UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
|
SERIAL NO: 79/047860
MARK: COMPLETE
|
|
|
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: Hu Gang
|
|
|
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. 0947780.
This is a PROVISIONAL FULL REFUSAL of the trademark and/or service mark in the above-referenced U.S. application. See 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 as follows:
(1) Attorneys in good standing with a bar of the highest court of any U.S. state, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and other federal territories and possessions of the U.S.; and
(2) Canadian attorneys who represent applicants residing in Canada and 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.
Other than duly authorized Canadian attorneys, foreign attorneys cannot sign responses or otherwise represent applicants before the USPTO. See TMEP §602.06(b). 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, 603.04, 605.05(a).
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 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/services, so resembles the mark in U.S. Registration No. 2608304 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).
Applicant seeks to register the proposed mark COMPLETE. The cited registration is for the mark COMPLETE. These marks are identical.
If the marks of the respective parties are identical or highly similar, the examining attorney must consider the commercial relationship between the goods or services of the respective parties carefully to determine whether there is a likelihood of confusion. In re Concordia International Forwarding Corp., 222 USPQ 355 (TTAB 1983).
Applicant seeks to register its mark for "Kitchen utensils of non-valuable metals; coffee services of non-valuable metals; drinking flasks for travellers; trash cans; vacuum bottles; heat-insulated containers; mops; dish services; non-electric cooking utensils; drinking vessels." Registrant's goods are "Soap dispensers; paper towel dispensers; toilet seat cover dispensers; toilet tissue dispensers." These goods are closely related because the applicant’s identification is overly broad and may include goods similar to those offered by the registrant. 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).
If the goods or services of the respective parties are closely related, the degree of similarity between marks required to support a finding of likelihood of confusion is not as great as would apply with diverse goods or services. ECI Division of E Systems, Inc. v. Environmental Communications Inc., 207 USPQ 443 (TTAB 1980).
The examining attorney must resolve any doubt as to the issue of likelihood of confusion in favor of the registrant and against the applicant who has a legal duty to select a mark which is totally dissimilar to trademarks already being used. Burroughs Wellcome Co. v. Warner‑Lambert Co., 203 USPQ 191 (TTAB 1979).
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 applicant chooses to respond to the refusal(s) to register, then applicant must also respond to the following requirement(s).
Prior Pending Application
Information regarding pending Application Serial No. 78945178 is enclosed. The filing date of the referenced application precedes applicant’s filing date. There may be a likelihood of confusion between the two marks under Trademark Act Section 2(d), 15 U.S.C. §1052(d). If the referenced application registers, registration may be refused in this case under Section 2(d). 37 C.F.R. §2.83; TMEP §§1208 et seq. Therefore, upon entry of a response to this Office action, action on this case may be suspended pending final disposition of the earlier-filed application.
If applicant believes there is no potential conflict between this application and the earlier-filed application, then applicant may present arguments relevant to the issue in a response to this Office action. The election not to submit arguments at this time in no way limits applicant’s right to address this issue at a later point.
The wording “Kitchen utensils of non-valuable metals; coffee services of non-valuable metals; drinking flasks for travellers; trash cans; vacuum bottles; heat-insulated containers; mops; dish services; non-electric cooking utensils; drinking vessels” in the identification of goods is unacceptable as indefinite. The applicant may amend this wording to “Kitchen utensils of non-valuable metals, namely, [specify utensils by common commercial name, e.g., spatulas, turners, skimmers]; coffee services of non-valuable metals; drinking flasks for travelers; trash cans; vacuum bottles; heat-insulated containers; mops; tea services; non-electric cooking utensils, namely, [specify utensils by common commercial name, e.g., hand operated food grinders]; drinking vessels,” in INT. CLASS 21, if accurate. TMEP §1402.01.
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).
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.
If the applicant has any questions or needs assistance in responding to this Office action, please telephone the assigned examining attorney.
/Curtis W. French/
Trademark Attorney
Law Office 115
United States Trademark Office
571-272-9472
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 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.