United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO)
Office Action (Official Letter) About Applicant’s Trademark Application
|
U.S. Application Serial No. 79299205
Mark: PETAL
|
|
|
Correspondence Address: |
|
|
Applicant: HUAWEI TECHNOLOGIES CO., LTD.
|
|
|
Reference/Docket No. N/A
Correspondence Email Address: |
|
NONFINAL OFFICE ACTION
International Registration No. 1563474
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).
SUMMARY OF ISSUES:
SECTION 2(d) REFUSAL – LIKELIHOOD OF CONFUSION – PARTIAL
The following refusal is limited to the following goods and services: “computer programs, recorded; computer software, recorded,” in International Class 009 and “platform as a service [PaaS]; software as a service [SaaS]; cloud computing,” in International Class 042.
Registration of the applied-for mark is refused because of a likelihood of confusion with the marks in U.S. Registration Nos. 4708916, 5724235, 6156683, and 6128205. Trademark Act Section 2(d), 15 U.S.C. §1052(d); see TMEP §§1207.01 et seq. See the attached registrations.
Applicant’s mark is PETAL for, in relevant part, “computer programs, recorded; computer software, recorded,” in International Class 009 and “platform as a service [PaaS]; software as a service [SaaS]; cloud computing,” in International Class 042.
The mark in Registration No. 4708916 is PETALZ for “Interactive game software; Electronic game program; Downloadable software in the nature of a mobile application for designing, breeding, creating, growing, arranging, distributing, and selling flowers; Computer application software for use on personal computers, wireless devices, mobile phones, portable media players, and cellular phones, namely, software for social networking game play; Computer game software downloadable from a global computer network and wireless network; Downloadable computer programs for creating and modifying game piece images for display, sale, and delivery via the Internet” in International Class 009.
The mark in Registration No. 4708916 is PÈTALE for “control apparatus and computer software programs for controlling and operating lighting apparatus and lighting systems; mobile applications for controlling and operating lighting systems” in International Class 009.
The mark in Registration No. 6156683 is PETALO for “Providing temporary use of non-downloadable cloud- based software for facilitating and integrating communication with clients for senior care providers” in International Class 042.
The mark in Registration No. 6128205 is PETAL MD and design for “Downloadable cloud-based software for nurses, healthcare professionals, administrative employees, hospitals and clinics for use in healthcare staff tracking, physician scheduling and patient booking; Downloadable cloud-based software for nurses, healthcare professionals, administrative employees, hospitals and clinics to manage the medical billing to insurers both private and public; Downloadable cloud-based software for nurses, healthcare professionals, administrative employees, hospitals and clinics for use in scheduling, patient booking, secure messaging, event management, meeting requests, information exchange, creating calendars and libraries, providing secure messaging and posting capabilities, publication of training content” in International Class 009 and “Consulting services dedicated to supporting healthcare professional groups through the implementation and the deployment of web-based software relating to group collaboration and productivity tools; Consulting services dedicated to supporting healthcare professional groups through the implementation and the deployment of web-based software for improving exchanges between healthcare professionals and organizations namely, for scheduling, patient booking, product placement, messaging, customer relationship management, event management, meeting requests, information exchange and publication of training content; Cloud computing featuring software for nurses, healthcare professionals, administrative employees, hospitals and medical clinics for use in group collaboration and providing productivity tools in the nature of calendars, libraries, secure messaging and posting capabilities; Cloud computing featuring software for healthcare providers, physicians, medical clinics and hospitals to manage medical billing to insurers both private and public; Cloud computing featuring software for improving exchanges between healthcare professionals and organizations, namely, for scheduling, patient booking, secure messaging, event management, meeting requests, information exchange, creating calendars and libraries, providing messaging and posting capabilities and publication of training content” in International Class 042.
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.
In the present case, the following du Pont factors are the most relevant: similarity of the marks, similarity and nature of the goods and/or services, and similarity of the trade channels of the goods and/or services. See In re Viterra Inc., 671 F.3d 1358, 1361-62, 101 USPQ2d 1905, 1908 (Fed. Cir. 2012); TMEP §§1207.01 et seq.
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).
4708916, PETALZ
In the present case, applicant’s mark, PETAL, and the mark in Registration No. 4708916, PETALZ, are highly similar in appearance, sound, and commercial impression. Specifically, both marks contain the highly similar term PETAL(Z). This term is highly similar in appearance and pronunciation with the only difference being that the registered mark appears in plural form with a Z in place of an S.
The fact that the term PETALZ is plural does not obviate confusion. The TTAB has commonly held that plural and singular terms are highly similar. Swiss Grill Ltd., v. Wolf Steel Ltd., 115 USPQ2d 2001, 2011 n.17 (TTAB 2015) (holding “it is obvious that the virtually identical marks [ the singular and plural of SWISS GRILL] are confusingly similar”); Weider Publ’ns, LLC v. D & D Beauty Care Co., 109 USPQ2d 1347, 1355 (TTAB 2014) (finding the singular and plural forms of SHAPE to be essentially the same mark) (citing Wilson v. Delaunay, 245 F.2d 877, 878, 114 USPQ 339, 341 (C.C.P.A. 1957) (finding no material difference between the singular and plural forms of ZOMBIE such that the marks were considered the same mark).
5724235, PÈTALE
In the present case, applicant’s mark, PETAL, and the mark in Registration No. 5724235, PÈTALE, are highly similar in appearance, sound, and commercial impression. Specifically, the English translation of the registered mark is PETAL. Under the doctrine of foreign equivalents, a mark in a common, modern foreign language and a mark that is its English equivalent may be held confusingly similar. TMEP §1207.01(b)(vi); see, e.g., In re Aquamar, Inc., 115 USPQ2d 1122, 1127-28 (TTAB 2015); In re Thomas, 79 USPQ2d 1021, 1025 (TTAB 2006). Consequently, marks comprised of foreign wording are translated into English to determine similarity in meaning and connotation with English word marks. See Palm Bay Imps., Inc. v. Veuve Clicquot Ponsardin Maison Fondee en 1772, 396 F.3d 1369, 1377, 73 USPQ2d 1689, 1696 (Fed. Cir. 2005). Equivalence in meaning and connotation may be sufficient to find such marks confusingly similar. See In re Aquamar, Inc., 115 USPQ2d at 1127-28; In re Thomas, 79 USPQ2d at 1025.
The registrant’s mark is in French, which is a common, modern language in the United States. See In re Optica Int’l, 196 USPQ 775 (TTAB 1977). The doctrine is applied when “the ordinary American purchaser” would “stop and translate” the foreign term into its English equivalent. Palm Bay, 396 F.3d at 1377, 73 USPQ2d at 1696 (quoting In re Pan Tex Hotel Corp., 190 USPQ 109, 110 (TTAB 1976)); TMEP §1207.01(b) (vi)(A). The ordinary American purchaser includes those proficient in the foreign language. In re Spirits Int’l, N.V., 563 F.3d 1347, 1352, 90 USPQ2d 1489, 1492 (Fed. Cir. 2009); see In re Thomas, 79 USPQ2d at 1024. In this case, the ordinary American purchaser would likely stop and translate the mark because the French language is a common, modern language spoken by an appreciable number of consumers in the United States.
6156683, PETALO
In the present case, applicant’s mark, PETAL, and the mark in Registration No. 6156683, PETALO, are highly similar in appearance, sound, and commercial impression. Specifically, the English translation of the registered mark is PETAL. Under the doctrine of foreign equivalents, a mark in a common, modern foreign language and a mark that is its English equivalent may be held confusingly similar. TMEP §1207.01(b)(vi); see, e.g., In re Aquamar, Inc., 115 USPQ2d 1122, 1127-28 (TTAB 2015); In re Thomas, 79 USPQ2d 1021, 1025 (TTAB 2006). Consequently, marks comprised of foreign wording are translated into English to determine similarity in meaning and connotation with English word marks. See Palm Bay Imps., Inc. v. Veuve Clicquot Ponsardin Maison Fondee en 1772, 396 F.3d 1369, 1377, 73 USPQ2d 1689, 1696 (Fed. Cir. 2005). Equivalence in meaning and connotation may be sufficient to find such marks confusingly similar. See In re Aquamar, Inc., 115 USPQ2d at 1127-28; In re Thomas, 79 USPQ2d at 1025.
The registrant’s mark is in Spanish, which is a common, modern language in the United States. See Ricardo Media, Inc. v. Inventive Software, LLC, 2019 USPQ2d 311355 (TTAB 2019) (Spanish). The doctrine is applied when “the ordinary American purchaser” would “stop and translate” the foreign term into its English equivalent. Palm Bay, 396 F.3d at 1377, 73 USPQ2d at 1696 (quoting In re Pan Tex Hotel Corp., 190 USPQ 109, 110 (TTAB 1976)); TMEP §1207.01(b)(vi)(A). The ordinary American purchaser includes those proficient in the foreign language. In re Spirits Int’l, N.V., 563 F.3d 1347, 1352, 90 USPQ2d 1489, 1492 (Fed. Cir. 2009); see In re Thomas, 79 USPQ2d at 1024. In this case, the ordinary American purchaser would likely stop and translate the mark because the Spanish language is a common, modern language spoken by an appreciable number of consumers in the United States.
6128205, PETAL MD and design
In the present case, applicant’s mark, PETAL, and the mark in Registration No. 4708916, PETAL MD and design, are highly similar in appearance, sound, and commercial impression. Specifically, both marks contain PETAL. In the registered mark the “MD” stands for medical, and is descriptive and disclaimed.
PETAL is first in the marks. Consumers are generally more inclined to focus on the first word, prefix, or syllable in any trademark or service mark. See Palm Bay Imps., Inc. v. Veuve Clicquot Ponsardin Maison Fondee En 1772, 396 F.3d 1369, 1372, 73 USPQ2d 1689, 1692 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (finding similarity between VEUVE ROYALE and two VEUVE CLICQUOT marks in part because “VEUVE . . . remains a ‘prominent feature’ as the first word in the mark and the first word to appear on the label”).
Concerning the design in the registered mark, 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)).
For these reasons, applicant’s and registrants’ marks are confusingly similar.
COMPARISON OF GOODS/SERVICES
The goods and services 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 and services 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 and/or services] 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).
Determining likelihood of confusion is based on the description of the goods and 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 uses broad wording to describe “computer programs, recorded; computer software, recorded,” and “platform as a service [PaaS]; software as a service [SaaS]; cloud computing,” which fail to specify the function of the provided software goods and services. As such, the identifications presumably encompasses all possible software goods and services, including the more narrow software goods of the registrants. 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). Once the applicant properly amends the identification of goods and services to specify the function of the provided software, this refusal may be obviated pending review of the function of the applicant’s software goods and services.
Additionally, the goods and 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 registrants’ respective goods and services are related.
In sum, the key elements of the parties’ marks are highly similar and the goods and/or services are related and likely to be encountered together in the marketplace. For these reasons, consumers are likely to mistakenly believe that applicant’s and registrant’s respective goods and/or services emanate from a common source or are connected in some way. Accordingly, registration is refused under Section 2(d) of the Trademark Act.
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.
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/SERVICES REQUIREMENT
The identification of goods and services contains indefinite wording that requires clarification, as outlined below.
The identification of goods and services contains parentheses and 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 and/or services that have been deleted from registrations or in an affidavit of incontestability to indicate goods and/or services 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 parentheses and brackets from the identification and incorporate any parenthetical or bracketed information into the description of the goods and services.
The wording “network communication equipment,” “telecommunication apparatus in the form of jewellery,” “face recognition device,” in the identification of goods is indefinite and must be clarified because the nature of the goods is not clear. See 37 C.F.R. §2.32(a)(6); TMEP §1402.01. Applicant must amend this wording to specify the common commercial or generic name of the goods in Class 009. See TMEP §1402.01.
The identification for “computer programs, recorded,” and “computer software, recorded,” in International Class 009 is indefinite and must be clarified to specify the purpose or function of the software and its content or field of use, if content- or field- specific. See 37 C.F.R. §2.32(a)(6); TMEP §§1402.03(d), 1402.11(a). 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).
The wording “television apparatus” in the identification of goods in International Class 009 is indefinite and too broad. This wording must be clarified because it is not clear what the goods are and could identify goods 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). For example, “television apparatus for projection purposes,” are in International Class 009 and “television studio lighting apparatus,” are in International Class 011. In an application filed under Trademark Act Section 66(a), an applicant may not change the classification of goods 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 may be classified in several international classes, any modification to this wording must identify goods in International Class 009 only, the class specified in the application for these goods. See TMEP §1904.02(c), (c)(ii).
The wording “headsets” in the identification of goods in International Class 009 is indefinite and too broad. This wording must be clarified because it is not clear what the goods are and could identify goods 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). For example, “telephone headsets,” are in International Class 009 and “gaming headsets adapted for use in playing video games,” are in International Class 028. In an application filed under Trademark Act Section 66(a), an applicant may not change the classification of goods 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 may be classified in several international classes, any modification to this wording must identify goods in International Class 009 only, the class specified in the application for these goods. See TMEP §1904.02(c), (c)(ii).
The identification for “Platform as a services,” and “Software as a service,” in International Class 042 is indefinite and must be clarified to specify the purpose or function of the software and its content or field of use, if content- or field- specific. See 37 C.F.R. §2.32(a)(6); TMEP §§1402.03 (d), 1402.11(a). 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).
The wording “quality system certification,” “technological research,” and “quality inspection services of products,” in the identification of services is indefinite and must be clarified because the nature of the services is not clear. See 37 C.F.R. §2.32(a)(6); TMEP §1402.01. Applicant must amend this wording to specify the common commercial or generic name of the services in Class 042. See TMEP §1402.01.
Applicant should also note the additional necessary specifications included in the suggested identification below.
Applicant may adopt the following wording, if accurate (suggested edits in bold):
Class 009: Set-top boxes; Camcorders; Smartphones; Tablet computers; Video screens; Computer servers; Network communication equipment, namely, [applicant to specify goods in Class 009, e.g. transceivers, etc.]; Batteries, electric; Integrated circuits; Graphics Processor Units (GPUs); Processors being central processing units; Integrated circuit chips; Recorded computer [applicant to specify the function of the program, e.g. search engine, etc.] programs; Computer operating programs, recorded; Recorded computer [ applicant to specify the function of the program, e.g. search engine, etc.] software; Laptop computers; Data processing apparatus; Computer hardware; Humanoid robots with artificial intelligence; Data processing apparatus being smartglasses; Data processing apparatus being smartwatches; Telecommunication apparatus in the nature of [applicant to specify type of apparatus in Class 009, e.g. wireless receivers, etc.] in the form of jewelry; Face recognition device, namely, [applicant to specify goods in Class 009, e.g. iris recognition security devices, etc.]; Wearable activity trackers; Loudspeakers; Television apparatus, namely, [applicant to specify type of apparatus in Class 009, e.g. satellite television receiving apparatus, television apparatus for projection purposes, etc.]; Headsets, namely, [applicant to specify type of headset in Class 009, e.g. telephone headsets, etc.]; Virtual reality headsets; Wearable video display monitors
Class 042: Providing search engines for interconnected computer networks; Providing search engines for the Internet; Providing information relating to computer technology and programming via a web site; Platform as a service (PAAS) featuring computer [ applicant to specify the function of the software platform, e.g. search engine, etc.] software platforms; Software as a service (SAAS) services featuring computer [applicant to specify the function of the software, e.g. search engine, etc.] software; Cloud computing featuring [applicant to specify the function of the software, e.g. search engine, etc.] software; Updating and maintenance of computer software; Computer software research and development; Design and development of computer software; Electronic data storage; Quality system certification, namely, [applicant to specify services in Class 042, e.g. testing, analysis and evaluation of the goods and services of others to determine conformity with quality certification standards, etc.]; Technological research in the field of [applicant to specify field, computer hardware systems, etc.]; Telecommunications technology consultancy; Quality inspection services of products, namely, [applicant to specify services in Class 042, e.g. inspection of computers for quality control purposes, etc.]
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). 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 and/or services 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 and/or services 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 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.
DRAWING AND DESCRIPTION OF THE MARK REQUIREMENT
The drawing of the mark in the Section 66(a) application appears to be in standard characters (i.e., text only with no particular font style, size, or color). However, the application does not appear to include the required claim of standard characters and will be treated as a special form drawing only. See TMEP §807.03(h). Any registration issuing from this application will thus be limited to the particular appearance and text style shown in the drawing. See TMEP §§807.04 et seq.
A mark registered in standard characters, however, would provide protection of a text mark in any lettering style, size, and color. See 37 C.F.R. §2.52(a); TMEP §807.03(a). A mark in the international registration and corresponding U.S. application may meet the USPTO’s requirements for a standard character drawing even though no claim to standard characters was included in the application. TMEP §807.03(h). The absence of a standard character claim could be due to the differences in requirements for such claims in different countries. Id.
If applicant seeks to register the mark in standard characters in the United States, applicant must submit the following two statements:
(1) Under the laws of the country of the basic application and/or registration, the basic application and/or registration includes, and thus the international registration includes, the legal equivalent of a standard character claim.
(2) The mark consists of standard characters without claim to any particular font style, size, or color.
See 37 C.F.R. §2.52(a); TMEP §807.03(a), (h).
If applicant does not provide these two statements, the USPTO will consider the mark drawing to be in special form. See TMEP §807.03(h).
Additionally, if the applicant does not seek to register the mark in standard character form, the applicant will need to provide a description of the mark. 37 C.F.R. §2.37; see TMEP §§808.01, 808.02. Applications for marks not in standard characters must include an accurate and concise description of the entire mark that identifies all the literal and design elements. See 37 C.F.R. §2.37; TMEP §§808 et seq.
The following description is suggested, if accurate:
The mark consists of the stylized wording “PETAL”.
US COUNSEL REQUIREMENT
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).
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.
RESPONSE GUIDELINES
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.
/Carol Spils/
Trademark Examining Attorney
Law Office 104
(571)272-9226
carol.spils@uspto.gov
RESPONSE GUIDANCE