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: 3/31/2011

 

The referenced application has been reviewed by the assigned trademark examining attorney.  Applicant must address all issues below in a timely manner.  15 U.S.C. §1062(b); 37 C.F.R. §§2.62(a), 2.65(a); TMEP §§711, 718.03.

 

Refusal under Trademark Act Section 2(d) – 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. 2808716 (“E-SWORD”).  Trademark Act Section 2(d), 15 U.S.C. §1052(d); see TMEP §§1207.01 et seq.  Please 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.

 

All circumstances surrounding the sale of the goods and/or services are considered.  These circumstances include the marketing channels, the identity of the prospective purchasers, and the degree of similarity between the marks and between the goods and/or services.  See Indus. Nucleonics Corp. v. Hinde, 475 F.2d 1197, 177 USPQ 386 (C.C.P.A. 1973); 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.

 

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).

 

Similarity of the Parties’ 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).

 

The question is not whether people will confuse the marks, but whether the marks will confuse people into believing that the goods and/or services they identify come from the same source.  In re West Point-Pepperell, Inc., 468 F.2d 200, 201, 175 USPQ 558, 558-59 (C.C.P.A. 1972); TMEP §1207.01(b).  For that reason, the test of likelihood of confusion is not whether the marks can be distinguished when subjected to a side-by-side comparison.  The question is whether the marks create the same overall impression.  See Recot, Inc. v. M.C. Becton, 214 F.2d 1322, 1329-30, 54 USPQ2d 1894, 1899 (Fed. Cir. 2000); Visual Info. Inst., Inc. v. Vicon Indus. Inc., 209 USPQ 179, 189 (TTAB 1980).  The focus is on the recollection of the average purchaser who normally retains a general rather than specific impression of trademarks.  Chemetron Corp. v. Morris Coupling & Clamp Co., 203 USPQ 537, 540-41 (TTAB 1979); Sealed Air Corp. v. Scott Paper Co., 190 USPQ 106, 108 (TTAB 1975); TMEP §1207.01(b).

 

In this case, the applicant’s mark “SWORDSEARCHER” creates a similar commercial impression to the cited mark “E-SWORD”.  The marks share similar key terms, as the term “sword” is the dominant element of the two marks, giving them similar sounds, appearances, and meanings as to their core element.  The term “SEARCHER” in the applicant’s mark is not particularly distinctive because both the applicant and registrant’s goods are used to search religious texts.  Similarly, the prefix “E-“ in the registrant’s mark is not particularly distinctive because it merely describes the electronic nature of the registrant’s goods, and could easily describe the applicant’s goods as well.  For these reasons, consumers are likely to confuse the parties’ marks, with their key emphasis on the term “SWORD”, if encountered for related goods.

 

Relatedness of the Parties’ Goods

 

Likelihood of confusion is determined on the basis of the goods and/or services as they are identified in the application and registration, without limitations or restrictions that are not reflected therein.  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); TMEP §1207.01(a)(iii).

 

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).

 

The applicant produces software for storage, search, and retrieval of text in the field of religious study.  The cited registrant provides very similar goods, namely, software featuring Bible texts and biblical reference materials.  Please see the attached Internet evidence showing the goods produced by the prior registrant and their trademark.

 

The parties’ goods are closely related in their nature as software and particular field and purpose in their use in religious study and retrieving religious texts.  Consumers are very likely to encounter the parties’ goods in the same channels of commerce given their similar nature and focus.  Given the similarities between the parties’ marks, consumers are likely to confuse the marks and mistake the underlying sources of the goods.  Registration is refused to prevent such confusion.

 

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

 

RESPONDING TO THE OFFICE ACTION

 

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 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 personally signed by the individual applicant or someone with legal authority to bind a juristic applicant (e.g., applicant’s attorney, a corporate officer of a corporate applicant, the equivalent of an officer for unincorporated organizations or limited liability company applicants, a general partner of a partnership applicant, each applicant for applications with multiple individual applicants, etc.).  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 §§605.02, 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.

 

Applicant may wish to hire an attorney to assist in prosecuting this application because of the legal technicalities involved.  The Office, however, cannot aid in the selection of an attorney.  37 C.F.R. §2.11.  Applicant may wish to consult a telephone directory for a listing of attorneys specializing in trademark or intellectual property law, or seek guidance from a local bar association attorney-referral service.

 

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

 

 

/Cory Boone/

Trademark Examining Attorney

Law Office 104

Phone: 571.270.1510

Fax: 571.270.2510

cory.boone@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.

 

IMPORTANT NOTICE REGARDING YOUR TRADEMARK APPLICATION

Your trademark application (Serial No. 85216032) has been reviewed.   The examining attorney assigned by the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) has written a letter (an “Office Action”) on 3/31/2011 to which you must respond.  Please follow these steps:

 

1. Read the Office letter by clicking on this link OR go to http://tmportal.gov.uspto.report/external/portal/tow and enter your serial number to access the Office letter.       

 

 PLEASE NOTE: The Office letter may not be immediately available but will be viewable within 24 hours of this e-mail notification. 

 

2. Respond within 6 months, calculated from 3/31/2011 (or sooner if specified in the Office letter), using the Trademark Electronic Application System Response to Office Action form. If you have difficulty using the USPTO website, contact TDR@uspto.gov. 

 

3. Contact the examining attorney who reviewed your application with any questions about the content of the office letter:

 

/Cory Boone/

Trademark Examining Attorney

Law Office 104

Phone: 571.270.1510

Fax: 571.270.2510

cory.boone@uspto.gov

WARNING

Failure to file any required response by the applicable deadline will result in the ABANDONMENT of your application.

Do NOT hit “Reply” to this e-mail notification, or otherwise attempt to e-mail your response, as the USPTO does NOT accept e-mailed responses.  Instead, please use the Trademark Electronic Application System Response to Office Action form.