UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE (USPTO)

OFFICE ACTION (OFFICIAL LETTER) ABOUT APPLICANT’S TRADEMARK APPLICATION

 

 

 

OFFICE ACTION

 

STRICT DEADLINE TO RESPOND TO THIS LETTER 

TO AVOID ABANDONMENT OF APPLICANT’S TRADEMARK APPLICATION, THE USPTO MUST RECEIVE APPLICANT’S COMPLETE RESPONSE TO THIS LETTER WITHIN 6 MONTHS OF THE ISSUE/MAILING DATE BELOW.

 

ISSUE/MAILING DATE:

 

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.

 

·        SECTION 2(d) REFUSAL – LIKELIHOOD OF CONFUSION

 

Registration of the applied-for mark is refused because of a likelihood of confusion with the mark(s) in U.S. Registration No(s). 0798061.  Trademark Act Section 2(d), 15 U.S.C. §1052(d); see TMEP §§1207.01 et seq.  See the enclosed registration(s).

 

Trademark Act Section 2(d) bars registration of an applied-for mark that so resembles a registered mark that it is likely that a potential consumer would be confused or mistaken or deceived as to the source of the goods and/or services of the applicant and registrant.  See 15 U.S.C. §1052(d).  The court in In re E. I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., 476 F.2d 1357, 177 USPQ 563 (C.C.P.A. 1973) listed the principal factors to be considered when determining whether there is a likelihood of confusion under Section 2(d).  See TMEP §1207.01.  However, not all of the factors are necessarily relevant or of equal weight, and any one factor may be dominant in a given case, depending upon the evidence of record.  In re Majestic Distilling Co., 315 F.3d 1311, 1315, 65 USPQ2d 1201, 1204 (Fed. Cir. 2003); see In re E. I. du Pont, 476 F.2d at 1361-62, 177 USPQ at 567.

 

In this case, the following factors are the most relevant:  similarity of the marks, similarity of the goods and/or services, and similarity of trade channels of the goods and/or services.  See In re Opus One, Inc., 60 USPQ2d 1812 (TTAB 2001); In re Dakin’s Miniatures Inc., 59 USPQ2d 1593 (TTAB 1999); In re Azteca Rest. Enters., Inc., 50 USPQ2d 1209 (TTAB 1999); TMEP §§1207.01 et seq.

 

For the reasons discussed below, the examining attorney concludes that confusion as to the source of goods and/or services is likely between the applicant’s mark OPTOMA, and design, for LED lighting module; street light; traffic light; vehicle light; emergency direction light; light fixture with LED lighting module, namely ceiling light, table light, desk light, floor light, decorative light fixtures; LED assembly module for street light; LED assembly module for vehicle light, wall lighting, landscape lighting, flexible lighting, under water lighting, flashlight, photoflash lighting, foggy lighting, mine lighting, flameproof lighting, [and] emergency lighting, and the registrant’s mark OPTIMA for fluorescent lamps.

 

Comparison of the Marks

 

In a likelihood of confusion determination, the marks are compared for similarities in their appearance, sound, meaning or connotation and commercial impression.  In re E. I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., 476 F.2d 1357, 1361, 177 USPQ 563, 567 (C.C.P.A. 1973); TMEP §1207.01(b).  Similarity in any one of these elements may be sufficient to find a likelihood of confusion.  In re White Swan Ltd., 8 USPQ2d 1534, 1535 (TTAB 1988); In re Lamson Oil Co., 6 USPQ2d 1041, 1043 (TTAB 1987); see TMEP §1207.01(b).

 

With respect to their word portions, the marks are the same, except that applicant replaces the letter “I” with an “O.”  

 

Additionally, the marks are essentially phonetic equivalents and thus sound similar.  Similarity in sound alone may be sufficient to support a finding of likelihood of confusion.  RE/MAX of Am., Inc. v. Realty Mart, Inc., 207 USPQ 960, 964 (TTAB 1980); Molenaar, Inc. v. Happy Toys Inc., 188 USPQ 469, 471 (TTAB 1975); see TMEP §1207.01(b)(iv).

 

The proposed mark also includes a curved line design.  However, the design does not materially affect the overall commercial impression of the mark, nor avoid a likelihood of confusion with the mark in the cited registration.

 

When a mark consists of a word portion and a design portion, the word portion is more likely to be impressed upon a purchaser’s memory and to be used in calling for the goods and/or services.  Therefore, the word portion is normally accorded greater weight in determining likelihood of confusion.  In re Dakin’s Miniatures, Inc., 59 USPQ2d 1593, 1596 (TTAB 1999); In re Appetito Provisions Co., 3 USPQ2d 1553, 1554 (TTAB 1987); Amoco Oil Co. v. Amerco, Inc., 192 USPQ 729, 735 (TTAB 1976); TMEP §1207.01(c)(ii).

 

Comparison of the Goods and/or Services

 

The goods and/or services of the parties need not be identical or directly competitive to find a likelihood of confusion.  See Safety-Kleen Corp. v. Dresser Indus., Inc., 518 F.2d 1399, 1404, 186 USPQ 476, 480 (C.C.P.A. 1975); TMEP §1207.01(a)(i).  Rather, they need only be related in some manner, or the conditions surrounding their marketing are such that they would be encountered by the same purchasers under circumstances that would give rise to the mistaken belief that the goods and/or services come from a common source.  In re Total Quality Group, Inc., 51 USPQ2d 1474, 1476 (TTAB 1999); TMEP §1207.01(a)(i); see, e.g., On-line Careline Inc. v. Am. Online Inc., 229 F.3d 1080, 1086-87, 56 USPQ2d 1471, 1475-76 (Fed. Cir. 2000); In re Martin’s Famous Pastry Shoppe, Inc., 748 F.2d 1565, 1566-68, 223 USPQ 1289, 1290 (Fed. Cir. 1984).

 

Applicant has identified numerous specific lights and related fixtures.  By comparison, the registration covers all fluorescent lamps.

 

Note that “lamp” is defined as “any of various devices for producing light or sometimes heat.”  See attached dictionary definition.

 

A determination of whether there is a likelihood of confusion is made solely on the basis of the goods and/or services identified in the application and registration, without limitations or restrictions that are not reflected therein.  In re Thor Tech, Inc., 90 USPQ2d 1634, 1637-38 (TTAB 2009); In re Dakin’s Miniatures, Inc., 59 USPQ2d 1593, 1595 (TTAB 1999); see TMEP §1207.01(a)(iii).  If the cited registration describes the goods and/or services broadly and there are no limitations as to their nature, type, channels of trade or classes of purchasers, then it is presumed that the registration encompasses all goods and/or services of the type described, that they move in all normal channels of trade, and that they are available to all potential customers.  In re Linkvest S.A., 24 USPQ2d 1716, 1716 (TTAB 1992); In re Elbaum, 211 USPQ 639, 640 (TTAB 1981); TMEP §1207.01(a)(iii).

 

Thus, to the extent applicant’s goods are, or could be, fluorescent, the registration must be read to include such goods. 

 

Additionally, consumers would likely assume applicants LED lights and registrant’s fluorescent lights emanate from the same commercial source, as manufacturers and vendors commonly produce or feature both types of lights.

 

Attached are copies of printouts from the USPTO X-Search database, which show third-party registrations of marks used in connection with the same or similar goods and/or services as those of applicant and registrant in this case.  These printouts have probative value to the extent that they serve to suggest that the goods and/or services listed therein, namely, various, lamps, bulbs, ballasts, modules, and fixtures, for fluorescent and LED lights, are of a kind that may emanate from a single source.  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).

 

For the reasons discussed above, registration must be refused under Trademark Act Section 2(d).  Although applicant’s mark has been refused registration, applicant may respond to the refusal(s) by submitting evidence and arguments in support of registration.

 

• IDENTIFICATION OF GOODS

 

Applicant must clarify indefinite wording in the identification of goods by specifying such goods using common commercial terms.  See TMEP §1402.01.  If there is no common commercial or generic name, applicant must describe the product and intended consumer as well as its main purpose and intended uses.  See Id.

 

Note that lights are generally classified in Class 11.  However, lights and lighting apparatus that have particular specialized functions (e.g., signaling or emergency lights) are classified separately.  Applicant must amend the application to classify its goods in the correct International Classes, as further specified below.  See 37 C.F.R. §§2.32(a)(7), 2.85; TMEP §§1401.02(a), 1401.03(b).

 

Applicant may adopt the following identification of goods and/or services, if accurate: 

 

CLASS 9: traffic light; emergency direction lights, namely, {indicate specific function, e.g., emergency warning lights for signaling traffic lane changes}; LED light assembly module for photoflash lighting, flameproof {specify purpose and function of flameproof lights, e.g., emergency warning lights}, and emergency lighting

 

CLASS 11: LED lighting module; street lights; vehicle lights, namely, {specify type, e.g., headlights}; light fixture with LED lighting module, namely, ceiling lights, table lights, desk lights, floor lights, and decorative light fixtures; LED light assembly module for street lights; LED light assembly module for vehicle {specify type of vehicle lights, e.g., headlights}, wall lighting, landscape lighting, flexible {specify purpose, e.g., reading} lighting, under water lighting {specify purpose, e.g., for pools}, flashlights, {clarify ‘foggy lighting’ using common commercial terms, e.g., foglights for vehicles}, and mine lighting

 

See TMEP §1402.01.

 

For assistance with identifying and classifying goods and/or services in trademark applications, please see the online searchable Manual of Acceptable Identifications of Goods and Services at http://tess2.gov.uspto.report/netahtml/tidm.html.  See TMEP §1402.04.

 

Identifications of goods and/or services can be amended only to clarify or limit the goods and/or services; adding to or broadening the scope of the goods and/or services is not permitted.  37 C.F.R. §2.71(a); see TMEP §§1402.06 et seq., 1402.07.  Therefore, applicant may not amend the identification to include goods and/or services that are not within the scope of the goods and/or services set forth in the present identification.

 

CLASSIFICATION OF GOODS/SERVICES

 

If applicant adopts the suggested amendment of the identification of goods and/or services, then applicant must amend the classification to International Classes 9 and 11.  See 37 C.F.R. §§2.32(a)(7), 2.85; TMEP §§805, 1401.

 

MULTIPLE – CLASS APPLICATION REQUIREMENTS

 

If applicant prosecutes this application as a combined, or multiple-class application, then applicant must comply with each of the following for those goods and/or services based on an intent to use the mark in commerce under Trademark Act Section 1(b):

 

(1)     Applicant must list the goods and/or services by international class; and

 

(2)     Applicant must submit a filing fee for each international class of goods and/or services not covered by the fee already paid (current fee information should be confirmed at http://www.uspto.gov).

 

See 37 C.F.R. §§2.34(a)(2)-(3), 2.86(a); TMEP §§1403.01, 1403.02(c).

 

The filing fee for adding classes to an application is as follows:

 

         (1)     $325 per class, when the fees are submitted with a response filed online via the Trademark Electronic Application System (TEAS) at http://www.gov.uspto.report/teas/index.html; or

 

         (2)     $375 per class, when the fees are submitted with a paper response. 

 

37 C.F.R. §2.6(a)(1)(i)-(a)(1)(ii); TMEP §810.

 

• CONTACT INFORMATION

 

If applicant has questions about the application or this Office action, please telephone the assigned trademark examining attorney at the telephone number below.

 

 

/Lief Martin/

Law Office 112

Examining Attorney

Office: 571-272-3434

Email: lief.martin@uspto.gov

 

 

TO RESPOND TO THIS LETTER:  Use the Trademark Electronic Application System (TEAS) response form at http://teasroa.gov.uspto.report/roa/.  Please wait 48-72 hours from the issue/mailing date before using TEAS, to allow for necessary system updates of the application.  For technical assistance with online forms, e-mail TEAS@uspto.gov.

 

WHO MUST SIGN THE RESPONSE:  It must be personally signed by an individual applicant or someone with legal authority to bind an applicant (i.e., a corporate officer, a general partner, all joint applicants).  If an applicant is represented by an attorney, the attorney must sign the response. 

 

PERIODICALLY CHECK THE STATUS OF THE APPLICATION:  To ensure that applicant does not miss crucial deadlines or official notices, check the status of the application every three to four months using Trademark Applications and Registrations Retrieval (TARR) at http://tarr.gov.uspto.report/.  Please keep a copy of the complete TARR screen.  If TARR shows no change for more than six months, call 1-800-786-9199.  For more information on checking status, see http://www.gov.uspto.report/trademarks/process/status/.

 

TO UPDATE CORRESPONDENCE/E-MAIL ADDRESS:  Use the TEAS form at http://www.gov.uspto.report/teas/eTEASpageE.htm.