STRICT DEADLINE TO RESPOND TO THIS LETTER

INTERNATIONAL REGISTRATION NO. 1255927

STRICT DEADLINE TO RESPOND TO THIS NOTIFICATION: TO AVOID ABANDONMENT OF THE REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF PROTECTION OF THE INTERNATIONAL REGISTRATION, THE USPTO MUST RECEIVE A COMPLETE RESPONSE TO THIS PROVISIONAL FULL REFUSAL NOTIFICATION WITHIN 6 MONTHS OF THE “DATE ON WHICH THE NOTIFICATION WAS SENT TO WIPO (MAILING DATE)” LOCATED ON THE WIPO COVER LETTER ACCOMPANYING THIS NOTIFICATION.

In addition to the Mailing Date appearing on the WIPO cover letter, a holder (hereafter “applicant”) may confirm this Mailing Date using the USPTO’s Trademark Status and Document Retrieval (TSDR) system at http://tsdr.uspto.gov/. To do so, enter the U.S. application serial number for this application and then select “Documents.” The Mailing Date used to calculate the response deadline for this provisional full refusal is the “Create/Mail Date” of the “IB-1rst Refusal Note.”

This is a PROVISIONAL FULL REFUSAL of the request for extension of protection of the mark in the above-referenced U.S. application. See 15 U.S.C. §1141h(c). See below in this notification (hereafter “Office action”) for details regarding the provisional full refusal.

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(a), 2.65(a); TMEP §§711, 718.03.

SECTION 2(d) REFUSAL – LIKELIHOOD OF CONFUSION – Class 9

Registration of the applied-for mark is refused because of a likelihood of confusion with the marks in U.S. Registration Nos. 3693977 for the mark LEMON and design; 4338099 for the mark LEMON LOCATION ENHANCED MOBILE OPT-IN NETWORK and design; and 4146499 for the mark LEMON. Trademark Act Section 2(d), 15 U.S.C. §1052(d); see TMEP §§1207.01 et seq. See the enclosed registration.

Trademark Act Section 2(d) bars registration of an applied-for mark that so resembles a registered mark that it is likely a potential consumer would be confused, 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). A determination of likelihood of confusion under Section 2(d) is made on a case-by case basis and the factors set forth in In re E. I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., 476 F.2d 1357, 1361, 177 USPQ 563, 567 (C.C.P.A. 1973) aid in this determination. Citigroup Inc. v. Capital City Bank Grp., Inc., 637 F.3d 1344, 1349, 98 USPQ2d 1253, 1256 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (citing On-Line Careline, Inc. v. Am. Online, Inc., 229 F.3d 1080, 1085, 56 USPQ2d 1471, 1474 (Fed. Cir. 2000)). Not all the du Pont factors, however, are necessarily relevant or of equal weight, and any one of the factors may control in a given case, depending upon the evidence of record. Citigroup Inc. v. Capital City Bank Grp., Inc., 637 F.3d at 1355, 98 USPQ2d at 1260; In re Majestic Distilling Co., 315 F.3d 1311, 1315, 65 USPQ2d 1201, 1204 (Fed. Cir. 2003); see In re E. I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., 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 and nature of the goods and/or services, and similarity of the trade channels of the goods and/or services. See In re Viterra Inc., 671 F.3d 1358, 1361-62, 101 USPQ2d 1905, 1908 (Fed. Cir. 2012); In re Dakin’s Miniatures Inc., 59 USPQ2d 1593, 1595-96 (TTAB 1999); TMEP §§1207.01 et seq.

In this case, the applicant seeks to register the word “LEMON” for Mobile phones; computers; wearable computers; computer tablets; computer software and hardware; home and office automation systems comprising wireless and wired controllers, controlled devices, and software for lighting, HVAC, security, safety and other home and office monitoring and control applications, in pertinent part. The registered marks are as follows: LEMON and design for electric flat iron, computer monitors, computer keyboards, computer mice, laptop computers, palm pilots, personal digital assistants, memory cards and electronic pocket translators; LEMON LOCATION ENHANCED MOBILE OPT-IN NETWORK and design for computer application software for mobile phones, namely, software for location tracking and delivery of an automatic push message to a host application on any smart/mobile device; and LEMON for Computer application software for mobile phones, portable media players, handheld computers and personal computers, namely, software for use in electronic storage of data, documents and receipts; computer application software for mobile phones, portable media players, handheld computers and personal computers, namely, software to assist in tracking and managing expenses.

The marks are similar in commercial impression and for related goods.

Comparing the marks, marks are compared in their entireties for similarities in appearance, sound, connotation, and commercial impression. Stone Lion Capital Partners, LP v. Lion Capital LLP, 746 F.3d 1317, 1321, 110 USPQ2d 1157, 1160 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (quoting Palm Bay Imps., Inc. v. Veuve Clicquot Ponsardin Maison Fondee En 1772, 396 F. 3d 1369, 1371, 73 USPQ2d 1689, 1691 (Fed. Cir. 2005)); TMEP §1207.01(b)-(b)(v). “Similarity in any one of these elements may be sufficient to find the marks confusingly similar.” In re Davia, 110 USPQ2d 1810, 1812 (TTAB 2014) (citing In re 1st USA Realty Prof’ls, Inc., 84 USPQ2d 1581, 1586 (TTAB 2007)); In re White Swan Ltd., 8 USPQ2d 1534, 1535 (TTAB 1988)); TMEP §1207.01(b). Here, the marks are similar in commercial impression because of their shared LEMON wording.

With respect to the goods, the goods of the parties need not be identical or even competitive to find a likelihood of confusion. See On-line Careline Inc. v. Am. Online Inc., 229 F.3d 1080, 1086, 56 USPQ2d 1471, 1475 (Fed. Cir. 2000); Recot, Inc. v. Becton, 214 F.3d 1322, 1329, 54 USPQ2d 1894, 1898 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (“[E]ven if the goods in question are different from, and thus not related to, one another in kind, the same goods can be related in the mind of the consuming public as to the origin of the goods.”); TMEP §1207.01(a)(i).

The respective goods need only be “related in some manner and/or if the circumstances surrounding their marketing [be] such that they could give rise to the mistaken belief that [the goods and/or services] emanate from the same source.” Coach Servs., Inc. v. Triumph Learning LLC, 668 F.3d 1356, 1369, 101 USPQ2d 1713, 1722 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (quoting 7-Eleven Inc. v. Wechsler, 83 USPQ2d 1715, 1724 (TTAB 2007)); TMEP §1207.01(a)(i).

The Trademark Trial and Appeal Board has held that computer hardware products are related to computer software products, such that their marketing under the same or similar marks may be likely to cause source confusion. See In re TIE/Commc’ns, Inc., 5 USPQ2d 1457, 1458 (TTAB 1987) (holding DATA STAR likely to cause confusion when used in connection with both registrant’s “computer programs recorded on magnetic media” and applicant’s “voice/data communications terminals and parts thereof”); In re Epic Sys. Corp., 228 USPQ 213, 214-15 (TTAB 1985) (holding EPIC for computer software for use in health care facilities likely to be confused with EPIC DATA for “electronic data collection terminals and electronic data collection units”); In re Teradata Corp., 223 USPQ 361, 362 (TTAB 1984) (holding Y NET for computer hardware likely to be confused with XYNET for computer software); Alpha Indus., Inc. v. Alpha Microsystems, 220 USPQ 67, 69, 71-72 (TTAB 1983) (holding ALPHA MICRO for digital computer equipment and programs likely to be confused with ALPHA MICROWAVE for microwave components and subassemblies). Moreover, here the applicant’s broad software language includes the registrants’ more specific software and thus, the goods are sufficiently related.

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 responds to the refusal(s), applicant must also respond to the requirement(s) set forth below.

IDENTIFICATION OF GOODS

The Trademark Act requires that a trademark or service mark application must include a “specification of … the goods [or services]” in connection with which the mark is being used or will be used. 15 U.S.C. §1051(a)(2) (emphasis added), (b)(2) (emphasis added); see 15 U.S.C. §1053. Specifically, a complete application must include a “list of the particular goods or services on or in connection with which the applicant uses or intends to use the mark.” 37 C.F.R. §2.32(a)(6) (emphasis added). This requirement for a specification of the particular goods and/or services applies to applications filed under all statutory bases. See 15 U.S.C. §§1051(a)(2), 1051(b)(2), 1053, 1126(d)-(e), 1141f; 37 C.F.R. §2.32(a)(6); TMEP §§1402.01, 1402.01(b)-(c).

The identification of goods is indefinite and must be clarified. See TMEP §1402.01. In this case, some of the wording in the identification of goods is unacceptable because it failed to provide sufficient specificity as to the exact nature of the goods. 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.

Applicant may adopt the following identification, if accurate:

Class 9

Mobile phones; computers; wearable computers; computer tablets; computer hardware; computer software {specify the function of the programs, e.g., use in database management, use as a spreadsheet, word processing, etc. and, if software is content- or field-specific, the content or field of use}; home and office automation systems comprising wireless controllers to remotely control the function and status of other electrical electronic and mechanical devices or systems, namely, {indicate type of device or system}; wired controller, namely, electrical controllers; controlled devices and software for lighting, HVAC, security, safety and other home and office monitoring and control applications, namely, remote controls and computer software application for use in operating and controlling lighting, HVAC, security, safety and home and office monitoring equipment

Class 12

Land vehicles and structural parts thereof; land vehicles, namely, low-speed electric vehicles and electric cars; parts and fittings for electric vehicles, namely, {specify}

In a Trademark Act Section 66(a) application, classification of goods and/or services may not be changed from that assigned by the International Bureau of the World Intellectual Property Organization. 37 C.F.R. §2.85(d); TMEP §§1401.03(d), 1904.02(b). Additionally, classes may not be added or goods and/or services transferred from one class to another in a multiple-class Section 66(a) application. 37 C.F.R. §2.85(d); TMEP §1401.03(d).

Periodically the USPTO revises the U.S. Acceptable Identification of Goods and Services Manual (ID Manual) based on changes to the international classification system and the USPTO’s policies regarding acceptable identifications of goods and services. See TMEP §1402.14. Identifications are examined in accordance with the Trademark Rules of Practice and the USPTO’s policies and procedures in effect on the date an application is filed. See 37 C.F.R. §2.85(e)(1); TMEP §1402.14. However, an applicant may voluntarily choose to follow policies and procedures adopted after the application was filed. See 37 C.F.R. §2.85(e)(2); TMEP §1401.12.

Thus, descriptions of goods and/or services found in earlier-filed applications and registrations are not necessarily considered acceptable identifications when a later-filed application is examined. See TMEP §§702.03(a)(iv), 1402.14.

For guidance on writing identifications of goods and/or services, please use the USPTO’s online ID Manual at http://tess2.uspto.gov/netahtml/tidm.html, which is continually updated in accordance with prevailing rules and policies. See TMEP §1402.04.

CLOSING

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. §§2.62(c), 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.

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.uspto.gov/trademarks/teas/index.jsp. 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.uspto.gov/trademarks/teas/e_filing_tips.jsp and e-mail technical questions to TEAS@uspto.gov.

WHO IS PERMITTED TO RESPOND TO THIS PROVISIONAL FULL REFUSAL: Any response to this provisional refusal must be personally signed by an individual applicant, all joint applicants, or someone with legal authority to bind a juristic applicant (e.g., a corporate officer or general partner). 37 C.F.R. §§2.62(b), 2.193(e)(2)(ii); TMEP §712.01. If applicant hires a qualified U.S. attorney to respond on his or her behalf, then the attorney must sign the response. 37 C.F.R. §§2.193(e)(2)(i), 11.18(a); TMEP §§611.03(b), 712.01. Qualified U.S. attorneys include those 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. See 37 C.F.R. §§2.17(a), 2.62(b), 11.1, 11.14(a); TMEP §§602, 712.01. Additionally, for all responses, the proper signatory must personally sign the document or personally enter his or her electronic signature on the electronic filing. See 37 C.F.R. §2.193(a); TMEP §§611.01(b), 611.02. The name of the signatory must also be printed or typed immediately below or adjacent to the signature, or identified elsewhere in the filing. 37 C.F.R. §2.193(d); TMEP §611.01(b).

In general, foreign attorneys are not permitted to represent applicants before the USPTO (e.g., file written communications, authorize an amendment to an application, or submit legal arguments in response to a requirement or refusal). See 37 C.F.R. §11.14(c), (e); TMEP §§602.03-.03(b), 608.01.

DESIGNATION OF DOMESTIC REPRESENTATIVE: The USPTO encourages applicants who do not reside in the United States to designate a domestic representative upon whom any notice or process may be served. TMEP §610; see 15 U.S.C. §§1051(e), 1141h(d); 37 C.F.R. §2.24(a)(1)-(2). Such designations may be filed online at http://www.uspto.gov/trademarks/teas/correspondence.jsp.

/IngridCEulin/

Ingrid C. Eulin

Examining Attorney

Law Office 111

(571) 272-9380

Ingrid.Eulin@uspto.gov

TO RESPOND TO THIS LETTER: Go to http://www.uspto.gov/trademarks/teas/response_forms.jsp. Please wait 48-72 hours from the issue/mailing date before using the Trademark Electronic Application System (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 the Trademark Status and Document Retrieval (TSDR) system at http://tsdr.uspto.gov/. Please keep a copy of the TSDR status screen. If the status shows no change for more than six months, contact the Trademark Assistance Center by e-mail at TrademarkAssistanceCenter@uspto.gov or call 1-800-786-9199. For more information on checking status, see http://www.uspto.gov/trademarks/process/status/.

TO UPDATE CORRESPONDENCE/E-MAIL ADDRESS: Use the TEAS form at http://www.uspto.gov/trademarks/teas/correspondence.jsp.