UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE (USPTO)

OFFICE ACTION (OFFICIAL LETTER) ABOUT APPLICANT’S TRADEMARK APPLICATION

 

 

 

OFFICE ACTION

 

STRICT DEADLINE TO RESPOND TO THIS LETTER

TO AVOID ABANDONMENT OF APPLICANT’S TRADEMARK APPLICATION, THE USPTO MUST RECEIVE APPLICANT’S COMPLETE RESPONSE TO THIS LETTER WITHIN 6 MONTHS OF THE ISSUE/MAILING DATE BELOW.

 

ISSUE/MAILING DATE:

 

INTERNATIONAL REGISTRATION NO. 1074279

 

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 if applicant is not represented by an authorized attorney.  See 37 C.F.R. §2.193(e)(2)(ii).  Otherwise, applicant’s authorized attorney must respond on applicant’s behalf.  See 37 C.F.R. §2.193(e)(2)(i).  However, the only attorneys who are authorized to sign responses and 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 who represent applicants located in Canada and (a) are registered with the USPTO and in good standing as patent agents or (b) have been granted reciprocal recognition by the USPTO.

 

See 37 C.F.R. §§2.17(e), 2.62(b), 11.1, 11.5(b)(2), 11.14(a), (c); TMEP §§602, 712.03.

 

Foreign attorneys, other than authorized Canadian attorneys, are not permitted to represent applicants before the USPTO.  See 37 C.F.R. §§2.17(e), 11.14(c), (e); TMEP §602.03-.03(b).  That is, foreign attorneys may not file written communications, authorize an amendment to an application, or submit legal arguments in response to a requirement or refusal, among other things.  See 37 C.F.R. §11.5(b)(2); TMEP §§602.03(c), 608.01.  If applicant is represented by such a foreign attorney, applicant must respond directly to this provisional refusal Office action.  See 37 C.F.R. §2.193(e)(2)(ii).

 

DESIGNATION OF DOMESTIC REPRESENTATIVE:

 

The USPTO encourages applicants who do not reside in the U.S. to designate a domestic representative upon whom notices or process may be served.  15 U.S.C. §§1051(e), 1141h(d); 37 C.F.R. §2.24(a)(1)-(2); see TMEP §610.  Such designations may be filed online at http://www.gov.uspto.report/teas/index.html. 

 

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 issues below.  15 U.S.C. §1062(b); 37 C.F.R. §§2.62(a), 2.65(a); TMEP §§711, 718.03.

 

 

SECTION 2(d) – 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 No. 1945768.  Trademark Act Section 2(d), 15 U.S.C. §1052(d); see TMEP §§1207.01 et seq.  See the enclosed registration.

 

The applicant’s mark is “MUSTANG” in standard character for “medical apparatus and instruments and orthopedic articles, technical aids for disabled persons (not included in other classes), mobility aids (not included in other classes), walking aids for disabled persons, namely walking frames, rollators (walking frames with wheels and seat) and parts and fittings therefore (not included in other classes).”

 

The registrant’s mark is “MUSTANG” in typed form for “back supports for medical use.”

 

Taking into account the relevant Du Pont factors, a likelihood of confusion determination in this case involves a two-part analysis.  First, the marks are compared for similarities in appearance, sound, connotation and commercial impression.  In re E .I. du Pont 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 National Novice Hockey League, Inc., 222 USPQ 638 (TTAB 1984); 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.

 

            Similarity 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)-(b)(v).  Similarity in any one of these elements may be sufficient to find the marks confusingly similar.  In re White Swan Ltd., 8 USPQ2d 1534, 1535 (TTAB 1988); see In re 1st USA Realty Prof’ls, Inc., 84 USPQ2d 1581, 1586 (TTAB 2007); TMEP §1207.01(b).

 

In this case, applicant’s mark, MUSTANG, is confusingly similar to the registered mark, MUSTANG.  The marks are identical in sound, appearance, meaning and overall commercial impression.  Moreover, there are no other literal or design elements by which purchasers can distinguish between applicant’s mark and the registered mark.  When purchasers call for the goods, they are likely to be confused as to the source of the goods by the similarities between the marks.  Accordingly, a likelihood of confusion exists under Section 2(d) of the Trademark Act.

 

            Relatedness of the Goods

 

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 National Novice Hockey League, Inc., 222 USPQ 638 (TTAB 1984); 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.

 

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).

 

In this instance, applicant’s goods are highly related to the goods provided by the registrant.  Specifically, both parties are providing medical instruments and devices.  In a likelihood of confusion analysis, the comparison of the parties’ goods and/or services is based on the goods and/or services as they are identified in the application and registration, without limitations or restrictions that are not reflected therein.  In re Dakin’s Miniatures, Inc., 59 USPQ2d 1593, 1595 (TTAB 1999); see Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Packard Press Inc., 281 F.3d 1261, 1267-68, 62 USPQ2d 1001, 1004-05 (Fed. Cir. 2002); In re Thor Tech, Inc., 90 USPQ2d 1634, 1638-39 (TTAB 2009); TMEP §1207.01(a)(iii). 

 

In this case, applicant’s goods are identified broadly. Particularly, applicant’s “medical apparatus and instruments” could encompass and be identical to the registrant’s “back supports for medical use.”  Therefore, it is presumed that the application encompasses all goods of the type described, including those in the registrant’s more specific identification, that the goods move in all normal channels of trade, and that they are available to all potential customers.  Citigroup Inc. v. Capital City Bank Grp., Inc., ___ F.3d ___, 98 USPQ2d 1253, 1261 (Fed. Cir. 2011); In re La Peregrina Ltd., 86 USPQ2d 1645, 1646 (TTAB 2008); In re Jump Designs LLC, 80 USPQ2d 1370, 1374 (TTAB 2006); TMEP §1207.01(a)(iii).

 

The overriding concern is not only to prevent buyer confusion as to the source of the goods, 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 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, then applicant must also respond to the following requirements.

 

 

SIGNIFICANCE INQUIRY – RESPONSE REQUIRED

 

Applicant must explain whether “MUSTANG” has any meaning or significance in the industry in which the goods are manufactured, or if such wording is a “term of art” within applicant’s industry.  Applicant must also explain whether this wording identifies a geographic place.  See 37 C.F.R. §2.61(b); TMEP §814.

 

Failure to respond to a request for information is an additional ground for refusing registration.  See In re Cheezwhse.com, Inc., 85 USPQ2d 1917, 1919 (TTAB 2008); In re DTI P’ship LLP, 67 USPQ2d 1699, 1701 (TTAB 2003); TMEP §814.

 

 

AMENDMENT TO THE IDENTIFICATION OF GOODS REQUIRED

 

The identification of goods is indefinite and must be clarified.  See TMEP §1402.01.  Applicant must specify the common commercial or generic name for the goods.  If there is no common commercial or generic name, applicant must describe the product and intended consumer as well as its main purpose and intended uses. 

 

Additionally, the wording “parts and fittings therefore” in the identification of goods is indefinite and must be (1) clarified to specify the common commercial or generic name for the goods, or (2) deleted.  TMEP §§1402.01 and 1402.03(a).  This wording constitutes an open-ended “catch-all” word or phrase and is not acceptable because it fails to identify specific goods.

 

In the identification, applicant must use the common commercial or generic name for the goods, be specific and all-inclusive, and avoid using indefinite words or phrases.  Id.

 

Applicant may amend the identification to list only those items that are within the scope of the goods set forth in the application or within the scope of a previously accepted amendment to the identification.  37 C.F.R. §2.71(a); TMEP §§1402.01 and 1402.03(a).

 

Recommended changes have been highlighted in bold and suggestions for amending applicant’s identification of goods are in brackets. 

 

PLEASE NOTE: If applicant adopts the recommended identification of goods, applicant must remove any brackets from the identification of goods and incorporate the bracketed information into the amended description.  The identification of goods and/or services 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. 

 

Applicant may adopt the following identification of goods, if accurate: 

 

International Class 010: Medical apparatus and instruments for ________ [applicant to specify the intended use or purpose of the goods, e.g., for use in positron emission tomography (PET) imaging, for use in orthopedic surgery, for treating osteoarthritis and osteoporosis, etc.] and orthopedic articles, namely, ________ [applicant to specify the generic or common commercial name for the orthopedic articles, e.g., orthopedic braces, orthopedic cushions, orthopedic support bandages, orthopedic walkers, etc.]; technical aids, namely, ________ [applicant to specify the generic or common commercial name for the technical aids, e.g., hearing aids, etc.] for disabled persons; mobility aids , namely, ________ [applicant to specify the generic or common commercial name for the mobility aids, e.g., walkers for use by mobility-impaired individuals, canes for medical purposes, etc.], walking aids for disabled persons, namely, walking frames, rollators.

 

TMEP §1402.01.

 

An applicant may amend an identification of goods only to clarify or limit the goods; adding to or broadening the scope of the goods is not permitted.  37 C.F.R. §2.71(a); see TMEP §§1402.06 et seq., 1402.07 et seq. 

 

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.

 

 

ADVISORY – 66(a) APPLICATIONS – CLASSIFICATION FOR GOODS/SERVICES CANNOT BE CHANGED

 

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.  37 C.F.R. §2.85(d);TMEP §§1401.03(d), 1904.02(b).

 

 

RESPONSE GUIDELINES

 

To expedite prosecution of the application, applicant is encouraged to file its response to this Office action online via the Trademark Electronic Application System (TEAS), which is available at http://www.gov.uspto.report/teas/index.html.  If applicant has technical questions about the TEAS response to Office action form, applicant can review the electronic filing tips available online at http://www.gov.uspto.report/teas/eFilingTips.htm and email technical questions to TEAS@uspto.gov.

 

If applicant has questions about its application or needs assistance in responding to this Office action, please telephone the assigned trademark examining attorney directly at the number below.

 

 

/Charisma Hampton/

Trademark Examining Attorney

U.S. Patent & Trademark Office

Charisma.Hampton@uspto.gov

571-270-1522

Law Office 112

 

TO RESPOND TO THIS LETTER:  Go to http://www.gov.uspto.report/trademarks/teas/response_forms.jsp.  Please wait 48-72 hours from the issue/mailing date before using TEAS, to allow for necessary system updates of the application.  For technical assistance with online forms, e-mail TEAS@uspto.gov.  For questions about the Office action itself, please contact the assigned trademark examining attorney.  E-mail communications will not be accepted as responses to Office actions; therefore, do not respond to this Office action by e-mail.

 

All informal e-mail communications relevant to this application will be placed in the official application record.

 

WHO MUST SIGN THE RESPONSE:  It must be personally signed by an individual applicant or someone with legal authority to bind an applicant (i.e., a corporate officer, a general partner, all joint applicants).  If an applicant is represented by an attorney, the attorney must sign the response. 

 

PERIODICALLY CHECK THE STATUS OF THE APPLICATION:  To ensure that applicant does not miss crucial deadlines or official notices, check the status of the application every three to four months using Trademark Applications and Registrations Retrieval (TARR) at http://tarr.gov.uspto.report/.  Please keep a copy of the complete TARR screen.  If TARR shows no change for more than six months, call 1-800-786-9199.  For more information on checking status, see http://www.gov.uspto.report/trademarks/process/status/.

 

TO UPDATE CORRESPONDENCE/E-MAIL ADDRESS:  Use the TEAS form at http://www.gov.uspto.report/teas/eTEASpageE.htm.