To: | OTHREE MEDICAL CO., LTD. (mail@iphorgan.com) |
Subject: | U.S. Trademark Application Serial No. 79289579 - BIOZONE - ITO 0034 US |
Sent: | March 26, 2021 12:40:12 PM |
Sent As: | ecom101@uspto.gov |
Attachments: | Attachment - 1 Attachment - 2 Attachment - 3 Attachment - 4 Attachment - 5 Attachment - 6 Attachment - 7 Attachment - 8 Attachment - 9 Attachment - 10 Attachment - 11 Attachment - 12 Attachment - 13 Attachment - 14 Attachment - 15 Attachment - 16 Attachment - 17 Attachment - 18 Attachment - 19 Attachment - 20 Attachment - 21 Attachment - 22 Attachment - 23 Attachment - 24 Attachment - 25 Attachment - 26 Attachment - 27 Attachment - 28 Attachment - 29 Attachment - 30 Attachment - 31 Attachment - 32 Attachment - 33 Attachment - 34 Attachment - 35 Attachment - 36 Attachment - 37 Attachment - 38 Attachment - 39 Attachment - 40 |
United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO)
Office Action (Official Letter) About Applicant’s Trademark Application
U.S. Application Serial No. 79289579
Mark: BIOZONE
|
|
Correspondence Address: |
|
Applicant: OTHREE MEDICAL CO., LTD.
|
|
Reference/Docket No. ITO 0034 US
Correspondence Email Address: |
|
FINAL OFFICE ACTION
The USPTO must receive applicant’s response to this letter within six months of the issue date below or the application will be abandoned. Respond using the Trademark Electronic Application System (TEAS) and/or Electronic System for Trademark Trials and Appeals (ESTTA). A link to the appropriate TEAS response form and/or to ESTTA for an appeal appears at the end of this Office action.
Issue date: March 26, 2021
International Registration No. 1540859
This Office action is in response to applicant’s communication filed on March 5, 2021.
Requirements Satisfied
The requirements for an acceptable identification of goods, description of the mark, and representation by U.S.-licensed counsel have been satisfied.
Final Refusal -- Section 2(d) -- Likelihood of Confusion
For the reasons set forth below, the refusal under Trademark Act Section 2(d) is now made FINAL with respect to U.S. Registration No. 4289051. See 15 U.S.C. §1052(d); 37 C.F.R. §2.64(a).
Registration of the applied-for mark was initially refused because of a likelihood of confusion with the mark in U.S. Registration No. 4289051. Trademark Act Section 2(d), 15 U.S.C. §1052(d); see TMEP §§1207.01 et seq. The applicant seeks registration for the mark BIOZONE in stylized letters for “Ozonisers in the nature of ozonators,” in International Class 9. The mark in U.S. Registration No. 4289051 is BIOZONE in standard characters for “Air purifiers; Air purifying apparatus and machines; Air purifying units for Commercial use; Electric air sanitizing unit; Germicidal lamps for purifying air; Ionization apparatus for the treatment of air; Ozone sanitizers for air and water,” in International Class 11.
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 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)), aff’d per curiam, 777 F. App’x 516, 2019 BL 343921 (Fed. Cir. 2019); TMEP §1207.01(b).
The marks are virtually identical as to sound, appearance, meaning and overall commercial impression. They are both comprised of the same single term and are spelled in an identical way. Further, the marks are pronounced in an identical fashion, and similarity in sound alone may be sufficient to support a finding that the compared marks are confusingly similar. In re 1st USA Realty Prof’ls, Inc., 84 USPQ2d 1581, 1586 (TTAB 2007) (citing Krim-Ko Corp. v. Coca-Cola Bottling Co., 390 F.2d 728, 732, 156 USPQ 523, 526 (C.C.P.A. 1968)); TMEP §1207.01(b)(iv).
The applicant asserts that the marks are visually different, but because the cited registration is in standard characters, they may appear in an identical way. 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, i.e., the applied-for mark, generally will not avoid likelihood of confusion with a mark in typed or standard characters, i.e., the cited registration, because the word portion 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”). Considering that the marks are also comprised of the same single term and pronounced the same way, any perceived stylization is not sufficient to distinguish the marks.
Thus, the marks are confusingly similar.
Similarity Between Goods and Services
It is clear that the goods are related and can be used together or for similar purposes. Ozonators are designed to produce ozone to purify and disinfect air and water. This is evidenced by the attached Internet websites obtained from a Google® search: http://greenbiozone.com/en/what-is-an-ozonator/, http://www.electronicshub.org/best-ozone-generator/, and http://maxblasterusa.com/?keyword_session_id=vt~adwords|kt~ozone%20generator|mt~e|ta~415853865557&_vsrefdom=wordstream&gclid=EAIaIQobChMIj4i4oq7O7wIV5wiICR1XqQz7EAAYASAAEgJuTfD_BwE. The cited registration is for various types of air purifiers, air sanitizing units, ionization apparatus for the treatment of air and ozone sanitizers for air and water. Portions of registrant’s website at http://biozonescientific.com/uv-disinfection-technology/. It is clear from the attached evidence that both the goods of applicant and registrant may differ in form, but service similar purposes such that the consumer will likely conclude that they originate from the same source.
Applicant asserts that there is no likelihood of confusion as the goods move in different trade channels, the purchasers are sophisticated and the marks are different. The examining attorney must respectfully disagree. The similarity of the marks has been previously discussed.
The applicant states that the goods are different and are marketed and sold to different consumers. Applicant assert that its goods are used to disinfect medical equipment and reduce the risk of infection in hospitals while the cited registration is for ozone generators adapted for use in combination with HVAC installations and ice makers to purify food and water. Due to their nature, applicant also states that the goods are sold in different stores and marketed to different customers.
The examining attorney must respectfully disagree. 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)). 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)).
It is clear from the record herein that ozonators generate ozone to clean and purify and that registrant’s goods are designed to do the same. The identification in both the application and registration contain no limitations on the nature of the goods, their uses, their desired consumers or facilities where they are used, or where such goods may be obtained. Therefore, it must be presumed that they travel in the same trade channels and are used for the same purposes and applicant may not place artificial limitations on the identifications that are not reflected by the registration or application.
The applicant also asserts that there is no confusion as the purchasers are sophisticated. The examining attorney must respectfully disagree. The record contains no evidence as to the identity or class of any particular consumer, and as such there is no evidence that the purchasers actually are sophisticated. However, even if consumers of the compared goods and/or services could be considered sophisticated and discriminating, it is settled that “even sophisticated purchasers are not immune from source confusion, especially in cases such as the present one involving [virtually] identical marks and related goods [and/or services].” In re i.am.symbolic, llc, 116 USPQ2d 1406, 1413 (TTAB 2015) (citing In re Research & Trading Corp., 793 F.2d 1276, 1279, 230 USPQ 49, 50 (Fed. Cir. 1986)), aff’d, 866 F.3d 1315, 123 USPQ2d 1744 (Fed. Cir. 2017); see also In re Shell Oil Co., 992 F.2d 1204, 1208, 26 USPQ2d 1687, 1690 (Fed. Cir. 1993). The identity of the marks and the relatedness of the goods and/or services “outweigh any presumed sophisticated purchasing decision.” In re i.am.symbolic, llc, 116 USPQ2d at 1413 (citing HRL Assocs., Inc. v. Weiss Assocs., Inc., 12 USPQ2d 1819, 1823 (TTAB 1989), aff'd, 902 F.2d 1546, 14 USPQ2d 1840 (Fed. Cir. 1990)); see also Stone Lion Capital Partners, LP v. Lion Capital LLP, 746 F.3d 1317, 1325, 110 USPQ2d 1157, 1163-64 (Fed. Cir. 2014). Further, applicant links the “sophisticated purchasers” assertion to the fact that the goods move in allegedly different trade channels, but those trade channels may not be artificially limited.
Generally, the greater degree of similarity between the applied-for mark and the registered mark, the lesser the degree of similarity between the goods and/or services of the parties is required to support a finding of likelihood of confusion. In re C.H. Hanson Co., 116 USPQ2d 1351, 1353 (TTAB 2015) (citing In re Opus One Inc., 60 USPQ2d 1812, 1815 (TTAB 2001)); In re Thor Tech, Inc., 90 USPQ2d 1634, 1636 (TTAB 2009).
Lastly, 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, 1025 (Fed. Cir. 1988).
For these reasons, the refusal under Section 2(d) is maintained and made FINAL.
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 request for reconsideration of this final Office action that fully resolves all outstanding requirements and refusals and/or click to file a timely appeal to the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB) with the required filing fee(s).
/Michael P. Keating/
Trademark Attorney
Law Office 101
(571) 272-9177
Michael.Keating@uspto.gov (informal inquiries only)
RESPONSE GUIDANCE