UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE

 

 

 

OFFICE ACTION

 

TO AVOID ABANDONMENT, THE OFFICE MUST RECEIVE A PROPER RESPONSE TO THIS OFFICE ACTION WITHIN 6 MONTHS OF THE ISSUE/MAILING DATE.

 

ISSUE/MAILING DATE:

 

 

INTERNATIONAL REGISTRATION NO. 0989545.

 

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. §11.14(c).

 

37 C.F.R. §§11.1, 11.14; 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.

 

Section 2(d) Refusal

Registration of the applied-for mark is refused because of a likelihood of confusion with the marks in U.S. Registration Nos. 2443607, 2935613, 2954037, 2982378, 3003026, 3067027 and 3378519.  Trademark Act Section 2(d), 15 U.S.C. §1052(d); see TMEP §§1207.01 et seq.  See the enclosed registrations.

 

Taking into account the relevant du Pont factors, a likelihood of confusion determination in this case involves a two-part analysis.  The marks are compared for similarities in their appearance, sound, connotation and commercial impression.  TMEP §§1207.01, 1207.01(b).  The goods and/or services are compared to determine whether they are similar or commercially related or travel in the same trade channels.  See Herbko Int’l, Inc. v. Kappa Books, Inc., 308 F.3d 1156, 1164-65, 64 USPQ2d 1375, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2002); Han Beauty, Inc. v. Alberto-Culver Co., 236 F.3d 1333, 1336, 57 USPQ2d 1557, 1559 (Fed. Cir. 2001); TMEP §§1207.01, 1207.01(a)(vi).

 

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).

 

Applicant’s mark is “Deutsche” (and design), while the registered marks are “Deutsche Telekom” (U.S. Registration No. 2443607), DEUTSCHE POST WORLD NET (U.S. Registration No. 2935613), DEUTSCHE TELEKOM GROUP (U.S. Registration No. 2954037), DEUTSCHE POST WORLD NET (U.S. Registration No. 2982378), “Deutsche Post World Net” (U.S. Registration No. 3003026), “T Deutsche Telekom BusinessPartner” and design (U.S. Registration No. 306027) and “T Deutsche Telekom” (U.S. Registration No. 3378519).

 

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).

 

In this case, Applicant’s mark does not create a distinct commercial impression because it contains the same common wording as the registered marks, and there is no other wording to distinguish it from the registered marks.  The mere deletion of wording from a registered mark may not be sufficient to overcome a likelihood of confusion.  See In re Optical Int’l, 196 USPQ 775, 778 (TTAB 1977); TMEP §1207.01(b)(ii)-(b)(iii). 

 

Marks may be confusingly similar in appearance where there are similar terms or phrases or similar parts of terms or phrases appearing in both applicant’s and registrant’s mark.  See Crocker Nat’l Bank v. Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce, 228 USPQ 689 (TTAB 1986), aff’d sub nom. Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce v. Wells Fargo Bank, Nat’l Ass’n, 811 F.2d 1490, 1 USPQ2d 1813 (Fed. Cir. 1987) (COMMCASH and COMMUNICASH); In re Phillips-Van Heusen Corp., 228 USPQ 949 (TTAB 1986) (21 CLUB and “21” CLUB (stylized)); In re Corning Glass Works, 229 USPQ 65 (TTAB 1985) (CONFIRM and CONFIRMCELLS); In re Collegian Sportswear Inc., 224 USPQ 174 (TTAB 1984) (COLLEGIAN OF CALIFORNIA and COLLEGIENNE); In re Pellerin Milnor Corp., 221 USPQ 558 (TTAB 1983) (MILTRON and MILLTRONICS); In re BASF A.G., 189 USPQ 424 (TTAB 1975) (LUTEXAL and LUTEX); TMEP §1207.01(b)(ii)-(iii).

 

Turning to the comparison of the services, the 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 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).

 

With respect to U.S. Registration No. 2443607, the applicant and registrant specify identical and/or closely related International Class 036, 038 and 042 services. 

 

As to U.S. Registration No. 2935613, the applicant’s broadly worded International Class 035 business services encompass the International Class 035 business services specified in the cited registration.  Similarly, the applicant’s broadly worded International Class 036 services encompass the more specific International Class 036 services listed in the cited registration.

 

The instant application and cited U.S. Registration Nos. 2954037 and 3067027 specify identical and/or closely related services in International Classes 035, 036, 038 and 042.

 

With respect to U.S. Registration Nos. 2982378 and 3003026, the instant application and the cited registration specify identical and/or closely related International Class 038 services.

 

Lastly, the educational services set forth in U.S. Registration No. 3378519 cover the same subject matter as the services set forth in the instant application.

 

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).

 

Although applicant’s mark has been refused registration, applicant may respond to the refusal(s) by submitting evidence and arguments in support of registration.

 

Applicant must respond to the requirement(s) set forth below.

 

Identification of Services

THIS REQUIREMENT APPLIES ONLY TO THE SERVICES SPECIFIED THEREIN

 

Applicant must clarify the identification of services by deleting the following repetitive wording:

 

“business research”. 

 

See TMEP §1402.01.

 

The following wording in the identification of services is unacceptably indefinite and must be clarified because it is not sufficiently clear for proper classification.  Moreover, some of the wording is also too broad and could include services classified in other international classes:

 

“acquisition and providing and transmission of information to others in respect of trading and business”

 

“Financial affairs; monetary affairs; insurance; real estate affairs; provision of finance information and finance data online and on the Internet, included in this class”

 

“Telecommunications services, namely transmission of programs and information for trading in and handling foreign exchange, interest rate and monetary transactions, securities, investments and other monetary affairs; providing an access at information and data regarding financial affairs online and on the Internet”.

 

Applicant may amend the identification to the following, if accurate:

 

“Provision of business information; business management and organization consultancy; business research; business research; provision of statistical information, business forecasts, information and consultancy with regard to the aforesaid services; acquiring and  providing trade and business information” [in International Class 035]

 

“Financial advice and consultancy services; monetary strategy consultation and research; insurance administration, brokerage and consultancy; real estate brokerage and consultation; provision of financial information and financial data information online and on the Internet” [in International Class 036]

 

“Telecommunications services, namely transmission of information by electronic communication networks related to trading in and handling foreign exchange, interest rate and monetary transactions, securities, investments and other monetary affairs; providing access to databases regarding financial affairs online and on the Internet” [in International Class 038]

 

“Computer programming” [in International Class 042].

 

TMEP §§1402.01 and 1402.03.  [Note: Bracketed classification listing is provided for informational purposes, and does not appear in identification wording.]

 

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.

 

Identifications of services can be amended only to clarify or limit the services; adding to or broadening the scope of the 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 services that are not within the scope of the services set forth in the present identification.

 

Classification Cannot be Changed – Informational Advisory

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 in the corresponding international registration.  TMEP §§1401.03(d), 1904.02(b).

 

Disclaimer

Applicant must disclaim the geographically descriptive wording “DEUTSCHE” apart from the mark as shown because it is primarily geographically descriptive of Applicant’s services.  (See attached translation information from www.wordreference.com and attached entry from The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition, 2000.)  See 15 U.S.C. §1056(a); TMEP §§1210.06(a), 1213.03(a).

 

The Office can require an applicant to disclaim an unregistrable part of a mark consisting of particular wording, symbols, numbers, design elements or combinations thereof.  15 U.S.C. §1056(a).  Under Trademark Act Section 2(e), the Office can refuse registration of an entire mark if the entire mark is merely descriptive, deceptively misdescriptive, or primarily geographically descriptive of the goods.  15 U.S.C. §1052(e).  Thus, the Office may require an applicant to disclaim a portion of a mark that, when used in connection with the goods or services, is merely descriptive, deceptively misdescriptive, primarily geographically descriptive, or otherwise unregistrable (e.g., generic).  See TMEP §§1213, 1213.03. 

 

Failure to comply with a disclaimer requirement can result in a refusal to register the entire mark.  TMEP §1213.01(b).

 

A “disclaimer” is a statement that applicant does not claim exclusive rights to an unregistrable component of a mark.  TMEP§1213.  A disclaimer does not affect the appearance of the applied-for mark.  See TMEP§1213.10. 

 

The computerized printing format for the Office’s Trademark Official Gazette requires a standardized format for a disclaimer.  TMEP §1213.08(a)(i).  The following is the standard format used by the Office:

 

No claim is made to the exclusive right to use “DEUTSCHE” apart from the mark as shown.

 

TMEP §1213.08(a)(i); see In re Owatonna Tool Co., 231 USPQ 493 (Comm’r Pats. 1983).

 

Translation

Applicant must submit an English translation of all foreign wording in the mark.  37 C.F.R. §2.32(a)(9); see TMEP §809.  In the present case, the wording “DEUTSCHE” requires translation.  (See attached translation information from www.wordreference.com). 

 

The following translation statement is suggested:  “The English translation of DEUTSCHE in the mark is GERMAN.”  TMEP §809.02.

 

Mark Description

Applicant must submit a concise description of the mark.  37 C.F.R. §2.37; see TMEP §§808 et seq.  The following is suggested:

 

The mark consists of the term “Deutsche” and a design comprised of a slash mark inside a square.

 

Ownership of Prior Registrations

If applicant is the owner of U.S. Registration Nos. 1179478, 1782926, 2577082, 2608877, 2916056, 2947145, 3055706, 3104100 and 3424547, then applicant must submit a claim of ownership.  37 C.F.R. §2.36; TMEP §812.  The following standard format is suggested:

 

Applicant is the owner of U.S. Registration Nos. 1179478, 1782926, 2577082, 2608877, 2916056, 2947145, 3055706, 3104100 and 3424547.

 

 

 

/Nelson B. Snyder III/

Trademark Examining Attorney

Law Office 107

(571) 272-9284

(571) 273-9107 (fax)

 

 

 

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.