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  79/018280

 

INTERNATIONAL REGISTRATION NO. 0869824  

 

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).

 

WHO IS PERMITTED TO RESPOND TO THIS PROVISIONAL FULL REFUSAL:

 

Applicant may respond directly to this provisional refusal Office action, or applicant’s attorney may respond on applicant’s behalf.  However, the only attorneys who can practice before the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) in trademark matters are:

 

(1)   Attorneys in good standing with the bar of any U.S. federal court or the highest court of any U.S. state, and

 

(2)   Canadian attorneys who have applied for and received reciprocal recognition by the USPTO under 37 C.F.R. §10.14(c). 

 

37 C.F.R. §10.14; TMEP §602.

 

Foreign attorneys are not permitted to practice before the USPTO, other than properly authorized Canadian attorneys.  Preparing a paper, authorizing an amendment to an application, or submitting legal arguments in response to a requirement or refusal constitutes representation of a party in a trademark matter.  A response signed by an unauthorized foreign attorney will be considered an incomplete response.  TMEP §§602, 602.03, 603.05.

 

THE APPLICATION HAS BEEN PROVISIONALLY REFUSED AS FOLLOWS:

 

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

 

Likelihood of Confusion

The trademark 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. 1100799 as to be likely to cause confusion, to cause mistake, or to deceive.  TMEP section 1207.  See the enclosed registration.

 

The trademark attorney must analyze each case in two steps to determine whether there is a likelihood of confusion.  First, the trademark 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 trademark 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).

 

Applying the above analysis to this application, the trademark attorney must first conclude that the marks are similar.  The registered mark is TWISTER.  Applicant has taken the whole of the registered mark as its sole literal portion.   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).  The shared wording in the marks creates a strong similarity.

 

As to the second part of the test,  Registrant provides mops.  Applicant provides a variety of cleaning supplies, namely, “Sponges namely cleaning sponges, scouring sponges; sponges for household purposes; sponge holders; pads for floor polishing machines; abrasive pads for kitchen or domestic purposes, cleaning pads, pads of metal for cleaning.” It is common for those who provide cleaning supplies such as mops to provide a variety of cleaning supplies, such as those provided by the applicant, under a single mark.  Thus the goods are related as each party provides common cleaning supplies.  See the attached small sample of third party registrations.

 

Therefore, because the marks are similar and the goods are related, there is a likelihood of confusion and registration must be refused.

 

Although registration has been refused, the applicant may respond to the refusal 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 informality.

 

Legal Nature and Place of Organization

Applicant must specify its entity type and citizenship.  For example, an applicant can apply as an individual, a partnership, a corporation or a joint venture.  37 C.F.R. §2.32(a)(3); TMEP §§803.03 et seq.  If applicant is an individual, then applicant must indicate his or her national citizenship for the record.  37 C.F.R. §2.32(a)(3)(i).  If applicant is a corporation or association, then applicant must set forth the U.S. state or country (for foreign applicants only) under whose laws applicant is organized.  37 C.F.R. §2.32(a)(3)(ii).  If applicant is a partnership or joint venture, then applicant must list the names and the national citizenship or the U.S. state or country (for foreign applicants only) of organization or incorporation of all the general partners or joint venturers, as well as specify the state or country under whose laws the partnership or joint venture is organized.  37 C.F.R. §§2.32(a)(3)(ii) and (iii).

 

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

 

 

 

 

/Daniel Capshaw/

Trademark Attorney

Law Office 110

571.272.9356

 

 

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.