UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE (USPTO)
OFFICE ACTION (OFFICIAL LETTER) ABOUT APPLICANT’S TRADEMARK APPLICATION
|
APPLICATION SERIAL NO. 79110786
MARK: PROFILE
|
|
|
CORRESPONDENT ADDRESS: |
CLICK HERE TO RESPOND TO THIS LETTER: http://www.gov.uspto.report/trademarks/teas/response_forms.jsp
|
|
APPLICANT: Escada Systems Limited
|
|
|
CORRESPONDENT’S REFERENCE/DOCKET NO: CORRESPONDENT E-MAIL ADDRESS: |
|
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.
INTERNATIONAL REGISTRATION NO. 1111042
This is a PROVISIONAL PARTIAL REFUSAL of the trademark and/or service mark in the above-referenced U.S. application that applies to only the following goods and/or services/class(es) in the application: 7. See 15 U.S.C. §1141h(c).
WHO IS PERMITTED TO RESPOND TO THIS PROVISIONAL PARTIAL 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.
(1) 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), 11.4(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/trademarks/teas/index.jsp.
THE APPLICATION HAS BEEN PROVISIONALLY PARTIALLY REFUSED AS FOLLOWS:
This is a partial refusal Office action; the refusal(s) and/or requirement(s) apply only to specified goods and/or services/class(es) in the U.S. application.
The assigned examining attorney has reviewed the referenced application and determined the following.
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/services, so resembles the mark in U.S. Registration No. 2419558 as to be likely to cause confusion, 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.
SIMILARITY OF THE MARKS
Applicant is seeking registration of the mark PROFILE, as compared to the registrant’s mark which is PROFILE PLUS. 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).
First, 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). In this instance, the term PROFILE appears in each mark and therefore is similar in appearance. The mere deletion of wording from a registered mark may not be sufficient to overcome a likelihood of confusion. See In re Mighty Leaf Tea, 601 F.3d 1342, 94 USPQ2d 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2010); In re Optica Int’l, 196 USPQ 775, 778 (TTAB 1977); TMEP §1207.01(b)(ii)-(iii). Applicant’s mark does not create a distinct commercial impression because it contains the same common wording as registrant’s mark, and there is no other wording to distinguish it from registrant’s mark.
Moreover, consumers are generally more inclined to focus on the first word, prefix or syllable in any trademark or service mark. See Palm Bay Imps., Inc. v. Veuve Clicquot Ponsardin Maison Fondee En 1772, 396 F. 3d 1369, 1372, 73 USPQ2d 1689, 1692 (Fed. Cir. 2005); see also Mattel Inc. v. Funline Merch. Co., 81 USPQ2d 1372, 1374-75 (TTAB 2006); Presto Prods., Inc. v. Nice-Pak Prods., Inc., 9 USPQ2d 1895, 1897 (TTAB 1988) (“it is often the first part of a mark which is most likely to be impressed upon the mind of a purchaser and remembered” when making purchasing decisions). Furthermore, the additional term “plus” in the registrant’s mark suggests that the goods in the registration may contain additional features or enhancements or an additional line of products still originating from a single source.
SIMILARITY OF THE GOODS IN CLASS 7
Applicant’s goods in International Class 7 are “Apparatus for controlling the operation of machines; cardboard and paper controlling and handling apparatus; apparatus for measuring warp and planar materials such as corrugated board.” The registrant’s goods are “machines for pulling paper through various quality test stations.” 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. 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., 637 F.3d 1344, 1356, 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).
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.
IDENTIFICATION OF GOODS IN CLASS 7
In the identification of goods, applicant must use the common commercial or generic names for the goods, be as complete and specific as possible, and avoid the use of indefinite words and phrases. If applicant uses indefinite words such as “accessories,” “apparatus,” “components,” “devices,” “equipment,” “materials,” “parts,” “systems” or “products,” such words must be followed by “namely,” followed by a list of the specific goods identified by their common commercial or generic names. See TMEP §§1402.01, 1402.03(a).
In an application filed under Trademark Act Section 66(a), an applicant may not change the classification of goods and/or services from that assigned by the International Bureau in the corresponding international registration. 37 C.F.R. §2.85(d); TMEP §§1401.03(d), 1904.02(b). Further, in a multiple-class Section 66(a) application, an applicant may not transfer goods and/or services from one existing international class to another. 37 C.F.R. §2.85(d); see TMEP §§1402.07(a), 1904.02(c).
Therefore, any modification to this wording must identify goods and/or services in International Class 7, the classification specified in the application for these goods and/or services.
The following substitute wording is suggested, if accurate: “Apparatus for controlling the operation of machines, namely (specify); cardboard and paper controlling and handling apparatus, namely, (specify); apparatus for measuring warp and planar materials such as corrugated board, namely, (specify).”
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.
REQUEST FOR INFORMATION FOR CLASS 7
The nature of the goods on which the applicant uses the mark is not clear from the present record. The applicant must submit samples of advertisements or promotional materials. If such materials are not available, the applicant must submit a photograph of the goods and describe their nature, purpose and channels of trade. 37 C.F.R. §2.61(b); TMEP §§814 and 1402.01(d).
Trademark Rule 2.61(b) states "The examiner may require the applicant to furnish such information and exhibits as may be reasonably necessary to the proper examination of the application". The Trademark Trial and Appeal Board has upheld a refusal of registration based on the applicant's failure to provide information requested under this rule. In re Babies Beat Inc., 13 USPQ2d 1729 (TTAB 1990)(failure to submit patent information regarding configuration).
PARTIAL ABANDONMENT
If applicant does not respond to this Office action within the six-month period for response, then International Class(es) 7 will be deleted from the application and the application will proceed forward for International Class(es) 9 only. 37 C.F.R. §2.65(a).
If applicant has questions regarding this Office action, please telephone or e-mail the assigned trademark examining attorney. All relevant e-mail communications will be placed in the official application record; however, an e-mail communication will not be accepted as a response to this Office action and will not extend the deadline for filing a proper response. See 37 C.F.R. §2.191; TMEP §§304.01-.02, 709.04-.05. Further, although the trademark examining attorney may provide additional explanation pertaining to the refusal(s) and/or requirement(s) in this Office action, the trademark examining attorney may not provide legal advice or statements about applicant’s rights. See TMEP §§705.02, 709.06.
/Midge F. Butler/
Trademark Attorney
Law Office 107
571-272-9137
fax (571) 273-9107
midge.butler@uspto.gov
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.