Offc Action Outgoing

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

SUMMARY OF ISSUES:

PARTIAL SECTION 2(d) REFUSAL – LIKELIHOOD OF CONFUSION
PRIOR PENDING APPLICATION ADVISORY
PARTIAL IDENTIFICATION OF GOODS AND SERVICES
MARK DESCRIPTION REQUIREMENT

A domestic trademark counsel advisory is also included herein.

PARTIAL SECTION 2(d) REFUSAL – LIKELIHOOD OF CONFUSION

THIS PARTIAL REFUSAL APPLIES TO CLASSES 009 and 042 ONLY

Registration of the applied-for mark is refused because of a likelihood of confusion with the marks in U.S. Registration Nos. 3541699 (TRUST); 5492158 (iTRUST). Trademark Act Section 2(d), 15 U.S.C. §1052(d); see TMEP §§1207.01 et seq. See the attached registrations.

Here, the applicant’s mark is TRUST for:

"Packaged software; computer software; computer software platforms; computer software products; application software; computer programs and software; computer software for database management; computer software, recorded; computer software applications, downloadable; computer software to enable searching of data; computer software for data and document capture, transmission, storage and indexing; computer software for use in automating and managing business processes; all the aforesaid products relate to personnel management" in International Class 009; and

"Updating of computer software; installation of computer software; customization of computer software; updating of software for data processing; updating and maintenance of computer software; troubleshooting of computer software problems [technical support]; software as a service [SaaS]; design, programming and maintenance of computer software; development of computer software application solutions; configuration, installation, fault diagnosis, repair, upgrading and maintenance of computer software; installation, maintenance and updating of database software; computer software technical support services; all the aforesaid services relate to personnel management" in International Class 042.

Registrant’s mark in registration number 5492158 is iTRUST for:

"Downloadable software in the nature of a mobile application for use by homeowners to manage and track household tasks, household inventory, home repair projects and home maintenance projects; downloadable software in the nature of a mobile application for use by homeowners to identify, communicate with, and track service providers to assist with household tasks, household inventory, home repair projects, and home maintenance projects; downloadable software in the nature of a mobile application for use by homeowners to identify, communicate with, and track service providers to assist with property rental services, property management services, personal concierge services" in International Class 009; and

"Providing temporary use of a non-downloadable web application for use by homeowners to manage and track household tasks, household inventory, home repair projects and home maintenance projects; providing temporary use of a non-downloadable web application for use by homeowners to identify, communicate with, and track service providers to assist with household tasks, household inventory, home repair projects, and home maintenance projects; providing temporary use of a non-downloadable web application for use by homeowners to identify, communicate with, and track service providers to assist with property rental services, property management services, personal concierge services" in International Class 042.

Registrant’s mark in registration number 3541699 is TRUST for:

"Computer software for use in deriving and recording a patient's ECG signal data, both conventionally measured and predicted ECG signal data" in International Class 042.

Trademark Act Section 2(d) bars registration of an applied-for mark that so resembles a registered mark that it is likely a consumer would be confused, mistaken, or deceived as to the source of the goods and/or services of the applicant and registrant(s). See 15 U.S.C. §1052(d). Determining likelihood of confusion is made on a case-by-case basis by applying 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). In re i.am.symbolic, llc, 866 F.3d 1315, 1322, 123 USPQ2d 1744, 1747 (Fed. Cir. 2017). However, “[n]ot all of the [du Pont] factors are relevant to every case, and only factors of significance to the particular mark need be considered.” Coach Servs., Inc. v. Triumph Learning LLC, 668 F.3d 1356, 1366, 101 USPQ2d 1713, 1719 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (quoting In re Mighty Leaf Tea, 601. F.3d 1342, 1346, 94 USPQ2d 1257, 1259 (Fed. Cir 2010)). The USPTO may focus its analysis “on dispositive factors, such as similarity of the marks and relatedness of the goods [and/or services].” In re i.am.symbolic, llc, 866 F.3d at 1322, 123 USPQ2d at 1747 (quoting Herbko Int’l, Inc. v. Kappa Books, Inc., 308 F.3d 1156, 1164-65, 64 USPQ2d 1375, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2002)); see TMEP §1207.01.

Comparison of 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).

Applicant’s mark is TRUST & design.

Registrant’s mark in registration number 3541699 is TRUST in a stylized format.

Registrant’s mark in registration number 5492158 (iTRUST) in standard character format.

Applicant's Mark is Confusingly Similar to Registration Number 5492158

In a likelihood of confusion determination, the marks in their entireties are compared for similarities in appearance, sound, connotation, and commercial impression. In re i.am.symbolic, llc, 866 F.3d 1315, 1323, 123 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2017); 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)); 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).

When comparing marks, “[t]he proper test is not a side-by-side comparison of the marks, but instead ‘whether the marks are sufficiently similar in terms of their commercial impression’ such that [consumers] who encounter the marks would be likely to assume a connection between the parties.” In re U.S. Warriors Ice Hockey Program, Inc., 122 USPQ2d 1790, 1795 (TTAB 2017) (citing Coach Servs., Inc. v. Triumph Learning LLC, 668 F.3d 1356, 1368, 101 USPQ2d 1713, 1721 (Fed. Cir. 2012)); TMEP §1207.01(b). The proper focus is on the recollection of the average purchaser, who retains a general rather than specific impression of trademarks. In re Bay State Brewing Co., 117 USPQ2d 1958, 1960 (TTAB 2016) (citing Spoons Rests. Inc. v. Morrison Inc., 23 USPQ2d 1735, 1741 (TTAB 1991), aff’d per curiam, 972 F.2d 1353 (Fed. Cir. 1992)); TMEP §1207.01(b).

In the present case, applicant’s mark is TRUST and registrant’s mark is TRUST. These marks are identical in sound and meaning, “and have the potential to be used . . . in exactly the same manner.” In re i.am.symbolic, llc, 116 USPQ2d 1406, 1411 (TTAB 2015), aff’d, 866 F.3d 1315, 123 USPQ2d 1744 (Fed. Cir. 2017). Additionally, because the wording in the marks are identical, these marks are likely to engender the same connotation and overall commercial impression when considered in connection with applicant’s and registrant’s respective goods and/or services. Id. The word portions of the marks, are nearly identical in appearance, sound, connotation, and commercial impression; therefore, the addition of a design element does not obviate the similarity of the marks in this case. See In re Shell Oil Co., 992 F.2d 1204, 1206, 26 USPQ2d 1687, 1688 (Fed. Cir. 1993); TMEP §1207.01(c)(ii).

Accordingly, the marks are confusingly similar.

Applicant's Mark is Confusingly Similar to Registration Number

In this case, the marks are confusingly similar because they feature the word TRUST as the dominant portion of the marks. As such, a consumer’s eye would be drawn to this word and the consumer would be more likely to utilize it in calling for the goods and services. Although marks are compared in their entireties, one feature of a mark may be more significant or dominant in creating a commercial impression. See In re Viterra Inc., 671 F.3d 1358, 1362, 101 USPQ2d 1905, 1908 (Fed. Cir. 2012); In re Nat’l Data Corp., 753 F.2d 1056, 1058, 224 USPQ 749, 751 (Fed. Cir. 1985); TMEP §1207.01(b)(viii), (c)(ii). Greater weight is often given to this dominant feature when determining whether marks are confusingly similar. See In re Nat’l Data Corp., 753 F.2d at 1058, 224 USPQ at 751. In this case, the word TRUST appears as the dominant portion of the applied-for and registered marks which is likely to cause consumers to find the marks to be confusingly similar.

The additional wording and designs in the marks do not obviate the similarity of the marks. Marks may be confusingly similar in appearance where similar terms or phrases or similar parts of terms or phrases appear in the compared marks and create a similar overall commercial impression. See Crocker Nat’l Bank v. Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce, 228 USPQ 689, 690-91 (TTAB 1986), aff’d sub nom. Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce v. Wells Fargo Bank, Nat’l Ass’n, 811 F.2d 1490, 1495, 1 USPQ2d 1813, 1817 (Fed. Cir. 1987) (finding COMMCASH and COMMUNICASH confusingly similar); In re Corning Glass Works, 229 USPQ 65, 66 (TTAB 1985) (finding CONFIRM and CONFIRMCELLS confusingly similar); In re Pellerin Milnor Corp., 221 USPQ 558, 560 (TTAB 1983) (finding MILTRON and MILLTRONICS confusingly similar); TMEP §1207.01(b)(ii)-(iii). Similarly here, TRUST and iTRUST are significantly similar and the small "I" which was deleted from the registrant's mark is unlikely to detract from the closeness of the marks. Considering the marks in their totality, consumers are more likely to find the word TRUST in the registrant's mark to be the dominant portion of the mark, particularly because the term is stylized in a manner to highlight its significance. The registrant's mark wholly encompasses the applicant's mark, which further contributes to the likelihood of confusion between the marks.

Additionally, a mark in typed or standard characters may be displayed in any lettering style; the rights reside in the wording or other literal element and not in any particular display or rendition. See In re Viterra Inc., 671 F.3d 1358, 1363, 101 USPQ2d 1905, 1909 (Fed. Cir. 2012); In re Mighty Leaf Tea, 601 F.3d 1342, 1348, 94 USPQ2d 1257, 1260 (Fed. Cir. 2010); 37 C.F.R. §2.52(a); TMEP §1207.01(c)(iii). Thus, a mark presented in stylized characters and/or with a design element generally will not avoid likelihood of confusion with a mark in typed or standard characters because the marks could be presented in the same manner of display. See, e.g., In re Viterra Inc., 671 F.3d at 1363, 101 USPQ2d at 1909; Squirtco v. Tomy Corp., 697 F.2d 1038, 1041, 216 USPQ 937, 939 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (stating that “the argument concerning a difference in type style is not viable where one party asserts rights in no particular display”). The registrant's mark is in standard character format. Therefore, it may appear with any stylization, including one identical to the applicant's mark. Thus, the stylization of the applicant's mark does not detract from the closeness of the marks, which appear to be confusingly similar.

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, 1026 (Fed. Cir. 1988).

Therefore, a consumer encountering the applicant's mark and one of the registered marks would likely believe the marks originate from a single source. Thus, the marks are confusingly similar.

Comparison of the Goods/Services

The compared goods and/or services 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); TMEP §1207.01(a)(i). They need only be “related in some manner and/or if the circumstances surrounding their marketing are 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).

Applicant’s mark is TRUST for:

Registrant’s mark in registration number 5492158 is iTRUST for:

Registrant’s mark in registration number 3541699 is TRUST for:

"Computer software for use in deriving and recording a patient's ECG signal data, both conventionally measured and predicted ECG signal data" in International Class 042.

Applicant’s and registrant’s goods and services are related for the following reasons.

The application uses broad wording to describe its goods and services, which presumably encompasses all goods and/or services of the type described, including the registrants' more narrow goods and services. See, e.g., Sw. Mgmt., Inc. v. Ocinomled, Ltd., 115 USPQ2d 1007, 1025 (TTAB 2015); In re N.A.D., Inc., 57 USPQ2d 1872, 1874 (TTAB 2000). Additionally, the goods and/or services of the parties have no restrictions as to nature, type, channels of trade, or classes of purchasers and are “presumed to travel in the same channels of trade to the same class of purchasers.” In re Viterra Inc., 671 F.3d 1358, 1362, 101 USPQ2d 1905, 1908 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (quoting Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Packard Press, Inc., 281 F.3d 1261, 1268, 62 USPQ2d 1001, 1005 (Fed. Cir. 2002)).

Determining likelihood of confusion is based on the description of the goods and/or services stated in the application and registration at issue, not on evidence of actual use. See Stone Lion Capital Partners, LP v. Lion Capital LLP, 746 F.3d 1317, 1323, 110 USPQ2d 1157, 1162 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (quoting Octocom Sys. Inc. v. Hous. Computers Servs. Inc., 918 F.2d 937, 942, 16 USPQ2d 1783, 1787 (Fed. Cir. 1990)).

Thus, upon encountering TRUST, TRUST and iTRUST used on the identified goods and services, consumers are likely to be confused and mistakenly believe that the respective goods and/or services emanate from a common source. Accordingly, registration of the applied-for mark is refused because of a likelihood of confusion with the mark in U.S. Registration Nos. 3541699; 5492158. Trademark Act Section 2(d), 15 U.S.C. §1052(d); see TMEP §§1207.01 et seq.

Although applicant’s mark has been refused registration, applicant may respond to the refusal by submitting evidence and arguments in support of registration. However, if applicant responds to the refusal, applicant must also respond to the requirements set forth below.

ADVISORY: PRIOR-PENDING APPLICATIONS

The filing dates of pending U.S. Application Serial Nos. 87957246; 87064453; 86951622; 87744795 precede applicant’s filing date. See attached referenced applications. If one or more of the marks in the referenced applications register, applicant’s mark may be refused registration under Trademark Act Section 2(d) because of a likelihood of confusion with the registered mark(s). See 15 U.S.C. §1052(d); 37 C.F.R. §2.83; TMEP §§1208 et seq. Therefore, upon receipt of applicant’s response to this Office action, action on this application may be suspended pending final disposition of the earlier-filed referenced applications.

In response to this Office action, applicant may present arguments in support of registration by addressing the issue of the potential conflict between applicant’s mark and the marks in the referenced applications. Applicant’s election not to submit arguments at this time in no way limits applicant’s right to address this issue later if a refusal under Section 2(d) issues.

PARTIAL IDENTIFICATION OF GOODS AND SERVICES REQUIREMENT

THIS PARTIAL REFUSAL APPLIES TO CLASSES 009 AND 042 ONLY

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).

The identification of goods and services is indefinite and must be clarified because many entries require more particularity regarding the nature of the goods and services. See 37 C.F.R. §2.32(a)(6); TMEP §1402.01. Applicant must amend the identification to specify the common commercial or generic name of the goods and services. See TMEP §1402.01. If the goods and services have no common commercial or generic name, applicant must describe the product, services, its main purpose, and its intended uses. See id.

The identification for software in International Class 9 is indefinite and must be clarified by amending to specify the purpose or function of the software. See 37 C.F.R. §2.32(a)(6); TMEP §1402.03(d). If the software is content- or field-specific, applicant must also specify its content or field of use. See TMEP §1402.03(d). The USPTO requires such specificity in identifying computer software in order for a trademark examining attorney to examine the application properly and make appropriate decisions concerning possible conflicts between the applicant’s mark and other marks. See In re N.A.D. Inc., 57 USPQ2d 1872, 1874 (TTAB 2000); TMEP §1402.03(d).

The international classification of goods in applications filed under Trademark Act Section 66(a) cannot be changed from the classification the International Bureau of the World Intellectual Property Organization assigned to the goods in the corresponding international registration. 37 C.F.R. §2.85(d); TMEP §1401.03(d). The identification for software in International Classes 009 and 042 is indefinite and must be clarified to specify the purpose or function of the software. See 37 C.F.R. §2.32(a)(6); TMEP §1402.03(d). If the software is content- or field-specific, applicant must also specify its content or field of use. See TMEP §1402.03(d). The USPTO requires such specificity in identifying computer software in order for a trademark examining attorney to examine the application properly and make appropriate decisions concerning possible conflicts between the applicant’s mark and other marks. See In re N.A.D. Inc., 57 USPQ2d 1872, 1874 (TTAB 2000); TMEP §1402.03(d).

For information regarding proper classification of computer software, see TMEP §§1402.03(d), 1402.11(a)(xii), and the USPTO’s online U.S. Acceptable Identification of Goods and Services Manual.

The identification of goods and/or services contains parenthetical language inserted by the International Bureau because the IB was not able to determine if the classification assigned to particular goods and/or services by an applicant’s Office of origin was correct. See TMEP §1904.02(c). Specifically, the wording "technical support" and "SaaS" appears within brackets which will be removed.

This language is not part of the identification and will be removed. Id. It will not appear on any U.S. registration certificate that may issue. See id.

Applicant may adopt the following wording, if accurate:

IC 009: Packaged software for {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}; computer software for {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}; computer software platforms, {specify the type and function of the platforms, e.g., downloadable, for <indicate function or use>}; computer software products in the nature {identify the common commercial or generic names of the products, e.g., game software}; computer application software for {specify items, e.g., mobile phones, portable media players, handheld computers}, namely, software for {specify the function of the programs, e.g., use in database management, use in electronic storage of data}; computer programs and software for {specify items, e.g., mobile phones, portable media players, handheld computers}, namely, software for {specify the function of the programs, e.g., use in database management, use in electronic storage of data}; computer software for database management; computer software for {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}, recorded; downloadable computer software applications for {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}; computer software to enable searching of data in the nature of {provide more specificity to clarify the nature of the function of the goods}; computer software for data and document capture, transmission, storage and indexing; computer software for use in automating and managing business processes; all the aforesaid products relate to personnel management

IC 035 [NO CHANGE]: Personnel management; personnel management assistance; personnel management consultancy

IC 042: Updating of computer software; installation of computer software; customizing of computer software; updating of software for data processing; updating and maintenance of computer software; troubleshooting of computer software problems in the nature of technical support; software as a service (SaaS), services featuring software for {specify the function of the programs, e.g., for use in database management, for service desk management, for accounting, etc., and, if software is content- or field-specific, the content or field of use}; computer software design, programming and maintenance of computer software; development of computer software application solutions in the field of {indicate field or subject matter}; technical support services in the nature of, configuration, installation, fault diagnosis, repair, upgrading and maintenance of computer software; installation, maintenance and updating of database software; computer software technical support services, namely, troubleshooting of computer software problems; all the aforesaid services relate to personnel management

Applicant may amend the identification to clarify or limit the goods and/or services, but not to broaden or expand the goods and/or services beyond those in the original application or as acceptably amended. See 37 C.F.R. §2.71(a); TMEP §1402.06. Generally, any deleted goods and/or services may not later be reinserted. See TMEP §1402.07(e). Additionally, for applications filed under Trademark Act Section 66(a), the scope of the identification for purposes of permissible amendments is limited by the international class assigned by the International Bureau of the World Intellectual Property Organization (International Bureau); and the classification of goods and/or services may not be changed from that assigned by the International Bureau. 37 C.F.R. §2.85(d); TMEP §§1401.03(d), 1904.02(b). Further, in a multiple-class Section 66(a) application, classes may not be added or goods and/or services transferred from one existing class to another. 37 C.F.R. §2.85(d); TMEP §1401.03(d).

For assistance with identifying and classifying goods and services in trademark applications, please see the USPTO’s online searchable U.S. Acceptable Identification of Goods and Services Manual. See TMEP §1402.04.

MARK DESCRIPTION REQUIREMENT

The applied-for mark is not in standard characters and applicant did not provide a description of the mark with the initial application. Applications for marks not in standard characters must include an accurate and concise description of the entire mark that identifies literal elements as well as any design elements. See 37 C.F.R. §2.37; TMEP §§808.01, 808.02, 808.03(b).

Therefore, applicant must provide a description of the applied-for mark. The following is suggested:

The mark consists of the stylized version of the word "TRUST" in white, on a blue background with a white outline, the "S" is represented by two overlapping "S's", one of which is reversed, the colors on the S transition from red to orange to pink and the other "S" is yellow.

TRADEMARK COUNSEL ADVISORY

Because of the legal technicalities and strict deadlines involved in the USPTO application process, applicant may wish to hire a qualified U.S. attorney specializing in trademark matters to represent applicant in this process and provide legal advice. Although the undersigned trademark examining attorney is permitted to help an applicant understand the contents of an Office action as well as the application process in general, no USPTO attorney or staff is permitted to give an applicant legal advice or statements about an applicant’s legal rights. TMEP §§705.02, 709.06. For attorney referral information, applicant may consult the American Bar Association’s Consumers’ Guide to Legal Help or an online directory of legal professionals, such as FindLaw®. The USPTO, however, may not assist an applicant in the selection of a private attorney. 37 C.F.R. §2.11.

Please note that foreign attorneys, other than authorized Canadian 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. §§2.17(e), 11.14(c), (e); TMEP §602.03-.03(c).

The only attorneys who may 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 U.S. commonwealths or U.S. territories; 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(a), (e), 11.1, 11.14(a), (c); TMEP §602.

RESPONSE GUIDELINES

For this application to proceed further, applicant must explicitly address each refusal and/or requirement raised in this Office action. If the action includes a refusal, applicant may provide arguments and/or evidence as to why the refusal should be withdrawn and the mark should register. Applicant may also have other options specified in this Office action for responding to a refusal and should consider those options carefully. To respond to requirements and certain refusal response options, applicant should set forth in writing the required changes or statements. For more information and general tips on responding to USPTO Office actions, response options, and how to file a response online, see “Responding to Office Actions” on the USPTO’s website.

If applicant does not respond to this Office action within six months of the issue/mailing date, or responds by expressly abandoning the application, the application process will end and the trademark will fail to register. See 15 U.S.C. §1062(b); 37 C.F.R. §§2.65(a), 2.68(a); TMEP §§718.01, 718.02. Additionally, the USPTO will not refund the application filing fee, which is a required processing fee. See 37 C.F.R. §§2.6(a)(1)(i)-(iv), 2.209(a); TMEP §405.04.

When an application has abandoned for failure to respond to an Office action, an applicant may timely file a petition to revive the application, which, if granted, would allow the application to return to active status. See 37 C.F.R. §2.66; TMEP §1714. The petition must be filed within two months of the date of issuance of the notice of abandonment and may be filed online via the Trademark Electronic Application System (TEAS) with a $100 fee. See 37 C.F.R. §§2.6(a)(15)(ii), 2.66(a)(1), (b)(1).

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 U.S. commonwealths or U.S. territories. 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.gov.uspto.report/trademarks/teas/correspondence.jsp.

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 and/or requirements 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.

Radcliff, Brent

/Brent M. Radcliff/

Examining Attorney

Trademark Law Office 123

(571) 270-0855

brent.radcliff@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 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.gov.uspto.report/. 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.gov.uspto.report/trademarks/process/status/.

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

Offc Action Outgoing

TRUST

DIASORIN S.P.A.

Offc Action Outgoing

Offc Action Outgoing [image/jpeg]

Offc Action Outgoing [image/jpeg]

Offc Action Outgoing [image/jpeg]

Offc Action Outgoing [image/jpeg]

Offc Action Outgoing [image/jpeg]

Offc Action Outgoing [image/jpeg]

Offc Action Outgoing [image/jpeg]

Offc Action Outgoing [image/jpeg]

Offc Action Outgoing [image/jpeg]

Offc Action Outgoing [image/jpeg]

Offc Action Outgoing [image/jpeg]

Offc Action Outgoing [image/jpeg]

Offc Action Outgoing [image/jpeg]

Offc Action Outgoing [image/jpeg]

Offc Action Outgoing [image/jpeg]

Offc Action Outgoing [image/jpeg]