UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
|
SERIAL NO: 79/032324
APPLICANT: Takara Belmont Corporation
|
|
|
CORRESPONDENT ADDRESS: |
RETURN ADDRESS: Commissioner for Trademarks P.O. Box 1451 Alexandria, VA 22313-1451
|
|
MARK: AIRWAVE
|
|
|
CORRESPONDENT’S REFERENCE/DOCKET NO: N/A
CORRESPONDENT EMAIL ADDRESS: |
Please provide in all correspondence:
1. Filing date, serial number, mark and applicant's name. 2. Date of this Office Action. 3. Examining Attorney's name and Law Office number. 4. Your telephone number and e-mail address.
|
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 79/032324
INTERNATIONAL REGISTRATION NO. 0907024 .
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 USPTO in trademark matters are as follows:
(1) Attorneys in good standing with a bar of 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). Canadian attorneys can only represent Canadian applicants.
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 is considered an incomplete response. TMEP §§602, 602.03, 603.05.
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
Registration of the proposed mark is refused because of a likelihood of confusion with the mark in U.S. Registration No. 2396155. Trademark Act Section 2(d), 15 U.S.C. §1052(d); TMEP §§1207.01 et seq. See the enclosed registration.
A likelihood of confusion determination requires a two-part analysis. First the marks are compared 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 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 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.
When determining whether there is a likelihood of confusion under Section 2(d), the question is not whether people will confuse the marks, but rather whether the marks will confuse the people into believing that the goods they identify emanate from the same source. In re West Point-Pepperell, Inc., 468 F.2d 200, 175 USPQ 558 (C.C.P.A. 1972). For that reason, the test of likelihood of confusion is not whether the marks can be distinguished when subjected to a side-by-side comparison. The question is whether the marks create the same overall impression. Visual Information Inst., Inc. v. Vicon Indus. Inc., 209 USPQ 179 (TTAB 1980). The focus is on the recollection of the average purchaser who normally retains a general rather than specific impression of trademarks. Chemetron Corp. v. Morris Coupling & Clamp Co., 203 USPQ 537 (TTAB 1979); Sealed Air Corp. v. Scott Paper Co., 190 USPQ 106 (TTAB 1975); TMEP §1207.01(b).
In comparing the marks, similarity in any one of the elements of sound, appearance or meaning is sufficient to find a likelihood of confusion. In re Mack, 197 USPQ 755, 757 (TTAB 1977); TMEP §§1207.01 et seq. When the applicant’s mark is compared to a registered mark, “the points of similarity are of greater importance than the points of difference.” Esso Standard Oil Co. v. Sun Oil Co., 229 F.2d 37, 108 USPQ 161 (D.C. Cir.), cert. denied, 351 U.S. 973, 109 USPQ 517 (1956). TMEP §1207.01(b).
The applicant’s mark AIRWAVE (and Japanese character translated as AIRWAVE) is nearly identical to the registrant’s mark AIRWAVE and will lead to consumer confusion. Specifically, the marks are contain the identical word AIRWAVE, and each shares the same, sound, appearance, and meaning. The Japanese characters will be viewed as a translation, and actually translate as AIRWAVE, and thus carry very little distinctive weight in the analysis.
Where the marks of the respective parties are identical or highly similar, then the commercial relationship between the goods or services of the respective parties must be analyzed carefully to determine whether there is a likelihood of confusion. In re Opus One Inc., 60 USPQ2d 1812, 1815 (TTAB 2001); In re Concordia Int’l Forwarding Corp., 222 USPQ 355 (TTAB 1983); TMEP §1207.01(a).
When determining whether there is a likelihood of confusion, all circumstances surrounding the sale of the goods and/or services are considered. Industrial Nucleonics Corp. v. Hinde, 475 F.2d 1197, 177 USPQ 386 (C.C.P.A. 1973). These circumstances include the marketing channels, the identity of the prospective purchasers and the degree of similarity between the marks and between the goods and/or services. In comparing the goods and/or services, it is necessary to show that they are related in some manner. In re Mack, 197 USPQ 755, 757 (TTAB 1977); TMEP §§1207.01 et seq.
The applicant’s goods and/or services are “Machines/apparatus used in beauty salons or barber's shops (exluding hairdresser's chairs).”
The registrant’s goods and/or services are “Portable electric fans.”
Applicant’s goods and registrant’s goods are highly related as to cause confusion. 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). It is likely that, since the goods are in Class 11, that goods such as “hair dryers,” which are closely related goods to those of the registrant, would be included in the applicant’s identification. However, even as written, the identification of the applicant appears to encompass that of the registrant.
Accordingly, registration of applicant’s mark is refused under Section 2(d).
Any doubt regarding a likelihood of confusion is resolved in favor of the prior 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).
Finally, the Examining Attorney is not bound by past decisions of the Trademark Examining Operation. In re Shapely, Inc., 231 USPQ 72, 75 (TTAB 1986). The Examining Attorney must resolve any doubt regarding a likelihood of confusion in favor of the prior registrant and against the applicant who has a legal duty to select a mark that is totally dissimilar to trademarks already being used. Burroughs Wellcome Co. v. Warner‑Lambert Co., 203 USPQ 191 (TTAB 1979); In re Hyper Shoppes (Ohio), Inc., 837 F.2d 463, 6 USPQ2d 1025 (Fed. Cir., 1988). TMEP §§1207.01(d)(i).
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, applicant must also respond to the following requirement(s).
Identification of Goods
The identification of goods is unacceptable because some of the goods are indefinite. Applicant must amend the identification of goods to specify the common commercial or generic name for the goods. If there is no common commercial or generic name for the product, then applicant must describe the product and intended consumer as well as its main purpose and intended uses. TMEP §1402.01.
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). Thus, listed items must remain in Class 11, as initially designated in the application.
The identification of goods and/or services also contains parentheses. Generally, parentheses and brackets should not be used in identifications. Parenthetical information is permitted in identifications only if it serves to explain or translate the matter immediately preceding the parenthetical phrase in such a way that it does not affect the clarity of the identification, e.g., “obi (Japanese sash).” TMEP §1402.12. Therefore, applicant must remove the parentheses from the identification of goods and/or services and incorporate the parenthetical information into the description.
For the applicant’s convenience, the Examining Attorney has highlighted suggested amendments and problem areas in bold type below.
Applicant may adopt the following identification of goods, if accurate:
“Machines and apparatus used in beauty salons and barber shops, namely, electric hair dryers, [list additional items in Class 11 only],” in International Class 11.
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.
For assistance with identifying and classifying goods and/or services in trademark applications, please see the online searchable Manual of Acceptable Identifications of Goods and Services at http://tess2.gov.uspto.report/netahtml/tidm.html.
Applicant must submit a translation and transliteration of the non-Latin characters in the mark. 37 C.F.R. §2.61(b); TMEP §809. A transliteration is the phonetic spelling, in Latin characters, of the terms in the mark that are in non-Latin characters. The following format is suggested: “The non-Latin characters in the mark transliterate to “________,” and this means “AIRWAVE” in English.”
If the applicant has any questions or needs assistance in responding to this action, please contact the assigned examining attorney.
/Peter Bromaghim/
Trademark Examining Attorney
Law Office 107
Phone: (571)-272-8912
Fax: (571)-273-8912
HOW TO RESPOND TO THIS OFFICE ACTION:
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.