

 

(1)     Attorneys who are in good standing with the bar of any United States court or the highest court of any state, may practice before the Office in trademark matters.

(2)     A foreign attorney not residing in the United States who is in good standing before the patent or trademark office of the country in which he or she resides, may practice before the Office in trademark matters only in cases where the patent and trademark office of that foreign country allows substantially reciprocal privileges to those permitted to practice before the Office.  Currently, Canadian attorneys are the only foreign attorneys recognized as meeting this criterion.  A foreign attorney who meets the requirements of 37 C.F.R. §10.14(c) can only represent parties located in the country in which the foreign attorney resides and practices.  TMEP §602.

 

The Office cannot aid in the selection of an attorney.  37 C.F.R. §2.11.

 

If applicant is not represented by an attorney, applicant may appoint a domestic representative who would receive correspondence from the Office and be served process or notice of proceedings affecting the application.  15 U.S.C. §1141h(d); 37 C.F.R. §2.24.

 

THE APPLICATION HAS BEEN PROVISIONALLY REFUSED AS FOLLOWS:

 

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

 

SECTION 2(D) LIKELIHOOD OF CONFUSION REFUSAL

The examining attorney refuses registration under Trademark Act Section 2(d), 15 U.S.C. Section 1052(d), because the applicant's mark, when used on or in connection with the identified goods, so resembles the mark in U.S. Registration No. 2582606  as to be likely to cause confusion, to cause mistake, or to deceive.  TMEP section 1207.  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 (CCPA 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).

 

 

The applicant uses its mark POWERED BY Q SQM and design on goods identified as “Chemicals used in industry and science, as well as in fish-breeding, agriculture, horticulture and forestry; fertilizers and fertilizing preparations.”  The registrant uses its mark SQM  QUIMICOS on goods identified as “iodine.”

 

Comparison of the Marks

The wording QUIMICOS in the registration translates to the English word CHEMICALS.  It is generic for the registrant’s goods.  The SQM is the dominant or source indicating portion of the registrant’s mark.

 

The examining attorney must look at the marks in their entireties under Section 2(d). 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., 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 1988).  TMEP §1207.01(b)(viii). 

 

The dominant portion of the registrant’s mark is identical to a portion of the applicant’s mark.

 

The examining attorney must compare the marks for similarities in sound, appearance, meaning or connotation.  In re E. I. DuPont de Nemours & Co., 476 F.2d 1357, 177 USPQ 563 (CCPA 1973).  Similarity in any one of these elements is sufficient to find a likelihood of confusion. In re Mack, 197 USPQ 755 (TTAB 1977).

 

Comparison of the Goods/Services

It is well settled that the issue of likelihood of confusion between marks must be 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., 473 F.2d 901, 177 USPQ 76 (C.C.P.A. 1973).  The identifications of the applicant’s and registrant’s goods are very broad, it is presumed that the application and registration encompasses all goods/services of the type described, that they move in all normal channels of trade and that they are available for all potential customers.  TMEP §1207.01(a)(iii).  The applicant has indicated areas of use but not the specific type of chemical.  The registration is broad enough to include all areas of use.

 

Because of the similarity between the applicant’s and registrant’s marks and because the marks are used on  similar or the same goods consumers are likely to mistakenly believe that the  goods come from the same source.  For these reasons registration of the applicant’s mark is refused in accordance with 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.

 

If the applicant chooses to respond to the refusal to register, the applicant must also respond to the following informalities.

 

ENTITY

Applicant must indicate the United States equivalent of its entity type or provide a description of the nature of the entity.  In the “Applicant’s Entity Type” section of the application, applicant currently identifies itself as N.V., which is unacceptable as a designation in the United States.  TMEP §803.03(i).  It appears that the applicant is the equivalent of a United States corporation, if so, the applicant must confirm this for the record.

 

IDENTIFICATION OF GOODS

The applicant must clarify the identification of goods by indicating the specific use of the chemicals used in industry and science, agriculture, horticulture and forestry.  TMEP §1402.01.

 

The wording “as well as in fish-breeding” is indefinite.  The applicant may amend this wording to “chemicals for use in breeding fish.”

 

“Fertilizers and fertilizing preparations” are acceptable.

 

Where possible, the examining attorney has provided guidelines to assist the applicant in amending the existing identification of goods and services.   The applicant should consult the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office' s Manual of Acceptable Identification of Goods and Services,  which is available at http://www.gov.uspto.report/web/offices/tac/doc/gsmanual/ , prior to submitting an amended identification of goods and services.  The manual will assist the applicant in formulating an acceptable identification and classification of goods and services.   

 

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.

 

The international classification of goods and/or services in applications filed under Trademark Act Section 66(a) cannot be changed from the classification given to the goods and/or services by the International Bureau of the World Intellectual Property Organization in the corresponding international registration.  TMEP §§1401.03(d), 1401.04 and 1904.02(b).

 

MEANING

The applicant must indicate whether the letters “SQM” have any significance in the relevant trade or industry or as applied to the goods/services.  37 C.F.R. §2.61(b).

 

RESPONSE GUIDELINES

When responding to this Office action, applicant must make sure to respond in writing 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., explain why it 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.

 

In all correspondence to the Patent and Trademark Office, the applicant should list the name and law office of the examining attorney, the serial number of this application, the mailing date of this Office action, and the applicant's telephone number.

 

The applicant may wish to hire a trademark attorney because of the technicalities involved in the application.  The Patent and Trademark Office cannot aid in the selection of an attorney.

 

The following authorities govern the processing of trademark and service mark applications:  The Trademark Act, 15 U.S.C. Section 1051 et seq., the Trademark Rules of Practice, 37 C.F.R. Part 2, and the Trademark Manual of Examining Procedure (TMEP).

 

“TMEP” refers to the Trademark Manual of Examining Procedure (4th ed., 2005), available on the United States Patent and Trademark Office website at www.gov.uspto.report/main/trademarks.htm.  This is a detailed guidebook written by the Office to explain the laws and procedures that govern the trademark application, registration and post registration processes.

 

The Trademark Applications and Registrations Retrieval (TARR) database on the USPTO website at http://tarr.uspto.gov provides detailed, up to the minute information about the status and prosecution history of trademark applications and registrations.  Please note that an application serial number or registration number is needed to be able to access this database.  TARR is available 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.

                       

 

 

/Kelley L. Wells/

Kelley L. Wells

Trademark Attorney

Law Office 105

571-272-9312

 

 

HOW TO RESPOND TO THIS OFFICE ACTION:

• ONLINE RESPONSE:  You may respond formally using the Office’s Trademark Electronic Application System (TEAS) Response to Office Action form (visit http://www.gov.uspto.report/teas/index.html and follow the instructions, but if the Office Action has been issued via email, you must wait 72 hours after receipt of the Office Action to respond via TEAS).
• 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 in your response.

 

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.