United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO)
Office Action (Official Letter) About Applicant’s Trademark Application
|
U.S. Application Serial No. 79270299
Mark: ENERCON TECHNOLOGIES LTD.
|
|
|
Correspondence Address:
|
|
|
Applicant: Enercon Technologies Ltd.
|
|
|
Reference/Docket No. N/A
Correspondence Email Address: |
|
International Registration No. 1494326
Notice of Provisional Full Refusal
Deadline for responding. The USPTO must receive applicant’s response within six months of the “date on which the notification was sent to WIPO (mailing date)” located on the WIPO cover letter, or the U.S. application will be abandoned. To confirm the mailing date, go to the USPTO’s Trademark Status and Document Retrieval (TSDR) database, select “US Serial, Registration, or Reference No.,” enter the U.S. application serial number in the blank text box, and click on “Documents.” The mailing date used to calculate the response deadline is the “Create/Mail Date” of the “IB-1rst Refusal Note.”
Respond to this Office action using the USPTO’s Trademark Electronic Application System (TEAS). A link to the appropriate TEAS response form appears at the end of this Office action.
Discussion of provisional full refusal. This is a provisional full refusal of the request for extension of protection to the United States of the international registration, known in the United States as a U.S. application based on Trademark Act Section 66(a). See 15 U.S.C. §§1141f(a), 1141h(c).
SUMMARY OF ISSUES:
· Section 2(d) Refusal – Likelihood of Confusion
· Entity Indefinite
· Identification of Goods
· Disclaimer
· Color Claim and Mark Description of the Mark
· U.S.-Licensed Attorney Required
SECTION 2(d) REFUSAL – LIKELIHOOD OF CONFUSION
Registration of the applied-for mark is refused because of a likelihood of confusion with the marks in U.S. Registration Nos. 1192730 and 1538991. Trademark Act Section 2(d), 15 U.S.C. §1052(d); see TMEP §§1207.01 et seq. See the attached registrations. Please note, the cited registrations are owned by a single registrant.
Applicant’s mark is ENERCON Technologies Ltd. and design for “Power supplies; apparatus and instruments for conducting, switching, transforming, accumulating, regulating or controlling the distribution or use of electricity; batteries; power adaptors and power amplifiers; electrical power distribution units; military standard power supplies; all the above goods are mainly for military and aviation use” in International Class 009. Registrant’s marks are E ENERCON in U.S. Registration No. 1192730 (also in stylized form) for “High Frequency Electric Power Supplies for Melting, Forging and Heat Treating Metals and Also for Corona Treatment of Paper, Foil and Plastic Film” in International Class 009 and ENERCON in U.S. Registration No. 1538991 (also in standard character or “typed” form) for multiple classes, with the relevant class being International Class 009 - “high frequency electric power supplies for corona treatment of paper, foil and plastic film, and induction heating units for applying seals to containers” in International Class 009.
Trademark Act Section 2(d) bars registration of an applied-for mark that is so similar to a registered mark that it is likely consumers would be confused, mistaken, or deceived as to the commercial source of the goods and/or services of the parties. See 15 U.S.C. §1052(d). Likelihood of confusion is determined 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) (called the “du Pont factors”). In re i.am.symbolic, llc, 866 F.3d 1315, 1322, 123 USPQ2d 1744, 1747 (Fed. Cir. 2017). Only those factors that are “relevant and of record” need be considered. M2 Software, Inc. v. M2 Commc’ns, Inc., 450 F.3d 1378, 1382, 78 USPQ2d 1944, 1947 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (citing Shen Mfg. Co. v. Ritz Hotel Ltd., 393 F.3d 1238, 1241, 73 USPQ2d 1350, 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2004)); see In re Inn at St. John’s, LLC, 126 USPQ2d 1742, 1744 (TTAB 2018).
Although not all du Pont factors may be relevant, there are generally two key considerations in any likelihood of confusion analysis: (1) the similarities between the compared marks and (2) the relatedness of the compared goods and/or services. See 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)); Federated Foods, Inc. v. Fort Howard Paper Co.,544 F.2d 1098, 1103, 192 USPQ 24, 29 (C.C.P.A. 1976) (“The fundamental inquiry mandated by [Section] 2(d) goes to the cumulative effect of differences in the essential characteristics of the goods [or services] and differences in the marks.”); 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 Inn at St. John’s, LLC, 126 USPQ2d 1742, 1746 (TTAB 2018) (citing In re Davia, 110 USPQ2d 1810, 1812 (TTAB 2014)); TMEP §1207.01(b).
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.” Cai v. Diamond Hong, Inc., __ F.3d __, 127 USPQ2d 1797, 1801 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (quoting 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 Inn at St. John’s, LLC, 126 USPQ2d 1742, 1746 (TTAB 2018) (citing In re St. Helena Hosp., 774 F.3d 747, 750-51, 113 USPQ2d 1082, 1085 (Fed. Cir. 2014); Geigy Chem. Corp. v. Atlas Chem. Indus., Inc., 438 F.2d 1005, 1007, 169 USPQ 39, 40 (CCPA 1971)); TMEP §1207.01(b).
E ENERCON in U.S. Registration No. 1192730
In this case, applicant’s mark, ENERCON Technologies Ltd. and design, is highly similar in sound, appearance, meaning and overall commercial impression to registrant’s mark, E ENERCON. Both marks contain the identical wording ENERCON. 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).
Furthermore, when evaluating a composite mark consisting of words and a design, the word portion is normally accorded greater weight because it is likely to make a greater impression upon purchasers, be remembered by them, and be used by them to refer to or request the goods and/or services. In re Aquitaine Wine USA, LLC, 126 USPQ2d 1181, 1184 (TTAB 2018) (citing In re Viterra Inc., 671 F.3d 1358, 1362, 101 USPQ2d 1905, 1908 (Fed. Cir. 2012)); TMEP §1207.01(c)(ii). Thus, although marks must be compared in their entireties, the word portion is often considered the dominant feature and is accorded greater weight in determining whether marks are confusingly similar, even where the word portion has been disclaimed. In re Viterra Inc., 671 F.3d at 1366-67, 101 USPQ2d at 1911 (citing Giant Food, Inc. v. Nation’s Foodservice, Inc., 710 F.2d 1565, 1570-71, 218 USPQ2d 390, 395 (Fed. Cir. 1983)).
ENERCON in U.S. Registration No. 1538991
In this case, applicant’s mark, ENERCON Technologies Ltd. and design, is highly similar in sound, appearance, meaning and overall commercial impression to registrant’s mark, ENERCON. Both marks contain the identical wording ENERCON. 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).
Furthermore, when evaluating a composite mark consisting of words and a design, the word portion is normally accorded greater weight because it is likely to make a greater impression upon purchasers, be remembered by them, and be used by them to refer to or request the goods and/or services. In re Aquitaine Wine USA, LLC, 126 USPQ2d 1181, 1184 (TTAB 2018) (citing In re Viterra Inc., 671 F.3d 1358, 1362, 101 USPQ2d 1905, 1908 (Fed. Cir. 2012)); TMEP §1207.01(c)(ii). Thus, although marks must be compared in their entireties, the word portion is often considered the dominant feature and is accorded greater weight in determining whether marks are confusingly similar, even where the word portion has been disclaimed. In re Viterra Inc., 671 F.3d at 1366-67, 101 USPQ2d at 1911 (citing Giant Food, Inc. v. Nation’s Foodservice, Inc., 710 F.2d 1565, 1570-71, 218 USPQ2d 390, 395 (Fed. Cir. 1983)).
Comparison of the Goods and/or Services
The applicant’s goods and/or services are identified as for “Power supplies; apparatus and instruments for conducting, switching, transforming, accumulating, regulating or controlling the distribution or use of electricity; batteries; power adaptors and power amplifiers; electrical power distribution units; military standard power supplies; all the above goods are mainly for military and aviation use” in International Class 009.
E ENERCON in U.S. Registration No. 1192730
The registrant’s goods and/or services are identified as “High Frequency Electric Power Supplies for Melting, Forging and Heat Treating Metals and Also for Corona Treatment of Paper, Foil and Plastic Film” in International Class 009.
In this case, the application use(s) broad wording to describe apparatus and instruments for conducting, switching, transforming, accumulating, regulating or controlling the distribution or use of electricity and military standard power supplies, which presumably encompasses all goods and/or services of the type described, including registrant’s more narrow High Frequency Electric Power Supplies for Melting, Forging and Heat Treating Metals and Also for Corona Treatment of Paper, Foil and Plastic Film, and induction heating units for applying seals to containers. See, e.g., In re Solid State Design Inc., 125 USPQ2d 1409, 1412-15 (TTAB 2018); Sw. Mgmt., Inc. v. Ocinomled, Ltd., 115 USPQ2d 1007, 1025 (TTAB 2015). Thus, applicant’s and registrant’s goods are legally identical. See, e.g., In re i.am.symbolic, llc, 127 USPQ2d 1627, 1629 (TTAB 2018) (citing Tuxedo Monopoly, Inc. v.Gen. Mills Fun Grp., Inc., 648 F.2d 1335, 1336, 209 USPQ 986, 988 (C.C.P.A. 1981); Inter IKEA Sys. B.V. v. Akea, LLC, 110 USPQ2d 1734, 1745 (TTAB 2014); Baseball Am. Inc. v. Powerplay Sports Ltd., 71 USPQ2d 1844, 1847 n.9 (TTAB 2004)).
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)). Thus, applicant’s and registrant’s goods and/or services are related.
ENERCON in U.S. Registration No. 1538991
The registrant’s goods and/or services are identified as “high frequency electric power supplies for corona treatment of paper, foil and plastic film, and induction heating units for applying seals to containers” in International Class 009.
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 extrinsic evidence of actual use. See In re Detroit Athletic Co., 903 F.3d 1297, 1307, 128 USPQ2d 1047, 1052 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (citing In re i.am.symbolic, llc, 866 F.3d 1315, 1325, 123 USPQ2d 1744, 1749 (Fed. Cir. 2017)).
In this case, the application use(s) broad wording to describe apparatus and instruments for conducting, switching, transforming, accumulating, regulating or controlling the distribution or use of electricity and military standard power supplies, which presumably encompasses all goods and/or services of the type described, including registrant’s more narrow high frequency electric power supplies for corona treatment of paper, foil and plastic film, and induction heating units for applying seals to containers. See, e.g., In re Solid State Design Inc., 125 USPQ2d 1409, 1412-15 (TTAB 2018); Sw. Mgmt., Inc. v. Ocinomled, Ltd., 115 USPQ2d 1007, 1025 (TTAB 2015). Thus, applicant’s and registrant’s goods are legally identical. See, e.g., In re i.am.symbolic, llc, 127 USPQ2d 1627, 1629 (TTAB 2018) (citing Tuxedo Monopoly, Inc. v.Gen. Mills Fun Grp., Inc., 648 F.2d 1335, 1336, 209 USPQ 986, 988 (C.C.P.A. 1981); Inter IKEA Sys. B.V. v. Akea, LLC, 110 USPQ2d 1734, 1745 (TTAB 2014); Baseball Am. Inc. v. Powerplay Sports Ltd., 71 USPQ2d 1844, 1847 n.9 (TTAB 2004)).
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)). Thus, applicant’s and registrant’s goods and/or services are related.
The marks are similar in sound, appearance, meaning and overall commercial impression and the goods and/or services are closely related. It is likely that consumers will mistakenly believe the goods and/or services emanate from the same source. 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).
Accordingly, registration is refused pursuant to Section 2(d) of the Trademark Act.
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.
ENTITY INDEFINITE
IDENTIFICATION OF GOODS AND/OR SERVICES
The wording in the identification of goods and/or services in International Class(es) 009 is indefinite and too broad. This wording must be clarified because it is not clear what the goods and/or services are and could identify goods and/or services in more than one international class. See 37 C.F.R. §2.32(a)(6); TMEP §§1402.01, 1402.03, 1904.02(c), (c)(ii).
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 of the World Intellectual Property Organization in the corresponding international registration. 37 C.F.R. §2.85(d); TMEP §§1401.03(d), 1904.02(b). Therefore, although the goods and/or services may be classified in several international classes, any modification to this wording must identify goods and/or services in International Class(es) 009 only, the class(es) specified in the application for these goods and/or services. See TMEP §1904.02(c), (c)(ii).
For example, applicant must amend the identification to specify the common commercial or generic name of the goods and/or services. See TMEP §1402.01. If the goods have no common commercial or generic name, applicant must describe the product, its main purpose and its intended uses. See id. If the services have no common commercial or generic name, applicant must describe or explain the nature of the services using clear and succinct language. See id.
Applicant should note that any wording in bold, in italics, underlined and/or
in ALL CAPS below offers guidance and/or shows the changes being proposed for the identification of goods and/or services. If there is wording in the applicant’s version of the identification of
goods and/or services which should be removed, it will be shown with a line through it such as this: strikethrough. When making its amendments, applicant should enter them in standard font,
not in bold, in italics, underlined and/or in ALL CAPS.
Applicant may adopt the following wording, if accurate:
International Class 009: Power supplies; apparatus and instruments
for conducting, switching, transforming, accumulating, regulating or controlling the distribution or use of electricity, NAMELY, ________{specify type in
International Class 009 only, e.g., electrical transformers}; batteries; power ADAPTERS adaptors and power amplifiers; electrical power distribution units;
military standard power supplies; all the above goods are mainly for military and aviation use
On-line Acceptable Identification of Goods and Services Manual Information: 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.
DISCLAIMER
In this case, applicant must disclaim the wording “TECHNOLOGIES LTD.” because it is not inherently distinctive. These unregistrable term(s) at best are merely descriptive of an ingredient, quality, characteristic, function, feature, purpose, or use of applicant’s goods and/or services. See 15 U.S.C. §1052(e)(1); DuoProSS Meditech Corp. v. Inviro Med. Devices, Ltd., 695 F.3d 1247, 1251, 103 USPQ2d 1753, 1755 (Fed. Cir. 2012); TMEP §§1213, 1213.03(a).
The attached evidence shows TECHNOLOGIES means “Machinery and equipment developed from the application of scientific knowledge.” Thus, the wording merely describes applicant’s goods and/or services because applicant is an entity providing technologies for military and aviation use.
Business type designations and abbreviations such as “Corporation,” “Inc.,” “Company,” “LLC,” and “Ltd.” or family business designations such as “& Son’s” or “Bros.” must be disclaimed, because they merely indicate applicant’s business type or structure and generally have no source-indicating capacity. TMEP §1213.03(d); see, e.g., Goodyear’s India Rubber Glove Mfg. Co. v. Goodyear Rubber Co., 128 U.S. 598, 602-03 (1888); In re Piano Factory Grp., Inc., 85 USPQ2d 1522, 1526 (TTAB 2006); In re Patent & Trademark Servs., Inc., 49 USPQ2d 1537, 1539-40 (TTAB 1998).
Applicant may respond to this issue by submitting a disclaimer in the following format:
No claim is made to the exclusive right to use “TECHNOLOGIES LTD.” apart from the mark as shown.
For an overview of disclaimers and instructions on how to satisfy this issue using the Trademark Electronic Application System (TEAS), see the Disclaimer webpage.
COLOR CLAIM AND MARK DESCRIPTION REFERENCING COLOR
To clarify whether color is claimed as a feature of the mark, applicant must satisfy one of the following:
(1) If color is not a feature of the mark, applicant must submit (a) a new black-and-white drawing of the mark to replace the color drawing in the record, (b) a statement that no claim of color is made in the international registration, and (c) a description of the literal and design elements in the mark omitting any reference to color. 37 C.F.R. §2.37; TMEP §§807.07(b), 807.12(c); see TMEP §§808 et seq.
The following description is suggested, if accurate:
The mark consists of the stylized wording “ENERCON” inside an incomplete circle design, above the stylized wording “Technologies Ltd.”
(2) If color is a feature of the mark, applicant must submit a statement (a) listing all the colors claimed as a feature of the mark and (b) describing where the colors appear in the literal and design elements in the mark. 37 C.F.R. §§2.37, 2.52(b)(1); TMEP §§807.07(b), 807.12(c). Generic color names must be used to describe the colors in the mark, e.g., red, yellow, blue. TMEP §807.07(a)(i)-(ii). If black, white, and/or gray represent background, outlining, shading, and/or transparent areas and are not part of the mark, applicant must include a statement indicating that in the description. See TMEP §807.07(d), (d)(iii).
The following color claim and description are suggested, if accurate:
Color claim: “The colors black, blue and white are claimed as a feature of the mark.”
Description: “The mark consists of the following: the stylized black wording “ENERCON” inside an incomplete circle design in black, blue and white, above the stylized black wording “Technologies Ltd.”.”
RESPONSE GUIDELINES
Response guidelines. For this application to proceed further, applicant must explicitly address each refusal and/or requirement in this Office action. For a refusal, applicant may provide written arguments and evidence against the refusal, and may have other response options if specified above. For a requirement, applicant should set forth the changes or statements. Please see “Responding to Office Actions” and the informational video “Response to Office Action” for more information and tips on responding.
Applicant must be represented by a U.S.-licensed attorney at the USPTO to respond to or appeal the provisional refusal. An applicant whose domicile is located outside of the United States or its territories is foreign-domiciled and must be represented at the USPTO by an attorney who is an active member in good standing of the bar of the highest court of a U.S. state or territory. 37 C.F.R. §§2.11(a), 11.14; Requirement of U.S.-Licensed Attorney for Foreign-Domiciled Trademark Applicants & Registrants, Examination Guide 4-19, at I.A. (Rev. Sept. 2019). An individual applicant’s domicile is the place a person resides and intends to be the person’s principal home. 37 C.F.R. §2.2(o); Examination Guide 4-19, at I.A. A juristic entity’s domicile is the principal place of business; i.e., headquarters, where a juristic entity applicant’s senior executives or officers ordinarily direct and control the entity’s activities. 37 C.F.R. §2.2(o); Examination Guide 4-19, at I.A. Because applicant is foreign-domiciled, applicant must appoint such a U.S.-licensed attorney qualified to practice under 37 C.F.R. §11.14 as its representative before the application may proceed to registration. 37 C.F.R. §2.11(a). See Hiring a U.S.-licensed trademark attorney for more information.
To appoint or designate a U.S.-licensed attorney. To appoint an attorney, applicant should submit a completed Trademark Electronic Application System (TEAS) Revocation, Appointment, and/or Change of Address of Attorney/Domestic Representative form. The newly-appointed attorney must submit a TEAS Response to Examining Attorney Office Action form indicating that an appointment of attorney has been made and address all other refusals or requirements in this action, if any. Alternatively, if applicant retains an attorney before filing the response, the attorney can respond to this Office action by using the appropriate TEAS response form and provide his or her attorney information in the form and sign it as applicant’s attorney. See 37 C.F.R. §2.17(b)(1)(ii).
How to respond. Click to file a response to this nonfinal Office action
/Alison F. Pollack/
Alison F. Pollack
Trademark Examining Attorney
Law Office 106
571-272-4592
alison.pollack@uspto.gov
RESPONSE GUIDANCE