UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE (USPTO)

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

 

 

 

EXAMINER’S AMENDMENT/PRIORITY 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:

 

PRIORITY ACTION

 

 

ISSUES APPLICANT MUST ADDRESS:  On March 15, 2011, the trademark examining attorney and Takehiko Suzuki discussed the issues below.  Applicant must timely respond to these issues.  See 15 U.S.C. §1062(b); 37 C.F.R. §2.62(a); TMEP §§708, 711.

 

 

Likelihood of Confusion – Section 2(d) Refusal

 

Registration of the applied-for mark is refused because of a likelihood of confusion with the mark in U.S. Registration No. 3203593.  Trademark Act Section 2(d), 15 U.S.C. §1052(d); see TMEP §§1207.01 et seq.  See the enclosed registration.

 

Taking into account the relevant du Pont factors, a likelihood of confusion determination in this case involves a two-part analysis.  See In re E. I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., 476 F.2d 1357, 1361-62, 177 USPQ 563, 567 (C.C.P.A. 1973); In re 1st USA Realty Prof’ls Inc., 84 USPQ2d 1581, 1584 (TTAB 2007); see also In re Dixie Rests. Inc., 105 F.3d 1405, 1406-07, 41 USPQ2d 1531, 1533 (Fed. Cir. 1997).  The marks are compared for similarities in their appearance, sound, connotation and commercial impression.  TMEP §§1207.01, 1207.01(b).  The services are compared to determine whether they are similar or commercially related or travel in the same trade channels.  See Herbko Int’l, Inc. v. Kappa Books, Inc., 308 F.3d 1156, 1164-65, 64 USPQ2d 1375, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2002); Han Beauty, Inc. v. Alberto-Culver Co., 236 F.3d 1333, 1336, 57 USPQ2d 1557, 1559 (Fed. Cir. 2001); TMEP §§1207.01, 1207.01(a)(vi).

 

Similarity 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).

 

Applicant’s mark is “DIRECTV CO-PILOT”.  Registrant’s mark is “FOG CREEK COPILOT”. 

The marks are similar because they both contain the word “CO-PILOT” or a variant spelling thereof, i.e. “COPILOT”.

Marks may be confusingly similar in appearance where, as here, 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).

If the services of the respective parties are “similar in kind and/or closely related,” as they are in this case, the degree of similarity between the marks required to support a finding of likelihood of confusion is not as great as would be required with diverse services.  In re J.M. Originals Inc., 6 USPQ2d 1393, 1394 (TTAB 1987); see Shen Mfg. Co. v. Ritz Hotel Ltd., 393 F.3d 1238, 1242, 73 USPQ2d 1350, 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2004); TMEP §1207.01(b).  Please see Similarity of Services section below evidencing the identical/overlapping nature of applicant’s services with respect to the registrant’s services in this case.

 

Accordingly, the relevant marks are sufficiently similar to support a finding of likelihood of confusion.

 

 

Similarity of Services

 

The 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 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 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 services are “telecommunications services”.

 

Registrant’s services are “providing telecommunications connections between two computers to enable users to help their friends, colleagues and family fix computer problems remotely through the Internet.”

 

Because applicant’s telecommunications services have not been limited to include a particular type of telecommunications service(s), they encompass registrant’s more specific telecommunications service. 

Accordingly, based on the similarity of the marks and the relationship of the services, registration of the applicant’s mark is refused under Section 2(d) of the Trademark Act.

Although the examining attorney has refused registration, the applicant has the option to respond to the refusal to register by submitting evidence and legal arguments in support of registration.  If the applicant chooses to respond to the refusal to register, the applicant must also respond to the following requirement.

 

Identification of Services Must Be Clarified

 

The identification of services is indefinite and must be clarified.  See TMEP §1402.01.  Applicant must specify the exact nature/type of its telecommunications services. 

 

Applicant may adopt the following identification, if accurate.  Please note that bolded wording indicates a suggested addition(s)/amendment(s) to applicant’s current identification.”

 

Class 38:

 

“Telecommunications services, namely, {insert specific type/nature of service(s), e.g. electronic transmission of data}.”

 

Identifications of services can be amended only to clarify or limit the services; adding to or broadening the scope of the 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 services that are not within the scope of the services set forth in the present identification.

 

For assistance with identifying and classifying 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.

 

EXAMINER'S AMENDMENT

 

APPLICATION HAS BEEN AMENDED:  In accordance with the authorization granted by the individual identified in the Priority Action section above, the trademark examining attorney has amended the application as indicated below.  Please advise the undersigned immediately of any objections.  TMEP §707. 

 

Ownership of Prior Registrations

 

The following claim of ownership is added to the record:

 

            Applicant is the owner of U.S. Registration Nos. 2639279, 3051286, 3382802 and others.

 

See 37 C.F.R. §2.36; TMEP §812.

 

 

RESPONDING TO THIS OFFICE ACTION

 

 

There is no required format or form for responding to an Office action; however, applicant must explicitly address each refusal and/or requirement raised in this Office action.  If a refusal has issued, applicant may wish to argue against the refusal, i.e., submit arguments and/or evidence as to why the refusal should be withdrawn and the mark should register.  To respond to requirements, applicant should set forth in writing the required changes or statements and request that the Office enter them into the application record. 

 

The response must be signed by the individual applicant or someone with legal authority to bind a juristic applicant (e.g., a corporate officer or general partner).  See 37 C.F.R. §§2.62(b), 2.193(e)(2)(ii); TMEP §§611.03(b), 611.06 et seq., 712.01.  In the case of joint applicants, all must sign.  37 C.F.R. §2.193(e)(2)(ii); TMEP §611.06(a).  In addition, the proper signatory must personally sign or personally enter his/her electronic signature.  See 37 C.F.R. §2.193(a), (e)(2)(ii); TMEP §§611.01(b), 611.02.

 

The Office recommends applicants use the Trademark Electronic Application System (TEAS) to respond to Office actions online at http://www.gov.uspto.report/teas/index.html.  If applicant responds on paper via regular mail, the response should include the title “Response to Office Action” and the following information:  (1) the name and law office number of the examining attorney, (2) the serial number and filing date of the application, (3) the date of issuance of this Office action, (4) applicant’s name, address, telephone number and e-mail address (if applicable), and (5) the mark.  37 C.F.R. §2.194(b)(1); TMEP §302.03(a).

 

If applicant has an amendment that does not require the payment of a fee, submission of a specimen, response to a statutory refusal or declaration signature, applicant is encouraged to telephone the examining attorney to expedite the processing of the application.  

 

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

 

 

                                                                                                         

 

 

 

/Meghan Reinhart/

Trademark Examining Attorney

Law Office 108

Phone - (571) 272-2943

meghan.reinhart@uspto.gov

 

TO RESPOND TO THIS LETTER:  Go to http://www.gov.uspto.report/teas/eTEASpageD.htm.  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.  For questions about the Office action itself, please contact the assigned examining attorney.  Do not respond to this Office action by e-mail; the USPTO does not accept e-mailed responses.

 

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.