Offc Action Outgoing

United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO)

Office Action (Official Letter) About Applicant’s Trademark Application

 

 

 

NONFINAL OFFICE ACTION

 

International Registration No. 1555576

 

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 (see http://www.gov.uspto.report/trademarks-application-process/abandoned-applications for information on abandonment).  To confirm the mailing date, go to the USPTO’s Trademark Status and Document Retrieval (TSDR) database at http://tsdr.gov.uspto.report/, 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). 

 

SEARCH OF USPTO DATABASE OF MARKS

 

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:

• Email Address Required
• U.S.-Licensed Attorney Required
• Section 2(d) Refusal – Likelihood of Confusion
• Amendments to the Identification Required

 

 

Email address required

 

Applicant must provide applicant’s email address, which is a requirement for a complete application.  See 37 C.F.R. §2.32(a)(2); Mandatory Electronic Filing & Specimen Requirements, Examination Guide 1-20, at III.A. (Rev. Feb. 2020).  Applicant’s email address cannot be identical to the listed primary correspondence email address of any attorney retained to represent applicant in this application.  See Examination Guide 1-20, at III.A. 

 

 

U.S.-Licensed Attorney Required

 

Applicant must be represented by a U.S.-licensed attorney 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 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 at http://www.gov.uspto.report/trademarks-getting-started/why-hire-private-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. 

 

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 at http://teas.gov.uspto.report/wna/ccr/car.  The newly-appointed attorney must submit a TEAS Response to Examining Attorney Office Action form at http://teas.gov.uspto.report/office/roa/ 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).

 

 

Section 2(d) Refusal – Likelihood of Confusion

 

Registration of the applied-for mark is refused because of a likelihood of confusion with the mark in U.S. Registration No. 5696444.  Trademark Act Section 2(d), 15 U.S.C. §1052(d); see TMEP §§1207.01 et seq.  See the attached registration.

 

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 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 and differences in the marks.”); TMEP §1207.01. 

 

In the present case, the applied-for mark is IWAVE in standard characters for use with “Current sources, in particular inverters [electricity], frequency converters, electrical inverters for use in plasma welding; transformers, control systems for handling devices or robots, microprocessor control systems for all aforementioned goods; parts of all aforementioned goods as far as not included in other classes” in International Class 9.

                   

The registered mark is IWAVE in standard characters for use, in relevant part, with “Audio speakers; Wireless indoor and outdoor speakers; Automotive mounts specially adapted for personal electronic devices, namely, smartphones, portable music players and tablet computers; Stands specially adapted for personal electronic devices, namely, smartphones, portable music players and tablet computers; Wireless receivers and transmitters for portable media players; Battery chargers specially adapted for personal electronic devices, namely, smartphones, portable music players and tablet computers; Battery packs; Auxiliary battery packs; Electric wires and cables; Electrical connectors; Screen protectors comprised of tempered glass or plastic adapted for use with portable electronic devices” in International Class 9.

                                                                                                    

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)), aff’d per curiam, 777 F. App’x 516, 2019 BL 343921 (Fed. Cir. 2019); TMEP §1207.01(b).

 

Here, the applied-for mark and the registered mark are each IWAVE in standard characters.  These marks are identical in appearance, 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 they 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.  Id.  Therefore, the marks are confusingly similar.

 

COMPARISON OF THE GOODS

 

The goods are compared to determine whether they are similar, commercially related, or travel in the same trade channels.  See Coach Servs., Inc. v. Triumph Learning LLC, 668 F.3d 1356, 1369-71, 101 USPQ2d 1713, 1722-23 (Fed. Cir. 2012); Herbko Int’l, Inc. v. Kappa Books, Inc., 308 F.3d 1156, 1165, 64 USPQ2d 1375, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2002); TMEP §§1207.01, 1207.01(a)(vi).

 

The compared goods 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] 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).

 

Here, the applied-for mark is for use with “Current sources, in particular inverters [electricity], frequency converters, electrical inverters for use in plasma welding; transformers, control systems for handling devices or robots, microprocessor control systems for all aforementioned goods; parts of all aforementioned goods as far as not included in other classes” in International Class 9.

 

The registered mark is for use, in relevant part, with “Audio speakers; Wireless indoor and outdoor speakers; Automotive mounts specially adapted for personal electronic devices, namely, smartphones, portable music players and tablet computers; Stands specially adapted for personal electronic devices, namely, smartphones, portable music players and tablet computers; Wireless receivers and transmitters for portable media players; Battery chargers specially adapted for personal electronic devices, namely, smartphones, portable music players and tablet computers; Battery packs; Auxiliary battery packs; Electric wires and cables; Electrical connectors” in International Class 9.

 

Where the marks of the respective parties are identical, as in this case, the degree of similarity or relatedness between the goods needed to support a finding of likelihood of confusion declines.  See In re Country Oven, Inc., 2019 USPQ2d 443903, at *5 (TTAB 2019) (citing In re i.am.symbolic, llc, 116 USPQ2d 1406, 1411 (TTAB 2015), aff’d, 866 F.3d 1315, 123 USPQ2d 1744 (Fed. Cir. 2017)); TMEP §1207.01(a); see also In re Shell Oil Co., 992 F.2d 1204, 1207, 26 USPQ2d 1687, 1689 (Fed. Cir. 1993).

 

Determining likelihood of confusion is based on the description of the goods 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 uses broad wording to describe its goods, which presumably encompasses all goods of the type described, including registrant’s more narrow goods.  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).  For example, applicant’s “Current sources, in particular inverters [electricity], frequency converters, electrical inverters for use in plasma welding” may include registrant’s “Wireless receivers and transmitters for portable media players; Battery chargers specially adapted for personal electronic devices, namely, smartphones, portable music players and tablet computers; Battery packs; Auxiliary battery packs; Electric wires and cables; Electrical connectors”.  In addition, applicant’s broad wordings of “transformers, control systems for handling devices or robots, microprocessor control systems for all aforementioned goods; parts of all aforementioned goods as far as not included in other classes” may encompass registrant’s “Wireless receivers and transmitters for portable media players” and “Battery packs; Auxiliary battery packs; Electric wires and cables; Electrical connectors”.  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 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 are related.

 

The attached Internet evidence from RadioShack, APSystems, and OutBack Power establishes that the same entity commonly manufactures, produces, or provides the relevant goods and markets the goods under the same mark and that the relevant goods are sold or provided through the same trade channels and used by the same classes of consumers in the same fields of use.  Thus, applicant’s and registrant’s goods and/or services are considered related for likelihood of confusion purposes.  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).

 

The trademark examining attorney has attached evidence from the USPTO’s X-Search database consisting of third-party marks registered for use in connection with the same or similar goods as those of both applicant and registrant in this case.  This evidence shows that the goods listed therein are of a kind that may emanate from a single source under a single mark.  See In re I-Coat Co., 126 USPQ2d 1730, 1737 (TTAB 2018) (citing In re Infinity Broad. Corp., 60 USPQ2d 1214, 1217-18 (TTAB 2001); In re Albert Trostel & Sons Co.,29 USPQ2d 1783, 1785-86 (TTAB 1993); In re Mucky Duck Mustard Co., 6 USPQ2d 1467, 1470 n.6 (TTAB 1988)); TMEP §1207.01(d)(iii).  Therefore, applicant’s and registrant’s goods are related.

 

Because the marks are confusingly similar and the goods are related, there is a likelihood of confusion and registration is refused.

 

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.

 

 

Amendments to the Identification Required

 

The wording in the identification of goods is indefinite and must be clarified for the following reasons.  See 37 C.F.R. §2.32(a)(6); TMEP §1402.01. 

 

The identification of goods contains brackets.  Generally, applicants should not use parentheses and brackets in identifications in their applications so as to avoid confusion with the USPTO’s practice of using parentheses and brackets in registrations to indicate goods that have been deleted from registrations or in an affidavit of incontestability to indicate goods not claimed.  See TMEP §1402.12.  The only exception is that parenthetical information is permitted in identifications in an application if it serves to explain or translate the matter immediately preceding the parenthetical phrase in such a way that it does not affect the clarity or scope of the identification, e.g., “fried tofu pieces (abura-age).”  Id. 

 

Therefore, applicant must remove the brackets from the identification and incorporate any parenthetical or bracketed information into the description of the goods.

 

The wording “control systems for handling devices or robots” in the identification of goods is indefinite and must be clarified as set forth below.  See 37 C.F.R. §2.32(a)(6); TMEP §1402.01.

 

The electronic nature of the control system in International Class 9 should be specified.  Applicant must also clarify the systems by (1) describing the nature, purpose, or use of the system; and (2) listing the system’s parts or components, using common generic terms and referencing the primary parts or components of the system first.  See 37 C.F.R. §2.32(a)(6); TMEP §§1401.05(d), 1402.01, 1402.03(a).  Additionally, this wording should be classified in the same international class as the primary parts or components of the system.  See TMEP §1401.05(d).  See the bold text below for acceptable options for amendments. 

 

In the identification of goods, applicant must use the common commercial or generic names for the goods, be as complete and specific as possible, and avoid the use of indefinite words and phrases.  TMEP §1402.03(a); see 37 C.F.R. §2.32(a)(6).  If applicant uses indefinite words such as “apparatus,” “components,” “devices,” “materials,” or “parts,” such wording must be followed by “namely,” and a list of each specific product identified by its common commercial or generic name.  See TMEP §§1401.05(d), 1402.03(a).

 

As such, the wording “devices” is indefinite and should be clarified by listing the common commercial or generic names for the devices and/or noting that the devices are all types of machines controlled by the electronic control system.  See the bold text below for acceptable options for amendments. 

 

Applicant has included the term “or” in the identification of goods.  However, this term is generally not accepted in identifications when (1) it is unclear whether applicant is using the mark, or intends to use the mark, on all the identified goods; (2) the nature of the goods is unclear; or (3) classification cannot be determined from such wording.  See TMEP §1402.03(a).  In this case, it is unclear whether applicant is using the mark, or intends to use the mark, on all the identified goods.

 

An application must specify, in an explicit manner, the particular goods on or in connection with which the applicant uses, or has a bona fide intention to use, the mark in commerce.  See 15 U.S.C. §1051(a)(2), (b)(2); 37 C.F.R. §2.32(a)(6); TMEP §1402.01.  Therefore, applicant should replace “and/or” or “or” with “and” in the identification of goods, if appropriate, or rewrite the identification with the “and/or” or “or” deleted and the goods specified using definite and unambiguous language. 

 

The wording “microprocessor control systems for all aforementioned goods” in the identification of goods is indefinite and must be clarified because the wordings “microprocessor control systems” and also “for all aforementioned goods” are each indefinite.  See 37 C.F.R. §2.32(a)(6); TMEP §1402.01.

 

Applicant must clarify the systems by (1) describing the nature, purpose, or use of the system; and (2) listing the system’s parts or components, using common generic terms and referencing the primary parts or components of the system first.  See 37 C.F.R. §2.32(a)(6); TMEP §§1401.05(d), 1402.01, 1402.03(a).  Additionally, this wording should be classified in the same international class as the primary parts or components of the system.  See TMEP §1401.05(d).  See the bold text below for acceptable options for amendments. 

 

Additionally, the wording “for all aforementioned goods” should be amended to state the common generic terms of the aforementioned goods of which the microprocessor control systems are for. 

 

The wording “parts of all aforementioned goods as far as not included in other classes” in the identification of goods is indefinite and must be clarified to specify the common commercial or generic name(s) of the parts, as discussed above, and/or to list the common commercial or generic name(s) of the definite goods in International Class 9 of which the parts are of, such as the inverters and transformers in the identification.  See 37 C.F.R. §2.32(a)(6); TMEP §1402.01.  See the bold text below for acceptable options for amendments. 

 

Applicant may amend the identification to clarify or limit the goods, but not to broaden or expand the goods 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 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 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 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 in trademark applications, please see the USPTO’s online searchable U.S. Acceptable Identification of Goods and Services Manual.  See TMEP §1402.04.

 

Applicant may substitute the following wording, if accurate:

 

International Class 9:  Current sources, in particular electricity inverters [electricity], frequency converters, electrical inverters for use in plasma welding; transformers, electronic control systems composed of electronic controllers for handling devices in the nature of machines and or robots, microprocessor control systems composed of microprocessors and integrated transmitters and receivers for all aforementioned goods electricity inverters, frequency converters and transformers; parts of all aforementioned goods electricity inverters, frequency converters and transformers as far as not included in other classes

 

 

RESPONSE GUIDELINES

 

For this application to proceed, applicant must explicitly address each refusal and 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 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.    

 

/Rebecca T. Caysido/

Trademark Examining Attorney

Law Office 123

571-270-0926

Rebecca.Caysido@uspto.gov

 

 

RESPONSE GUIDANCE

• Missing the response deadline to this letter will cause the application to abandon.  A response or notice of appeal must be received by the USPTO before midnight Eastern Time of the last day of the response period.  TEAS and ESTTA maintenance or unforeseen circumstances could affect an applicant’s ability to timely respond.  

 

• Responses signed by an unauthorized party are not accepted and can cause the application to abandon.  If applicant does not have an attorney, the response must be signed by the individual applicant, all joint applicants, or someone with legal authority to bind a juristic applicant.  If applicant has an attorney, the response must be signed by the attorney.

 

• If needed, find contact information for the supervisor of the office or unit listed in the signature block.