UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE (USPTO)
OFFICE ACTION (OFFICIAL LETTER) ABOUT APPLICANT’S TRADEMARK APPLICATION
|
APPLICATION SERIAL NO. 85/017351
MARK: PRAETORIAN
|
|
|
CORRESPONDENT ADDRESS: |
CLICK HERE TO RESPOND TO THIS LETTER: http://www.gov.uspto.report/teas/eTEASpageD.htm
|
|
APPLICANT: Praetorian Solutions, Ltd. Co.
|
|
|
CORRESPONDENT’S REFERENCE/DOCKET NO: CORRESPONDENT E-MAIL ADDRESS: |
|
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.
TEAS PLUS APPLICANTS MUST SUBMIT DOCUMENTS ELECTRONICALLY OR SUBMIT FEE: Applicants who filed their application online using the reduced-fee TEAS Plus application must continue to submit certain documents online using TEAS, including responses to Office actions. See 37 C.F.R. §2.23(a)(1). For a complete list of these documents, see TMEP §819.02(b). In addition, such applicants must accept correspondence from the Office via e-mail throughout the examination process and must maintain a valid e-mail address. 37 C.F.R. §2.23(a)(2); TMEP §§819, 819.02(a). TEAS Plus applicants who do not meet these requirements must submit an additional fee of $50 per international class of goods and/or services. 37 C.F.R. §2.6(a)(1)(iv); TMEP §819.04. In appropriate situations and where all issues can be resolved by amendment, responding by telephone to authorize an examiner’s amendment will not incur this additional fee.
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.
Registration Refused – Likelihood of Confusion
THIS REFUSAL APPLIES TO INTERNATIONAL CLASS 45 ONLY
Registration of the applied-for mark is refused because of a likelihood of confusion with the mark in U.S. Registration No. 2573927. Trademark Act Section 2(d), 15 U.S.C. §1052(d); see TMEP §§1207.01 et seq. See the enclosed registration.
The applicant’s mark is PRAETORIAN for, “security services, namely, providing security assessments for businesses and governmental agencies; Security services, namely, providing security assessments of physical locations, information systems, and working environments; Security services, namely, threat simulation vulnerability analysis and mitigation and emergency and crisis response” in International Class 45.
The registered mark is PRAETORIAN PROTECTION SERVICES for, “comprehensive security services and consulting, namely, bodyguard services, private investigation services, and fire prevention consultation; fire sprinkler system design for others; uniformed security guard services.”
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.
Comparison of 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).
In this instance, the applicant’s mark and the registered mark both feature the term PRAETORIAN. Marks may be confusingly similar in appearance where there are similar terms or phrases or similar parts of terms or phrases appearing in both applicant’s and registrant’s mark. See Crocker Nat’l Bank v. Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce, 228 USPQ 689 (TTAB 1986), aff’d sub nom. Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce v. Wells Fargo Bank, Nat’l Ass’n, 811 F.2d 1490, 1 USPQ2d 1813 (Fed. Cir. 1987) (COMMCASH and COMMUNICASH); In re Phillips-Van Heusen Corp., 228 USPQ 949 (TTAB 1986) (21 CLUB and “21” CLUB (stylized)); In re Corning Glass Works, 229 USPQ 65 (TTAB 1985) (CONFIRM and CONFIRMCELLS); In re Collegian Sportswear Inc., 224 USPQ 174 (TTAB 1984) (COLLEGIAN OF CALIFORNIA and COLLEGIENNE); In re Pellerin Milnor Corp., 221 USPQ 558 (TTAB 1983) (MILTRON and MILLTRONICS); In re BASF A.G., 189 USPQ 424 (TTAB 1975) (LUTEXAL and LUTEX); TMEP §1207.01(b)(ii)-(iii).
The fact that the registered mark contains the wording PROTECTIVE SERVICES along with the term PRAETORIAN will not obviate the likelihood of confusion because it has been disclaimed. Although a disclaimed portion of a mark certainly cannot be ignored, and the marks must be compared in their entireties, one feature of a mark may be more significant in creating a commercial impression. Disclaimed matter is typically less significant or less dominant when comparing marks. See In re Dixie Rests., Inc., 105 F.3d 1405, 1407, 41 USPQ2d 1531, 1533-34 (Fed. Cir. 1997); In re Nat’l Data Corp., 753 F.2d 1056, 1060, 224 USPQ 749, 752 (Fed. Cir. 1985); TMEP §1207.01(b)(viii), (c)(ii).
Comparison of Services
In this instance, the applicant’s services and the registrant’s services are related in that they are all in the field of security. The registrant’s services concern physical security and the applicant’s security services could encompass the same services. Likelihood of confusion is determined on the basis of the goods and/or services as they are identified in the application and registration. Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Packard Press Inc., 281 F.3d 1261, 1267-68, 62 USPQ2d 1001, 1004-05 (Fed. Cir. 2002); In re Shell Oil Co., 992 F.2d 1204, 1207 n.4, 26 USPQ2d 1687, 1690 n.4 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Thor Tech, Inc., 90 USPQ2d 1634, 1637-38 (TTAB 2009); TMEP §1207.01(a)(iii).
When the application describes the 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 application encompasses all services of the type described, that they move in all normal channels of trade, and that they are available to all potential customers. See In re Melville Corp., 18 USPQ2d 1386, 1388 (TTAB 1991) (“With reference to the channels of trade, applicant’s argument that its goods are sold only in its own retail stores is not persuasive . . . . There is no restriction [in its identification of goods] as to the channels of trade in which the goods are sold.”); TMEP §1207.01(a)(iii).
Although the examining attorney has refused registration, the applicant may respond to the refusal to register by submitting evidence and arguments in support of registration.
Registration Refused – Unacceptable Specimen
In this case, the specimens are business cards which feature the mark and the contact information of the applicant’s managing partner, but do not display any reference to the educational, computer or security services. Business cards that bear only the mark and a company name and address are not adequate specimens (unless the mark itself has a descriptive portion that refers to the service), because they do not show that the mark is used in the sale or advertising of the particular services recited in the application. In re Monograms America, Inc., 51 USPQ2d 1317 (TTAB 1999) (letterhead specimen showing the mark MONOGRAMS AMERICA and the wording "A Nationwide Network of Embroidery Stores" held insufficient to support registration for consulting services for embroidery stores).
Business cards bearing the mark may be accepted if they create an association between the mark and the services. To create an association between the mark and the services, the specimen does not have to spell out the specific nature or type of services. A general reference to the industry may be acceptable. In re Ralph Mantia Inc., 54 USPQ2d 1284 (TTAB 2000) (letterhead and business cards showing the word “Design” are acceptable evidence of use of mark for commercial art design services); In re Southwest Petro-Chem, Inc., 183 USPQ 371 (TTAB 1974) (use of mark on letterhead next to the name SOUTHWEST PETRO-CHEM, INC. found to be sufficient to show use of the mark for “consulting and advisory services relating to the making and using of lubricating oils and greases,” when used for letters in correspondence with customers). See TMEP §1301.04.
Therefore, applicant must submit the following:
(1) A substitute specimen showing the mark in use in commerce for each class of goods and/or services specified in the application; and
(2) The following statement, verified with an affidavit or signed declaration under 37 C.F.R. §2.20: “The substitute specimen was in use in commerce at least as early as the filing date of the application.” 37 C.F.R. §2.59(a); TMEP §904.05; see 37 C.F.R. §2.193(e)(1). If submitting a substitute specimen requires an amendment to the dates of use, applicant must also verify the amended dates. 37 C.F.R. §2.71(c); TMEP §904.05.
Examples of specimens for goods are tags, labels, instruction manuals, containers, photographs that show the mark on the actual goods or packaging, or displays associated with the actual goods at their point of sale. See TMEP §§904.03 et seq. Examples of specimens for services are signs, photographs, brochures, website printouts or advertisements that show the mark used in the actual sale or advertising of the services. See TMEP §§1301.04 et seq.
If applicant cannot satisfy the above requirements, applicant may amend the application from a use in commerce basis under Section 1(a) to an intent to use basis under Section 1(b), for which no specimen is required. See TMEP §806.03(c). However, if applicant amends the basis to Section 1(b), registration will not be granted until applicant later amends the application back to use in commerce by filing an acceptable allegation of use with a proper specimen. See 15 U.S.C. §1051(c), (d); 37 C.F.R. §§2.76, 2.88; TMEP §1103.
To amend to Section 1(b), applicant must submit the following statement, verified with an affidavit or signed declaration under 37 C.F.R. §2.20: “Applicant has had a bona fide intention to use the mark in commerce on or in connection with the goods and/or services listed in the application as of the filing date of the application.” 37 C.F.R. §2.34(a)(2); TMEP §806.01(b); see 15 U.S.C. §1051(b); 37 C.F.R. §§2.35(b)(1), 2.193(e)(1).
Pending receipt of a proper response, registration is refused because the specimen does not show the applied-for mark in use in commerce as a trademark and/or service mark for the identified goods and/or services. Trademark Act Sections 1 and 45, 15 U.S.C. §§1051, 1127; 37 C.F.R. §§2.34(a)(1)(iv), 2.56(a); TMEP §§904, 904.07(a).
Declaration for Substitute Specimens
If applicant experiences difficulty in submitting the required substitute specimen, supporting statement and/or declaration, please e-mail TEAS@uspto.gov for technical assistance regarding the TEAS response form.
Informalities
If the applicant chooses to respond to the refusal to register, the applicant must also respond to the following informalities.
Recitation of Services
While the recitation of services is acceptable it would be appropriate to replace the semi-colons after the terms “systems” and “policies” with commas. The applicant may substitute the following wording, if accurate: “Educational services, namely, conducting on-site training and computer based training in the field of computer security, detection of computer tampering, computer security evaluation, assessment and reporting of computer security systems, development and implementation of computer security systems and policies, and computer forensics investigations and distribution of training material in connection therewith, in International Class 41.
Computer forensic services; Consulting services in the field of collection of evidence for forensic purposes, in International Class 42.
Security services, namely, providing security assessments for businesses and governmental agencies; Security services, namely, providing security assessments of physical locations, information systems, and working environments; Security services, namely, threat simulation vulnerability analysis and mitigation and emergency and crisis response, in International Class 45.” See TMEP §§1402.01, 1402.03.
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.
Requirements of Multiple-Class Applications
(1) LIST GOODS/SERVICES BY INTERNATIONAL CLASS: Applicant must list the goods/services by international class;
(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”); and
(3) SUBMIT REQUIRED STATEMENTS AND EVIDENCE: For each international class of goods and/or services, applicant must also submit the following:
(a) DATES OF USE: Dates of first use of the mark anywhere and dates of first use of the mark in commerce, or a statement that the dates of use in the initial application apply to that class. The dates of use, both anywhere and in commerce, must be at least as early as the filing date of the application.;
(b) SPECIMEN: One specimen showing the mark in use in commerce for each international class of goods and/or services. Applicant must have used the specimen in commerce at least as early as the filing date of the application. If a single specimen supports multiple international classes, applicant should indicate which classes the specimen supports. Examples of specimens for goods are tags, labels, instruction manuals, containers, photographs that show the mark on the actual goods or packaging, or displays associated with the goods at their point of sale. See TMEP §§904.03 et seq. Examples of specimens for services are signs, photographs, brochures, website printouts, or advertisements that show the mark used in the actual sale or advertising of the services. See TMEP §§1301.04 et seq.;
(c) STATEMENT: The following statement: “The specimen was in use in commerce on or in connection with the goods and/or services listed in the application at least as early as the filing date of the application.”; and
(d) VERIFICATION: Applicant must verify the statements in 3(a) and 3(c) (above) in an affidavit or signed declaration under 37 C.F.R. §2.20. Verification is not required where (1) the dates of use for the added class are stated to be the same as the dates of use specified in the initial application, and (2) the original specimens are acceptable for the added class(es).
See 15 U.S.C. §§1051(a), 1112, 1127; 37 C.F.R. §§2.32(a)(5), 2.34(a)(1), 2.56(a), 2.71(c), 2.86(a), 2.193(e)(1); TMEP §§1403.01, 1403.02(c).
In this instance, it must be noted that the applicant has identified 3classes of services. However, the applicant only provided 2 specimens of use. When submitting the substitute specimens, the applicant must submit 1 specimen showing the mark in use in commerce for each class of services.
$50 Per Class Fee Required – TEAS Plus Status Lost
Applicant must submit an additional application processing fee of $50 per class because the application as filed did not meet the TEAS Plus application filing requirements. See 37 C.F.R. §§2.6(a)(1)(iv), 2.22(a), (b); TMEP §§819.01 et seq., 819.04. Specifically, the following application filing requirement was not met: the applicant did not satisfy a requirement of the §1(a) filing basis. 37 C.F.R. §2.34. In particular, the applicant did not submit a specimen showing the mark in use in commerce for each international class of services recited.
The additional fee is required even if applicant later corrects these application requirements.
If the applicant has any questions or requires assistance in responding to this Office Action, please telephone the assigned examining attorney.
/Richard F. White/
Trademark Examining Attorney
Law Office 109
Telephone: (571) 272-9442
Fax: (571) 273-9109
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.