UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
|
SERIAL NO: 79/038806
MARK: COMMANDER
|
|
|
CORRESPONDENT ADDRESS: |
RESPOND TO THIS ACTION: http://www.gov.uspto.report/teas/eTEASpageD.htm
GENERAL TRADEMARK INFORMATION: http://www.gov.uspto.report/main/trademarks.htm
|
|
APPLICANT: DUNLOP HIFLEX UK LIMITED
|
|
|
CORRESPONDENT’S REFERENCE/DOCKET NO: CORRESPONDENT E-MAIL ADDRESS: |
|
TO AVOID ABANDONMENT, THE OFFICE MUST RECEIVE A PROPER RESPONSE TO THIS OFFICE ACTION WITHIN 6 MONTHS OF THE ISSUE/MAILING DATE.
INTERNATIONAL REGISTRATION NO. 0925026.
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
The examining attorney refuses registration under Trademark Act Section 2(d), 15 U.S.C. §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. 0136815 as to be likely to cause confusion, or to cause mistake, or to deceive. 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 registered mark is COMMANDER covering “belting and diaphragms for paper-mill vats made of fabric combined [with rubber and] hose made of rubber reinforced with fabric or metal,” in Class 17.
In this case, the applicant’s mark COMMANDER is identical to the cited mark. If the marks of the respective parties are identical, the relationship between the goods or services of the respective parties need not be as close to support a finding of likelihood of confusion as might apply where differences exist between the marks. 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 Opus One Inc., 60 USPQ2d 1812, 1815 (TTAB 2001); Amcor, Inc. v. Amcor Industries, Inc., 210 USPQ 70 (TTAB 1981); TMEP §1207.01(a).
Nonetheless, the applicant’s identification of goods encompasses products which are the same or closely related to those covered by the cited registration. In particular, applicant’s non-metal hosepipes are likely to move in the same channels of trade to the same classes of purchasers as the “hose made of rubber reinforced with fabric or metal” encompassed by the cited registration. For example, the both the applicant’s and registrant’s products would likely be sold through industrial and manufacturing channels for applications requiring flexible hosing. Given the similarities of the marks and the goods, consumers are likely to conclude that the goods are somehow related or emanate from the same source. Accordingly, because confusion is likely, registration is refused under Trademark Act Section 2(d) based on a likelihood of confusion.
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.
The application does not include applicant’s “Legal Nature” and “Legal Nature: Place Incorporated.” Applicant must specify its entity type (“Legal Nature”) and citizenship (“Place Incorporated”). 37 C.F.R. §2.32(a)(3)(ii)-(iii); TMEP §§803.01, 803.03 and 803.04.
Acceptable entity types include 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’s entity type is an individual, applicant must indicate his or her national citizenship for the record. 37 C.F.R. §2.32(a)(3)(i). If applicant’s entity type is a partnership or joint venture, applicant must list the names and the national citizenship or the country of organization or incorporation of all the general partners or joint venturers, as well as specify the country under whose laws the partnership or joint venture is organized. 37 C.F.R. §§2.32(a)(3)(ii) and (iii). If applicant’s entity type is a corporation or association, applicant must set forth the country under whose laws applicant is organized. 37 C.F.R. §2.32(a)(3)(ii).
IDENTIFICATION OF GOODS
The identification of goods is generally unacceptable as indefinite. Applicant must clarify its identification to state the nature/purpose of its hose goods, bearing in mind that the identification may not be amended to reclassify services or to add additional classes to the application. In other words, indefinite language may only be amended to identify goods/services within the relevant original class.
The identification may be amended in the following manner, if accurate.
“Non-metal hoses for (specify, e.g., “agricultural use” or “use in the mining industry”),” in Class 17.
Please note that, while the identification of goods/services may be amended to clarify or limit the goods/services, adding to the goods or broadening the scope of the goods/services is not permitted. 37 C.F.R. §2.71(a); TMEP §1402.06. Therefore, applicant may not amend the identification to include goods/services that are not within the scope of the goods/services set forth in the present identification.
Moreover, 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).
For assistance with identifying 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.
If the applicant has any questions or needs assistance in responding to this Office action, please e-mail or telephone the assigned examining attorney.
/SMP/
Steven M. Perez
Trademark Attorney
Law Office 101
(571) 272-5888
steven.perez@uspto.gov
RESPOND TO THIS ACTION: If there are any questions about the Office action, please contact the assigned examining attorney. A response to this Office Action should be filed using the Office’s Response to Office action form available at http://www.gov.uspto.report/teas/eTEASpageD.htm. If notification of this Office action was received via e-mail, no response using this form may be filed for 72 hours after receipt of the notification. Do not attempt to respond by e-mail as the USPTO does not accept e-mailed responses.
If responding by paper mail, please include the following information: the application serial number, the mark, the filing date and the name, title/position, telephone number and e-mail address of the person signing the response. Please use the following address: Commissioner for Trademarks, P.O. Box 1451, Alexandria, VA 22313-1451.
STATUS CHECK: Check the status of the application at least once every six months from the initial filing date using the USPTO Trademark Applications and Registrations Retrieval (TARR) online system at http://tarr.uspto.gov. When conducting an online status check, print and maintain a copy of the complete TARR screen. If the status of your application has not changed for more than six months, please contact the assigned examining attorney.