United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO)
Office Action (Official Letter) About Applicant’s Trademark Application
|
U.S. Application Serial No. 79279797
Mark: MIDAS
|
|
|
Correspondence Address:
|
|
|
Applicant: VICTORIA LINK LIMITED
|
|
|
Reference/Docket No. N/A
Correspondence Email Address: |
|
NONFINAL OFFICE ACTION
International Registration No. 1517181
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 that Applicant Must Address
Refusal under Section 2(d) – 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. 2829082 and 5092465. Trademark Act Section 2(d), 15 U.S.C. §1052(d); see TMEP §§1207.01 et seq. See the attached registrations.
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). Any evidence of record related to those factors need be considered; however, “not all of the DuPont factors are relevant or of similar weight in every case.” In re Guild Mortg. Co., 912 F.3d 1376, 1379, 129 USPQ2d 1160, 1162 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (quoting In re Dixie Rests., Inc., 105 F.3d 1405, 1406, 41 USPQ2d 1531, 1533 (Fed. Cir. 1997)).
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.
Applicant seeks to register the proposed mark MIDAS. The cited registrations are for the marks MIDAS and AMIDAS. These marks are quite similar in appearance, sound, and connotation, and they create confusingly similar commercial impressions.
Applicant seeks to register its mark for “Chemical additives for insecticides; chemical additives for pesticides; chemical additives for use in the manufacture of pharmaceuticals; active chemical ingredients for use in the manufacture of insecticides; active chemical ingredients for use in the manufacture of pesticides; active chemical ingredients for use in the manufacture of pharmaceuticals; active chemical ingredients for use in the manufacture of plant protection agents; catalysts for use in biochemical processes; catalysts for chemical and biochemical processes; chemicals for use in biotechnological manufacturing processes; chemicals for use in biotechnological product development; enzymes derived from biotechnological processes for use in industry; nucleic acids for scientific purposes; nucleic acids for synthetic purposes; preparations for protecting plants against pests or pathogens,” and “Scientific research and development; scientific and technological services; scientific and technological services and research and design relating thereto; scientific and technological services and research and development relating thereto; scientific and medical research and development; scientific research in the field of genetics and genetic engineering; genetic engineering services; oligonucleotide synthesis; agrochemical research and development; biological research and analysis; biological research and development; biological synthesis; biotechnological research; synthesis of active chemical ingredients for use in the manufacture of insecticides, pesticides, plant protection agents and pharmaceuticals; biological, pharmaceutical, veterinary and medical research.” Registrants’ goods are “chemicals used in the manufacture of pharmaceutical preparations,” and “Chemicals used in agriculture, horticulture and forestry except fungicides, herbicides, insecticides and parasiticides; fertilizers.” These goods and services are closely related because they all include chemicals for a wide variety of use and the applicant’s research and development services may include research and development of chemicals similar to those provided by the registrants.
In this case, the application uses broad wording to describe chemical additives and research services, which presumably encompasses all goods and/or services of the type described, including registrants’ more narrow list of chemical additives. 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 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).
Although applicant’s mark has been refused registration, applicant may respond to the refusal(s) by submitting evidence and arguments in support of registration.
Prior Pending Application
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 mark in the referenced application. 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.
Identification of Goods
The identification of goods is indefinite and must be clarified because additional detail is required. 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. 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 following substitute wording is suggested, if appropriate: (Note that proposed changes have been placed in bold type. Some items require applicant to include more complete information. These have been designated with braces{ } and/or bold type. The information in the braces is suggested as an example for applicant to follow and should not be merely “cut and pasted.”):
· Chemical additives for insecticides; chemical additives for pesticides; chemical additives for use in the manufacture of pharmaceuticals; active chemical ingredients for use in the manufacture of insecticides; active chemical ingredients for use in the manufacture of pesticides; active chemical ingredients for use in the manufacture of pharmaceuticals for treating {specify diseases or conditions}; active chemical ingredients for use in the manufacture of plant protection agents; catalysts for use in biochemical processes; catalysts for chemical and biochemical processes; chemicals for use in biotechnological manufacturing processes; chemicals for use in biotechnological product development; enzymes derived from biotechnological processes for use in industry; nucleic acids for scientific purposes, not for medical purposes; nucleic acids for synthetic purposes, not for medical purposes; preparations for protecting plants against pests or pathogens, in INT. CLASS 1.
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).
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.
Identification of Services
The identification of services is indefinite and must be clarified because additional information or detail is required. See 37 C.F.R. §2.32(a)(6); TMEP §1402.01.
The following substitute wording is suggested, if appropriate: (Note that proposed changes have been placed in bold type. Some items require applicant to include more complete information. These have been designated with braces{ } and/or bold type. The information in the braces is suggested as an example for applicant to follow and should not be merely “cut and pasted.”):
· Scientific research and development; scientific and technological services, namely, {specify type of services, e.g., scientific research, analysis, testing, etc.} in the field of {indicate field or subject matter}; scientific and technological services and research and design relating thereto, {specify type of services, e.g., scientific research, analysis, testing, etc.} in the field of {indicate field or subject matter}; scientific and technological services and research and development relating thereto, {specify type of services, e.g., scientific research, analysis, testing, etc.} in the field of {indicate field or subject matter}; scientific and medical research and development in the field of {indicate field or subject matter of the research}; scientific research in the field of genetics and genetic engineering; genetic engineering services; scientific research in the field of oligonucleotide synthesis; agrochemical research and development; biological research and analysis; Biological and chemical research services, especially in the fields of chemical and biological synthesis of compounds, in particular of biomolecules, and the purification methods of synthesized compounds, in particular biomolecules; biological research in the field of synthesis of active chemical ingredients for use in the manufacture of insecticides, pesticides, plant protection agents and pharmaceuticals; biological, pharmaceutical, veterinary and medical research, in INT. CLASS 42.
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).
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.
United States Attorney 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.
Only a U.S.-licensed attorney can take action on an application on behalf of a foreign-domiciled applicant. 37 C.F.R. §2.11(a). Accordingly, the USPTO will not communicate further with applicant about the application beyond this Office action or permit applicant to make future submissions in this application. And applicant is not authorized to make amendments to the application.
To appoint or designate a U.S.-licensed attorney. To appoint an attorney, applicant should submit a completed Trademark Electronic Application System (TEAS) Change Address or Representation 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).
Please call or email the assigned trademark examining attorney with questions about this Office action. Although an examining attorney cannot provide legal advice, the examining attorney can provide additional explanation about the refusal(s) and/or requirement(s) in this Office action. See TMEP §§705.02, 709.06.
The USPTO does not accept emails as responses to Office actions; however, emails can be used for informal communications and are included in the application record. See 37 C.F.R. §§2.62(c), 2.191; TMEP §§304.01-.02, 709.04-.05.
How to respond. Click to file a response to this nonfinal Office action.
/Curtis W. French/
Curtis W. French
Trademark Examining Attorney
Law Office 130
571-272-9472
curtis.french@uspto.gov
RESPONSE GUIDANCE