United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO)
Office Action (Official Letter) About Applicant’s Trademark Application
|
U.S. Application Serial No. 79329658
Mark: BOHLE
|
|
|
Correspondence Address: |
|
|
Applicant: Bohle AG
|
|
|
Reference/Docket No. N/A
Correspondence Email Address: |
|
NONFINAL OFFICE ACTION
International Registration No. 1635692
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).
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.
SUMMARY OF ISSUES
LIKELIHOOD OF CONFUSION
The stated refusal refers to the following goods and does not bar registration for the other goods: “washing apparatus.”
(1) Deleting the goods to which the refusal pertains;
(2) Filing a Request to Divide Application form (form #3) to divide out the goods and classes that have not been refused registration, so that the mark may proceed toward publication for those goods and classes to which the refusal does not pertain. See 37 C.F.R. §2.87. See generally TMEP §§1110 et seq. (regarding the requirements for filing a request to divide). If applicant files a request to divide, then to avoid abandonment, applicant must also file a timely response to all outstanding issues in this Office action, including the refusal. 37 C.F.R. §2.87(e).; or
(3) Amending the basis for the goods identified in the refusal, if appropriate. TMEP §806.03(h). (The basis cannot be changed for applications filed under Trademark Act Section 66(a). TMEP §1904.01(a).)
Registration of the applied-for mark is refused because of a likelihood of confusion with the mark in U.S. Registration No. 3382159. 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 so resembles a registered mark that it is likely a consumer would be confused, mistaken, or deceived as to the source of the goods of the applicant and registrant(s). See 15 U.S.C. §1052(d). Determining likelihood of confusion is made 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). In re i.am.symbolic, llc, 866 F.3d 1315, 1322, 123 USPQ2d 1744, 1747 (Fed. Cir. 2017). However, “[n]ot all of the [du Pont] factors are relevant to every case, and only factors of significance to the particular mark need be considered.” Coach Servs., Inc. v. Triumph Learning LLC, 668 F.3d 1356, 1366, 101 USPQ2d 1713, 1719 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (quoting In re Mighty Leaf Tea, 601. F.3d 1342, 1346, 94 USPQ2d 1257, 1259 (Fed. Cir 2010)). The USPTO may focus its analysis “on dispositive factors, such as similarity of the marks and relatedness of the goods [and/or services].” 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)); see TMEP §1207.01.
In this case, the following factors are the most relevant: similarity of the marks, similarity and nature of the goods, and similarity of the trade channels of the goods. See In re Viterra Inc., 671 F.3d 1358, 1361-62, 101 USPQ2d 1905, 1908 (Fed. Cir. 2012); In re Dakin’s Miniatures Inc., 59 USPQ2d 1593, 1595-96 (TTAB 1999); TMEP §§1207.01 et seq.
Comparing 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).
Applicant has applied to register the mark “BOHLE” and design. The registered mark is “BOHLE” and design. The marks contain the wording “BOHLE”. In this respect, the applicant’s mark and that of the registrant are highly similar.
In a particular case, “two marks may be found to be confusingly similar if there are sufficient similarities in terms of sound or visual appearance or connotation.” Kabushiki Kaisha Hattori Seiko v. Satellite Int’l, Ltd., 29 USPQ2d 1317, 1318 (TTAB 1991), aff’d mem., 979 F.2d 216 (Fed. Cir. 1992) (citation omitted). See also Eveready Battery Co. v. Green Planet Inc., 91 USPQ2d 1511, 1519 (TTAB 2009) (citing Krim-Ko Corp. v. Coca-Cola Co., 390 F.2d 728, 156 USPQ 523, 526 (CCPA 1968) (“It is sufficient if the similarity in either form, spelling or sound alone is likely to cause confusion.”)).
While both marks include a design element, 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)).
In this case, the literal portion of the marks are identical, being “BOHLE”.
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., 901 F.3d 1367, 1373, 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 (C.C.P.A. 1971)), aff’d per curiam, 777 F. App’x 516, 2019 BL 343921 (Fed. Cir. 2019); TMEP §1207.01(b).
Comparing the Goods
The goods of the parties 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) (“[E]ven if the goods in question are different from, and thus not related to, one another in kind, the same goods can be related in the mind of the consuming public as to the origin of the goods.”); TMEP §1207.01(a)(i).
The respective goods need only be “related in some manner and/or if the circumstances surrounding their marketing [be] 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)); Gen. Mills Inc. v. Fage Dairy Processing Indus. SA, 100 USPQ2d 1584, 1597 (TTAB 2011); TMEP §1207.01(a)(i).
The applicant’s goods include “washing apparatus.” The goods named in the registration include “washing machines for industrial parts.” Both marks are used to identify washing apparatus. The same consumers will be exposed to the goods identified with both marks. The similarities among the marks and the goods of the parties are so great as to create a likelihood of confusion.
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)).
In this case, the application use broad wording to describe “washing apparatus,” which presumably encompasses all goods of the type described, including registrant’s more narrow “washing machines for industrial parts.” 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 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.
Conclusion
The overriding concern is not only to prevent buyer confusion as to the source of the goods, 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).
Accordingly, in view of the highly similar nature of the goods of the parties and the strong similarity of the marks and their commercial impressions, confusion as to the source of the goods is likely under Section 2(d) of the Trademark Act.
Response
Although the trademark examining attorney has refused registration, applicant may respond to the refusal to register by submitting evidence and arguments in support of registration. If the applicant chooses to respond to the refusal to register, the applicant must also respond to the following informalities.
The English translation of “BOHLE” in the mark is “PLANK”.
TMEP §809.03. See attached translation evidence.
ENTITY & COUNTRY OF INCORPORATION OMITTED
Acceptable legal entity types include an individual, a partnership, a corporation, a joint venture, or the foreign equivalent. See TMEP §§803.03 et seq. If applicant’s legal entity type is an individual, applicant must so specify and provide his or her national citizenship. 37 C.F.R. §2.32(a)(3)(i); TMEP §803.03(a). If applicant is a corporation, association, partnership, joint venture, or the foreign equivalent, applicant must so specify and provide the foreign country under whose laws applicant is organized or incorporated. 37 C.F.R. §2.32(a)(3)(ii); TMEP §803.03(b)-(c). For an association, applicant must also specify whether the association is incorporated or unincorporated, unless the foreign country and the designation or description “association/associazione” appear in Appendix D of the Trademark Manual of Examining Procedure (TMEP). TMEP §803.03(c). 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.
IDENTIFICATION OF GOODS INDEFINITE AND TOO BROAD
The wording in the identification of goods is indefinite and too broad, as set forth below. 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).
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 the wording must identify goods their respective classes only, the classes specified in the application for these goods. See TMEP §1904.02(c), (c)(ii).
The identification of goods contains parentheses and brackets. Generally, an applicant should not use parentheses and brackets, including curly brackets, in identifications in order to avoid confusion with the USPTO’s practice of using parentheses and brackets in registrations to indicate (1) goods and/or services that have been deleted from registrations, (2) goods and/or services not claimed in an affidavit of incontestability, or (3) guidance to users of the USPTO’s U.S. Acceptable Identification of Goods and Services Manual to draft an acceptable identification. See TMEP §§1402.04, 1402.12. The only exception for including parenthetical information in identifications is 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).” See TMEP §1402.12.
Therefore, applicant must remove the parentheses and brackets from the identification and incorporate any parenthetical or bracketed information into the description of the goods.
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.
001
The wording “cement for mending broken articles, in particular articles of glass” is indefinite and too broad. For example, this could include contact cement for industrial purposes in 001 and adhesive cement for hobbyists” in 016. Additionally, anti-tarnishing preparations as coatings are in 002, while anti-tarnishing chemicals are in 001. As noted above, applicant must amend the wording to specify goods in 001 only.
Applicant may adopt the following wording in International Class 001, if accurate:
“Adhesives used in industry, in particular adhesives for the glass industry, and for glueing glass; contact cement for mending broken articles, for industrial purposes, in particular articles of glass; silicones, in particular aquarium silicone, chemicals for preventing the tarnishing of glass.”
003
The wording “soap” is indefinite and too broad. Non-medicated soaps are in 003, while medicated soaps are in 005. As noted above, applicant must amend the wording to specify goods in 003 only.
Applicant may adopt the following wording in International Class 003, if accurate:
“Cleaning, polishing, scouring and abrasive preparations; cleaning preparations; glass cleaning preparations; non-medicated soaps; bleaching preparations and other substances for laundry use.”
004
The wording “lubricants” is indefinite and too broad. Industrial lubricants and lubricating oils and greases are in 004 while personal lubricants are in 005. Additionally, “dust controlling compositions” could include “dust suppressing chemicals for use on grain in 001 and dust-binding compositions in 004. As noted above, applicant must amend the wording to specify goods in 004 only.
Industrial oils and greases, wax; lubricants; dust controlling compositions; cutting fluids.
Applicant may adopt the following wording in International Class 004 only, if accurate:
“Industrial oils and greases, wax; industrial lubricants; dust-binding compositions; cutting fluids.”
006
Applicant must amend the identification to remove parentheses as specified above. Applicant must specify the nature of the metallic mountings. Applicant must also specify the common commercial name of “fastening material,” “lead profiles,” and “building materials of metal,” within 006.
For “ironmongery, small items of metal hardware” applicant must clarify the common commercial name of the ironmongery goods and small items. Applicant must also specify and list out the common commercial name of the “goods of common metal included in this class.”
As noted above, applicant must amend the wording to specify goods in 006 only.
Applicant may adopt the following wording in International Class 006 only, if accurate:
“Hinges of metal; strap hinges of metal, in particular for glass doors, doors for showcases and shower cubicle doors; metallic mounting brackets for general use; pegs of metal; wall plugs of metal, self-adhesive metal sheets; magnetic fastening material, namely,______(specify common commercial name of goods within 006); mirror mountings of metal for use with magnetic fastenings; small items of hardware, mainly of metal, for attaching objects to surfaces; lead profiles, namely,_____(specify common commercial name of goods within 006); buildings, transportable, of metal; non-electric cables and wires of common metal; common metals and their alloys; building materials of metal, namely,_____(specify common commercial name of goods within 006); ironmongery, in the nature of small items of metal hardware, namely,____(specify common commercial name of goods within 006); goods of common metal included in this class, namely,_____(list out common commercial name of goods within 006); metal tool boxes.”
007
Applicant must specify the nature and/or common commercial name of the washing apparatus, within 007. The wording “machines and apparatus for polishing [electric]” is indefinite and too broad. “Tooth polishing apparatus for home use” is in 021, while “electric floor polishing machines and apparatus” are in 007. Additionally, applicant must delete the brackets as stated above.
As noted above, applicant must amend the wording to specify goods in 007 only.
Applicant may adopt the following wording in International Class 007 only, if accurate:
“Washing apparatus, namely,_____(specify nature and/or common commercial name of goods within 007); Electric machines and apparatus for polishing____(specify purpose of use within 007); machines for washing glasses; glass-working machines; tables for machines; laminating machines; glass cutting apparatus and machines, glass round-cutting machines, circular and elliptical cutting apparatus, strip cutting and trapezoidal cutting apparatus, segmented glass drills, edge grinding machines, grinding machines, cutting machines, glass cutters and glass hammers, being parts of machines.”
008
Applicant must specify the common commercial name of the hand tools and hand-operated implements, and remove the brackets as noted above. Applicant must also specify the nature of the “cutlery,” as “surgical cutlery” is in 010 while “table cutlery” is in 008.
Applicant must indicate “glaziers' angles and cutting rules being auxiliary cutting devices, circle and ellipse cutting instruments and parts for the aforesaid goods” to be “hand tools,” in 008.
As noted above, applicant must amend the wording to specify goods in 008 only.
Applicant may adopt the following wording in International Class 008 only, if accurate:
“Hand tools and hand-operated implements, namely,____(list out common commercial name of goods within 008); table cutlery, hand tools and instruments, for glazing, floor and tile laying, in particular nibbling blades, lead blades, diamond drills, glass cutters, oil glass cutters, glass borers, glass-breaking bars, glass pliers, glass-cutting blades, glass scrapers, hammers, cartridge knives, putty knives, blades, block levers, trapezoidal cutters, glaziers' pliers, plastic cutters, circle cutters, stencil shears, sharpening stones, strip cutters; diamond hollow drills, glass cutters with cutting wheels, cutting frames; Hand tools, namely, glaziers' angles and cutting rules being auxiliary cutting devices, circle and ellipse cutting instruments and parts for the aforesaid goods; hand tools and hand-operated implements for the processing, transport and mounting of glass, in particular glass panes; hand tools and hand-operated implements for cutting glass; hand tools and hand-operated implements for fixing glass panes by means of adhesion; hand tools and hand-operated being mounting aids; hand-operated tools for use in applying adhesives; hand tools and hand-operated implements in the form of magnetic holders and suction holders; manually operated hand tools for lifting glass panes, plastics, metal sheets, tiles, marble and parts of these goods; pre-filled tool bags containing hand-operated hand tools.”
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). 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).
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); TMEP §803.05(b). This email address cannot be identical to the primary correspondence email address of a U.S.-licensed attorney retained to represent applicant in this application. See TMEP §803.05(b).
Applicant is required to be represented by a U.S.-licensed attorney to respond to or appeal the provisional refusal because applicant’s domicile is located outside of the United States and applicant does not appear to be represented by a qualified U.S. attorney. 37 C.F.R. §2.11(a); TMEP §601.01(a). An applicant whose domicile is located outside of the United States or its territories 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); TMEP §§601, 601.01(a). In this case, applicant’s domicile is identified in the application as Germany. For more information, see the U.S. Counsel webpage at http://www.gov.uspto.report/trademark/laws-regulations/trademark-rule-requires-foreign-applicants-and-registrants-have-us and Hiring a U.S.-licensed trademark attorney webpage at http://www.gov.uspto.report/trademarks-getting-started/why-hire-private-trademark-attorney.
To appoint a U.S.-licensed attorney in this application, 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. 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); TMEP §604.01.
How to respond. Click to file a response to this nonfinal Office action.
/Gretta Yao/
Attorney
United States Patent & Trademark Office
Law Office 118
571.272.9313
gretta.yao@uspto.gov
RESPONSE GUIDANCE