Offc Action Outgoing

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, 2.65(a); TMEP §§711, 718.03.

 

Trademark Act 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. 3776575.  Trademark Act Section 2(d), 15 U.S.C. §1052(d); see TMEP §§1207.01 et seq.  See the enclosed registration.

 

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.

 

Applicant’s mark is IPAD for “leather and imitations of leather, and goods made of these materials and not included in other classes, namely, leather key chains, key cases, bags, cases, wallets, and luggage; trunks and travelling bags; umbrellas; athletic bags; beach bags; school bags; shoe bags; waist bags; backpacks; fanny packs; waist packs; wallets; purses; vanity cases sold empty; attaché cases” in International Class 018.

 

Registrant’s mark is IPAD for “hand-held computing device for wireless networking in a retail environment” in International Class 009.

 

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).

 

Applicant’s mark, IPAD, is identical to registrant’s mark.

 

Comparison of the Goods/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, it is sufficient that the goods and/or services are related in some manner and/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’s leather goods are highly related to registrant’s computer devices where applicant’s services may be used in connection with registrant’s goods.  Specifically, applicant’s leather bags and cases may include bags and cases specially adapted for use with computers. 

 

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 leather goods and computer devices, are of a kind that may emanate from a single source.  In re Infinity Broad. Corp. of Dallas,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).

 

Note that if the marks of the respective parties are identical, the relationship between the goods and/or services of the respective parties need not be as close to support a finding of likelihood of confusion as might apply where differences exist between the marks.  In re Opus One Inc., 60 USPQ2d 1812, 1815 (TTAB 2001); Amcor, Inc. v. Amcor Indus., Inc., 210 USPQ 70, 78 (TTAB 1981); TMEP §1207.01(a).  Because the marks are similar and the goods/services are related, it is likely that consumers would believe that the goods/services emanate from a common source.

 

The overriding concern is not only to prevent buyer confusion as to the source of the goods and/or services, but to protect the registrant from adverse commercial impact due to use of a similar mark by a newcomer.  See In re Shell Oil Co., 992 F.2d 1204, 1208, 26 USPQ2d 1687, 1690 (Fed. Cir. 1993).  Therefore, any doubt regarding a likelihood of confusion determination is resolved in favor of the registrant.  TMEP §1207.01(d)(i); see Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Packard Press, Inc., 281 F.3d 1261, 1265, 62 USPQ2d 1001, 1003 (Fed. Cir. 2002); In re Hyper Shoppes (Ohio), Inc., 837 F.2d 463, 464-65, 6 USPQ2d 1025, 1025 (Fed. Cir. 1988).

 

Although applicant’s mark has been refused registration, applicant may respond to the refusal(s) by submitting evidence and arguments in support of registration.

 

Ownership of Cited Registration

 

If the marks in the cited registrations have been assigned to applicant, applicant can provide evidence of ownership of the marks by satisfying one of the following:

 

(1)  Record the assignment with the Office’s Assignment Services Branch (ownership transfer documents such as assignments can be filed online at http://etas.uspto.gov) and promptly notify the trademark examining attorney that the assignment has been duly recorded;

 

(2)  Submit copies of documents evidencing the chain of title; or

 

(3)  Submit the following statement, verified with an affidavit or signed declaration under 37 C.F.R. §2.20:  “Applicant is the owner of U.S. Registration Nos. 3776575.” 

 

TMEP §812.01; see 15 U.S.C. §1060; 37 C.F.R. §§2.193(e)(1), 3.25, 3.73; TMEP §502.02(a).

 

Merely recording a document with the Assignment Services Branch does not constitute a response to an Office action.  TMEP §503.01(d).

 

Potential Section 2(d) Refusal – Prior Pending Application

 

Please note that a mark in a prior-filed pending application may present a bar to registration of applicant’s mark.

 

The filing date of pending Application Serial No. 77913563 precedes applicant’s filing date.  See attached referenced application.  If the mark in the referenced application registers, applicant’s mark may be refused registration under Trademark Act Section 2(d) because of a likelihood of confusion between the two marks.  See 15 U.S.C. §1052(d); 37 C.F.R. §2.83; TMEP §§1208 et seq.  Therefore, upon receipt of applicant’s response to this Office action, action on this application may be suspended pending final disposition of the earlier-filed referenced application.

 

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.

 

Ownership of Potentially Conflicting Application

 

If the mark(s) in the potentially conflicting prior-filed application(s) has been assigned to applicant, applicant can provide evidence of ownership of the mark(s) to avoid a possible refusal on the basis of likelihood of confusion under Trademark Act Section 2(d).  See 15 U.S.C. §1052(d); TMEP §812.01. 

 

Applicant can provide evidence of ownership of the mark(s) by satisfying one of the following:

 

(1)  Record the assignment with the Office’s Assignment Services Branch (ownership transfer documents such as assignments can be filed online at http://etas.uspto.gov) and promptly notify the trademark examining attorney that the assignment has been duly recorded;

 

(2)  Submit copies of documents evidencing the chain of title; or

 

(3)  Submit the following statement, verified with an affidavit or signed declaration under 37 C.F.R. §2.20:  “Applicant is the owner of Application Serial No(s). 77913563.” 

 

See 15 U.S.C. §1060; 37 C.F.R. §§2.193(e)(1), 3.25, 3.73; TMEP §§502.02(a), 812.01.

 

Merely recording a document with the Assignment Services Branch does not constitute a response to an Office action.  TMEP §503.01(d).

 

Amended Identification of Goods Required

 

Applicant has applied to register the mark IPAD for goods in Class 018.  Some of the wording in the identification of goods is indefinite and/or broad and may comprise goods in several international classes. 

 

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.  If applicant uses indefinite words such as “accessories,” “components,” “devices,” “equipment,” “materials,” “parts,” “systems” or “products,” such words must be followed by “namely,” followed by a list of the specific goods identified by their common commercial or generic names.  See TMEP §§1402.01, 1402.03(a).

 

Applicant must address the following issues and amend the identification of goods accordingly.  Suggestions and explanations are incorporated into the proposed wording below.  Applicant may adopt the following wording, if accurate:

 

• “Leather and imitations of leather, and goods made of these materials and not included in other classes, namely, leather key chains, key cases, bags, cases, wallets, and luggage; trunks and travelling bags; umbrellas; athletic bags; beach bags; school bags; shoe bags; waist bags; backpacks; fanny packs; waist packs; wallets; purses; vanity cases sold empty; attache cases” in International Class 018.

 

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.

 

An applicant may amend an identification of goods and services only to clarify or limit the goods and 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 et seq.

 

Applicant has paid for goods/services in ONE international class.  If applicant wishes to add an additional class that is within the scope of the current identification of goods/services, please see the section entitled “Multiple Class Requirements” listed below.

 

Multiple Class Requirements

 

For an application with more than one international class, called a “multiple-class application,” an applicant must meet all of the requirements below for those international classes based on an intent to use the mark under Trademark Act Section 1(b) and/or a foreign registration under Section 44(e):

 

(1)        LIST GOODS/SERVICES BY INTERNATIONAL CLASS:  Applicant must list the goods and/or services by international class; and

 

(2)        PROVIDE FEES FOR ALL INTERNATIONAL CLASSES:  Applicant must submit an application filing fee for each international class of goods and/or services not covered by the fee(s) already paid (confirm current fee information at http://www.uspto.gov, click on “View Fee Schedule” under the column titled “Trademarks”).

 

See 15 U.S.C. §§1051(b), 1112, 1126(e); 37 C.F.R. §§2.34(a)(2)-(3), 2.86(a); TMEP §§1403.01, 1403.02(c).

 

The filing fees for adding classes to an application are as follows:

 

(1)  $325 per class, when the fees are submitted with an electronic response filed online at http://www.gov.uspto.report/teas/index.html, via the Trademark Electronic Application System (TEAS); 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, 1403.02(c).

 

Application Pursuant to Sections 1(b) and 44(d) Filing Basis

 

The application specifies both an intent to use basis under Trademark Act Section 1(b) and a claim of priority under Section 44(d) based on a foreign application.  See 15 U.S.C. §§1051(b), 1126(d); 37 C.F.R. §2.34(a)(2), (a)(4).  However, the application does not include a foreign registration certificate or a statement indicating whether applicant intends to rely upon the resulting foreign registration under Section 44(e) as an additional basis for registration.  See 15 U.S.C. §1126(e).

 

Although Section 44(d) provides a basis for filing and a priority filing date, it does not provide a basis for publication or registration.  37 C.F.R. §2.34(a)(4)(iii); TMEP §§1002.02, 1003.03.  It is unclear whether applicant intends to rely on Section 44(e) as an additional basis for registration.

 

Therefore, applicant must clarify the basis in the application by satisfying one of the following:

 

(1)        If applicant intends to rely on Section 44(e), in addition to Section 1(b), as a basis for registration, applicant must so specify.  In addition, (i) applicant’s country of origin must either be a party to a convention or treaty relating to trademarks to which the United States is also a party, or must extend reciprocal registration rights to nationals of the United States by law; and (ii) applicant must submit a true copy, photocopy, certification or certified copy of the foreign registration from applicant’s country of origin.  See 15 U.S.C. §1126(b)-(c), (e); 37 C.F.R. §2.34(a)(3)(ii); TMEP §§806.02(f), 1002.01, 1004.  A copy of the foreign registration must be a copy of a document that issued to the applicant by or was certified by the intellectual property office in the applicant’s country of origin.  TMEP §1004.01.  If the foreign registration is not written in English, then applicant must provide an English translation.  37 C.F.R. §2.34(a)(3)(ii).  The translation should be signed by the translator.  TMEP §1004.01(b).  If the foreign registration has not yet issued, or applicant requires additional time to procure a copy of the foreign registration (and English translation, as appropriate), applicant should respond to this Office action requesting suspension pending receipt of the foreign registration documentation.  TMEP §1003.04(b).; or

 

(2)        If applicant intends to rely on an intent to use basis under Section 1(b), while retaining its Section 44(d) priority filing date, applicant must specify that it does not intend to rely on Section 44(e) as a basis for registration and request that the mark be approved for publication based solely on the Section 1(b) basis.  See TMEP §§806.02(f), 806.04(b), 1003.04(b).  Although the mark may be approved for publication on the Section 1(b) basis, it will not register until an acceptable allegation of use has been filed.  See 15 U.S.C. §1051(c)-(d); 37 C.F.R. §§2.76, 2.88; TMEP §1103.

 

Response Guidelines

 

If applicant has questions about its application or needs assistance in responding to this Office action, please telephone the assigned trademark examining attorney directly at the number below.

 

 

 

 

/Laurie R. Kaufman/

Trademark Examining Attorney

Law Office 103

Phone: 571.272.8913

Fax: 571.273.8913

 

 

 

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.