UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
|
SERIAL NO: 79/055256
MARK: MIDAS
|
|
|
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: TECHNICOLOR TRADEMARK MANAGEMENT
|
|
|
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. 0968254.
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 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 United States; and
(2) Canadian agents/attorneys whorepresent applicants residing in Canada and who have received reciprocal recognition by the USPTO under 37 C.F.R. §10.14(c).
37 C.F.R. §§10.1(c), 10.14; TMEP §602.
Foreign attorneys are not permitted to practice before the USPTO, other than properly authorized Canadian attorneys. TMEP §602.06(b). Filing written communications, 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. See TMEP §§602.03, 712.03.
THE APPLICATION HAS BEEN PROVISIONALLY REFUSED AS FOLLOWS:
The referenced application has been reviewed by the assigned trademark examining attorney. Applicant must respond timely and completely to the issue(s) below. 15 U.S.C. §1062(b); 37 C.F.R. §§2.62, 2.65(a); TMEP §§711, 718.03.
LIKELIHOOD OF CONFUSION REFUSAL
Registration of the applied-for mark is refused because of a likelihood of confusion with the mark in U.S. Registration Nos. 2849972 and 2849975. Trademark Act Section 2(d), 15 U.S.C. §1052(d); see TMEP §§1207.01 et seq. See the enclosed registrations.
While the applicant seeks to register the mark MIDAS for “software and hardware platforms for preparing, storing, protecting and distributing digital content” and “telecommunication services, namely services for transferring, migrating and distributing digital content (video, data and/or voice,)” the registered marks MIDAS are used for “wireless mobile two-way data transmission services.”
Trademark Act Section 2(d) bars registration of an applied-for mark that so resembles a registered mark that it is likely that a potential consumer would be confused or mistaken or deceived as to the source of the goods and/or services of the applicant and registrant. See 15 U.S.C. §1052(d). The court in In re E. I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., 476 F.2d 1357, 177 USPQ 563 (C.C.P.A. 1973) listed the principal factors to be considered when determining whether there is a likelihood of confusion under Section 2(d). See TMEP §1207.01. However, not all of the factors are necessarily relevant or of equal weight, and any one factor may be dominant in a given case, depending upon the evidence of record. In re Majestic Distilling Co., 315 F.3d 1311, 1315, 65 USPQ2d 1201, 1204 (Fed. Cir. 2003); see In re E. I. du Pont, 476 F.2d at 1361-62, 177 USPQ at 567.
In this case, the following factors are the most relevant: similarity of the marks, similarity of the goods and/or services, and similarity of trade channels of the goods and/or services. See In re Opus One, Inc., 60 USPQ2d 1812 (TTAB 2001); In re Dakin’s Miniatures Inc., 59 USPQ2d 1593 (TTAB 1999); In re Azteca Rest. Enters., Inc., 50 USPQ2d 1209 (TTAB 1999); TMEP §§1207.01 et seq.
COMPARISON OF THE MARKS
In a likelihood of confusion determination, the marks are compared for similarities in their appearance, sound, meaning or connotation and commercial impression. In re E. I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., 476 F.2d 1357, 1361, 177 USPQ 563, 567 (C.C.P.A. 1973); TMEP §1207.01(b). Similarity in any one of these elements may be sufficient to find a likelihood of confusion. In re White Swan Ltd., 8 USPQ2d 1534, 1535 (TTAB 1988); In re Lamson Oil Co., 6 USPQ2d 1041, 1043 (TTAB 1987); see TMEP §1207.01(b).
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 and/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, 1554 (TTAB 1987); Amoco Oil Co. v. Amerco, Inc., 192 USPQ 729, 735 (TTAB 1976); TMEP §1207.01(c)(ii). The dominant portion of the applicant’s mark is the wording MIDAS.
The literal portion of the applicant’s mark is similar in sound and connotation to the registered marks MIDAS. The marks are phonetically equivalent. Overall, the marks have the same commercial impression.
COMPARISON OF THE GOODS AND SERVICES
The goods and/or services of the parties need not be identical or directly competitive to find a likelihood of confusion. See Safety-Kleen Corp. v. Dresser Indus., Inc., 518 F.2d 1399, 1404, 186 USPQ 476, 480 (C.C.P.A. 1975); TMEP §1207.01(a)(i). Rather, they need only be related in some manner, or the conditions surrounding their marketing are such that they would be encountered by the same purchasers under circumstances that would give rise to the mistaken belief that the goods and/or services come from a common source. In re Total Quality Group, Inc., 51 USPQ2d 1474, 1476 (TTAB 1999); TMEP §1207.01(a)(i); see, e.g., On-line Careline Inc. v. Am. Online Inc., 229 F.3d 1080, 1086-87, 56 USPQ2d 1471, 1475-76 (Fed. Cir. 2000); In re Martin’s Famous Pastry Shoppe, Inc., 748 F.2d 1565, 1566-68, 223 USPQ 1289, 1290 (Fed. Cir. 1984).
The applicant’s goods and services, namely, “software and hardware platforms for preparing, storing, protecting and distributing digital content” and “telecommunication services, namely services for transferring, migrating and distributing digital content (video, data and/or voice)”
are related to the registrant’s services, namely, “wireless mobile two-way data transmission services” because these goods and services relate to transmission or distribution of data or digital content. Accordingly, the goods and services would be available to the same class of purchasers and would be encountered under circumstances leading one to mistakenly believe that they originate from the same source.
Attached are copies of printouts from the USPTO X-Search database, which show third-party registrations of marks used in connection with the same or similar goods and/or services as those of applicant and registrant in this case. These printouts have probative value to the extent that they serve to suggest that the goods and/or services listed therein, namely, distribution of data and transmission of data services are of a kind that may emanate from a single source. In re Infinity Broad. Corp., 60 USPQ2d 1214, 1217-18 (TTAB 2001); In re Albert Trostel & Sons Co., 29 USPQ2d 1783, 1785-86 (TTAB 1993); In re Mucky Duck Mustard Co., 6 USPQ2d 1467, 1470 n.6 (TTAB 1988); TMEP §1207.01(d)(iii).
The overriding concern is not only to prevent buyer confusion as to the source of the goods and/or services, but to protect the registrant from adverse commercial impact due to use of a similar mark by a newcomer. See In re Shell Oil Co., 992 F.2d 1204, 1208, 26 USPQ2d 1687, 1690 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Therefore, any doubt regarding a likelihood of confusion determination is resolved in favor of the registrant. TMEP §1207.01(d)(i); see Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Packard Press, Inc., 281 F.3d 1261, 1265, 62 USPQ2d 1001, 1003 (Fed. Cir. 2002); In re Hyper Shoppes (Ohio), Inc., 837 F.2d 463, 464-65, 6 USPQ2d 1025, 1025 (Fed. Cir. 1988).
Since the marks are similar and the goods/services are related, there is a likelihood of confusion as to the source of applicant’s goods/services. Therefore, applicant’s mark is not entitled to registration.
Although applicant’s mark has been refused registration, applicant may respond to the refusal(s) by submitting evidence and arguments in support of registration.
If applicant chooses to respond to this refusal, applicant must also respond to the requirement(s) set forth below.
IDENTIFICATION OF GOODS AND SERVICES
The identification of goods and/or services contains parentheses. Generally parentheses and brackets should not be used in identifications. 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. The applicant must amend the identification by stating the goods and/or services specifically. See TMEP §§1402.01, 1402.03.
The international classification of goods and/or services in applications filed under Trademark Act Section 66(a) cannot be changed from the classification the International Bureau assigned to the goods and/or services in the corresponding international registration. TMEP §§1401.03(d), 1904.02(b).
Therefore, any modification to this wording must identify goods and/or services in the International Classes specified in the original application for these goods and/or services.
The following substitute wording is suggested, if appropriate:
Software and hardware platforms for preparing, storing, protecting and distributing digital content
International Class 038
Telecommunication services, namely, transmission and distribution of data, audio or visual images via a global computer network or the Internet
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. See TMEP §1402.04.
Although identifications of goods and/or services may be amended to clarify or limit the goods and/or services, adding to or broadening the scope of the goods and/or services is not permitted. 37 C.F.R. §2.71(a); see TMEP §§1402.06 et seq., 1402.07. Therefore, applicant may not amend the identification to include goods and/or services that are not within the scope of the goods and/or services 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 the International Bureau assigned to the goods and/or services in the corresponding international registration. TMEP §§1401.03(d), 1904.02(b). Therefore, any modification to the identification of goods and/or services must be within the classification(s) specified in the application for these goods and/or services.
DESCRIPTION OF THE MARK
The mark consists of the word MIDAS with a design of a [specify]
If the applicant has any questions or needs assistance in responding to this Office action, please telephone the assigned examining attorney.
/Evelyn Bradley/
Evelyn Bradley
Trademark Examiner
Law Office 105
(571) 272-9292
RESPOND TO THIS ACTION: Applicant should file a response to this Office action online using the form at http://www.gov.uspto.report/teas/eTEASpageD.htm, waiting 48-72 hours if applicant received notification of the Office action via e-mail. For technical assistance with the form, please e-mail TEAS@uspto.gov. For questions about the Office action itself, please contact the assigned examining attorney. Do not respond to this Office action by e-mail; 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.