United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO)
Office Action (Official Letter) About Applicant’s Trademark Application
|
U.S. Application Serial No. 79273475
Mark: ECOS
|
|
|
Correspondence Address: |
|
|
Applicant: SL-Technik GmbH
|
|
|
Reference/Docket No. N/A
Correspondence Email Address: |
|
NONFINAL OFFICE ACTION
International Registration No. 1501961
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).
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.
PRIOR PENDING APPLICATIONS ADVISORY
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.
SECTION 2(d) REFUSAL—LIKELIHOOD OF CONFUSION
Applicant’s mark is ECOS in standard characters for “Electric and electronic measuring, control and regulating apparatus, in particular for use with heating apparatus, water heaters, heat pumps, boilers and burners; electric/electronic regulating and control devices for heating installations; remote control apparatus for heating installations; computer software for the operation of heating installations, and software for planning and calculating heating installations and boilers” “Apparatus for heating; apparatus and installations for heating; heating apparatus, electric; biomass heating installations; wood, wood chips and pellet heating installations; pipes for heating apparatus; burners, boilers and heaters; control units [thermostatic valves] for heating installations; valves or parts of heating installations” in International Class 11. Registrant’s mark is ECOSEB in standard characters for, in relevant portion “heating, ventilating, air conditioning units, in the nature of HVAC units, and air purification unit; residential heating units for heating residential buildings; electric room heaters; electric space heaters; structural parts and fittings for all the aforesaid goods” in International Class 7.
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.
Similarity 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).
In this case, the marks are similar as the applied-for mark has merely deleted the last two letters from the registered mark. As a result, the marks remain similar in appearance as they share four out of six letters. The marks remain similar in sound as the applied-for mark is the first two syllables of the three syllable registered mark. Finally, the marks remain similar in overall commercial impression as the deletion of these two letters does not create a new meaning for the term.
As a result, the marks are similar for likelihood of confusion purposes.
Relatedness of the Goods
In the case of Applicant’s goods in International Class 11, the Application uses broad wording to describe “apparatus for heating; apparatus and installations for heating; valves o parts of heating installations”, which presumably encompasses all goods of the type described, including Registrant’s more narrow “heating, ventilating, air conditioning units, in the nature of HVAC units, and air purification unit; electric heating fan; residential heating units for heating residential buildings; electric room heaters; electric space heaters). 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.
As for Applicant’s identified goods in International Class 9, as described these goods are for use with heating apparatus and heating installations of the type identified in the registration. Where evidence shows that the goods at issue have complementary uses, and thus are often used together or otherwise purchased by the same purchasers for the same or related purposes, such goods have generally been found to be sufficiently related such that confusion would be likely if they are marketed under the same or similar marks. See In re Martin’s Famous Pastry Shoppe, Inc., 748 F.2d 1565, 1567, 223 USPQ 1289, 1290 (Fed. Cir. 1984) (holding bread and cheese to be related because they are often used in combination and noting that “[s]uch complementary use has long been recognized as a relevant consideration in determining a likelihood of confusion”); In re Toshiba Med. Sys. Corp., 91 USPQ2d 1266, 1272 (TTAB 2009) (holding medical MRI diagnostic apparatus and medical ultrasound devices to be related, based in part on the fact that such goods have complementary purposes because they may be used by the same medical personnel on the same patients to treat the same disease).
Further, the attached evidence from Rheem, Carrier, and Lennox establishes that a single source often provides both goods of the type identified in the Application alongside the HVAC units identified in the registration under a common source indicator and that such goods may travel in the same channels of trade to the same class of purchasers. See, e.g., In re Davey Prods. Pty Ltd., 92 USPQ2d 1198, 1202-04 (TTAB 2009); In re Toshiba Med. Sys. Corp., 91 USPQ2d 1266, 1268-69, 1271-72 (TTAB 2009). For example:
http://www.lennox.com/products/comfort-controls/thermostats
http://www.rheem.com/products/residential/thermostats_and_controls/
http://www.carrier.com/residential/en/us/products/thermostats/
As a result, the goods of Applicant and Registrant are related for likelihood of confusion purposes.
Conclusion
As Applicant’s and Registrant’s marks are similar and their goods legally identical in one case and related in the other, registration of the applied-for mark must be refused under Trademark Act Section 2(d).
COUNTRY OF ORGANIZATION OR INCORPORATION REQUIRED
If applicant is organized under the laws of a foreign province or geographical region, applicant should specify both the foreign province or geographical region and the foreign country in which the province or region is located. See TMEP §803.04. To provide this information online via the Trademark Electronic Application System (TEAS) response form, applicant must (1) locate the “Entity Type” heading and select “Other;” (2) locate the “Specify Entity Type” heading and select “Other” under the Foreign Entity option, and enter in the free-text field below both applicant’s entity type and the foreign province or geographical region of its organization (e.g., partnership of Victoria); and (3) locate the “State or Country Where Legally Organized” heading and select the appropriate foreign country (e.g., Australia) under the Non-U.S. Entity option. See id.
Applicant should note the following additional requirements.
U.S. COUNSEL REQUIRED
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).
Applicant should note the following additional requirement.
IDENTIFICATION OF GOODS AND SERVICES AMENDMENT REQUIRED
Therefore, applicant must remove the brackets from the identification and incorporate any parenthetical or bracketed information into the description of the goods and/or services.
CLASS 9
The entry “Electric and electronic measuring, control and regulating apparatus, in particular for use with heating apparatus, water heaters, heat pumps, boilers and burners” is indefinite and must be clarified because the nature of good described and how it performs the disparate features listed is unclear, in particular “water heaters” as such items are typically controlled, measured, and controlled in a manner different from the climate heating and cooling devices listed. See 37 C.F.R. §2.32(a)(6); TMEP §1402.01. If Applicant is attempting to describe what is commonly known commercially as a “thermosts”, Applicant should so specify. 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.
The entry “electric/electronic regulating and control devices for heating installations” is indefinite and must be clarified to (1) remove the ambiguous punctuation on the first two terms, and (2) specify more clearly the purpose of these goods as, in particular, what is regulated by these goods is unclear. If these goods are automatic temperature regulators, such goods are properly classified in International Class 11. 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 9 only, the class specified in the application for these goods and/or services. See TMEP §1904.02(c).
The entry “remote control of heating installations” is indefinite and must be clarified to make clear that Applicant is providing a remote control device rather than the services of remotely controlling heating installations.
The entry “computer software, in particular software for the operation of heating installations, and software for planning and calculating heating installations and boilers” is indefinite and too broad and must be clarified to specify (1) the purpose or function of the software and its content or field of use, if content- or field- specific; and (2) whether its format is downloadable, recorded, or online non-downloadable. See 37 C.F.R. §2.32(a)(6); TMEP §§1402.03(d), 1402.11(a). Downloadable and recorded goods are in International Class 9, whereas providing their temporary, online non-downloadable use is a service in International Class 42; except for non-downloadable game software provided online or for temporary use, which is classified in International Class 41. See TMEP §§1402.03(d), 1402.11(a)(xii).
The USPTO requires such specificity 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).
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 9 only, the class specified in the application for these goods and/or services. See TMEP §1904.02(c).
CLASS 11
The entries “apparatus for heating” and “apparatus and installations for heating” are indefinite and must be amended to specify the particular heating apparatus or system that Applicant is providing, e.g., space heating apparatus, floor heating apparatus, stoves being heating apparatus, etc. See 37 C.F.R. §2.32(a)(6); TMEP §1402.01.
The entry “heating apparatus, electric” is indefinite and must be clarified to specify the nature of this apparatus, e.g. electric radiators for heating buildings or electrical induction heating apparatus for heating metal workpieces.
The entry “pipes for heating apparatus” is indefinite and must be amended to specify the particular heating apparatus these pipes are designed for, such as boilers, or that they are made of metal and for central heating installations.
The entry “burners, boilers and heaters” is indefinite and must be amended to specify the particular types of these devices Applicant is providing.
The entry “valves or parts of heating installations “ is indefinite and must be amended to specify (1) whether applicant is providing one or both of these goods, (2) the particular part Applicant is providing, and(3) the type of valves, e.g., air valves for steam heating installations.
Applicant may substitute the following wording, if accurate (suggestions in bold):
Class 9: thermostats for building heating apparatus, water heaters, heat pumps, boilers, and burners; electric control devices for heating and energy management; electronic remote control devices for heating installations; downloadable computer software for operating heating installations; downloadable computer software for planning and calculating need for, yield of, and efficiency of heating installations and boilers
Class 11: stoves being heating apparatus; space heating apparatus; heating installations; electric radiators for heating buildings; biomass heating installations; wood, wood chips and pellet heating installations; pipes of metal, for central heating installations; oil and gas burners for domestic use; furnace boilers; water heaters; thermostatic valves for heating installations; thermostatic valves as parts of heating installations
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.
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.
Riso, Mark
/Mark Riso/
Trademark Examining Attorney
Law Office 108
(571)272-0167
Mark.Riso@uspto.gov
RESPONSE GUIDANCE