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: 6/14/2011

 

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

 

Likelihood of Confusion

THIS REFUSAL APPLIES ONLY TO THE SERVICES “SHIPMENT OF THE MERCHANDISE TO THE MANUFACTURER AND/OR FOR DESTRUCTION.”

 

Registration of the applied-for mark is refused because of a likelihood of confusion with the mark in U.S. Registration No. 2259377.  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.

 

The marks are compared for similarities in their appearance, sound, connotation and commercial impression.  TMEP §§1207.01, 1207.01(b).  The goods and/or 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).

 

Facts

Applicant proposes EXP for use in connection with, in pertinent part, shipment of the merchandise to the manufacturer and/or for destruction.

 

Registrant provides computer software that processes shipping transactions via a global computer network and computerized tracking and tracing of packages in transit via a global computer network in connection with the mark EXP.O. 

 

Similarity 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).

 

The marks of applicant and registrant each begin with EXP.  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).

 

Further, consumers are generally more inclined to focus on the first word, prefix or syllable in any trademark or service mark.  See Palm Bay Imps., Inc. v. Veuve Clicquot Ponsardin Maison Fondee En 1772, 396 F. 3d 1369, 1372, 73 USPQ2d 1689, 1692 (Fed. Cir. 2005); see also Mattel Inc. v. Funline Merch. Co., 81 USPQ2d 1372, 1374-75 (TTAB 2006); Presto Prods., Inc. v. Nice-Pak Prods., Inc., 9 USPQ2d 1895, 1897 (TTAB 1988) (“it is often the first part of a mark which is most likely to be impressed upon the mind of a purchaser and remembered” when making purchasing decisions).

 

The applicant has merely deleted the “.O” that appears in the registered mark.  The mere deletion of wording from a registered mark may not be sufficient to overcome a likelihood of confusion.  See In re Mighty Leaf Tea, 601 F.3d 1342, 94 USPQ2d 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2010); In re Optica Int’l, 196 USPQ 775, 778 (TTAB 1977); TMEP §1207.01(b)(ii)-(iii).  Applicant’s mark does not create a distinct commercial impression because it contains the same common letters as registrant’s mark, and there is no other wording or letters to distinguish it from registrant’s mark.

 

When comparing marks that consist of a series of two or more letters, confusion may be likely even if the letters are not identical or in the same order.  It is more difficult to remember a series of arbitrarily arranged letters than to remember words or figures; that is, confusion is more likely between arbitrarily arranged letters than between other types of marks.  See, e.g., Weiss Assoc. v. HRL Assoc., 902 F.2d 1546, 14 USPQ2d 1840 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (finding confusion between TMS and TMM); Dere v. Inst. for Scientific Info., Inc., 420 F.2d 1068, 164 USPQ 347 (C.C.P.A. 1970) (finding confusion between ISI and I.A.I.); cf. In re Infinity Broad. Corp. of Dallas, 60 USPQ2d 1214 (TTAB 2001) (finding confusion between registrant’s KING FM and KING-TV and applicant’s KYNG).

 

This principle was set forth in Crystal Corp. v. Manhattan Chem. Mfg. Co., 75 F.2d 506, 506, 25 USPQ 5, 6 (C.C.P.A. 1935), wherein the Court of Customs and Patent Appeals applied the following reasoning in holding Z.B.T. likely to be confused with T.Z.L.B. for talcum powder:  “We think it is well known that it is more difficult to remember a series of arbitrarily arranged letters than it is to remember figures, syllables, words or phrases.  The difficulty of remembering such lettered marks makes confusion between such marks, when similar, more likely.”

 

Even lettered marks having only two letters in common, used on identical or closely related goods, have been held likely to cause confusion.  See, e.g., Feed Serv. Corp. v. FS Servs., Inc., 432 F.2d 478, 167 USPQ 407 (C.C.P.A. 1970) (finding confusion between FSC and FS); Cluett, Peabody & Co. v. J.H. Bonck Co., 390 F.2d 754, 156 USPQ 401 (C.C.P.A. 1968) (finding confusion between TTM and T.M.T.); Edison Bros. Stores, Inc. v. Brutting E.B. Sport-Int’l GmbH, 230 USPQ 530 (TTAB 1986) (finding confusion between EB and EBS); see also TMEP §1207.01(b)(ii)-(iii).

 

Relatedness 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, 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 goods and services are closely related to the services of the registrant because entities that provide the shipment of goods from one place to another also typically provide a means through which the goods being shipped can be tracked or traced as they make their way to their destination.

 

The trademark examining attorney has attached evidence from the USPTO’s X-Search database consisting of a number of third-party marks registered for use in connection with the same or similar services as those of both applicant and registrant in this case.  This evidence shows that the services listed therein, namely tracking and tracing of goods in transit and the transportation or shipment of goods from one place to another, are of a kind that may emanate from a single source under a single mark.  See In re Davey Prods. Pty Ltd.,92 USPQ2d 1198, 1203 (TTAB 2009); 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).

 

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).

 

Accordingly, because confusion as to source is likely, registration is refused under Section 2(d) of the Trademark Act.

 

Applicant May Respond

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

 

Applicant must respond to the requirements set forth below.

 

Identification of Services

The identification of services must be clarified because it is too broad and could include services in more than one international class.  Further, it is particularly unclear how “accepting” something is a service under the Trademark Act.  See TMEP §§1402.01, 1402.03. 

 

Applicant may adopt the following identification, if accurate:

 

Return goods management for the medical and pharmaceutical industry, namely, management of expired, overstocked, damaged, or recalled merchandise that is to be returned to manufacturers.  International Class 35.

 

Appraisal services, namely, providing value estimates for expired, overstocked, damaged, or recalled medical and pharmaceutical goods that are to be returned to manufacturers.  International Class 36.

 

Transportation and delivery services, namely, shipment of expired, overstocked, damaged, or recalled medical and pharmaceutical goods to manufacturers for disposal.  International Class 39. 

 

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.

 

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.

 

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 use in commerce:

 

(1)        LIST SERVICES BY INTERNATIONAL CLASS:  Applicant must list the services by international class;

 

(2)        PROVIDE FEES FOR ALL INTERNATIONAL CLASSES:  Applicant must submit an application filing fee for each international class of 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 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).

 

With respect to the specimen requirement in 3(b) above in which a specimen is required for each international class of services, the specimens of record are acceptable for International Classes 35 and 39 only.  Applicant must submit additional specimens if different international classes are added to the application.

 

Claim of Ownership of Prior Registrations

If applicant is the owner of U.S. Registration Nos. 3507790 and 3642794, then applicant must submit a claim of ownership.  37 C.F.R. §2.36; TMEP §812.  See the attached copies of the registrations.  The following standard format is suggested:

 

Applicant is the owner of U.S. Registration Nos. 3507790 and 3642794.

 

 

/Sara N. Benjamin/

Examining Attorney

Law Office 110

571.272.8847

sara.benjamin@uspto.gov

 

 

TO RESPOND TO THIS LETTER:  Go to http://www.gov.uspto.report/trademarks/teas/response_forms.jsp.  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 trademark examining attorney.  E-mail communications will not be accepted as responses to Office actions; therefore, do not respond to this Office action by e-mail.

 

All informal e-mail communications relevant to this application will be placed in the official application record.

 

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

U.S. TRADEMARK APPLICATION

 

USPTO OFFICE ACTION HAS ISSUED ON 6/14/2011 FOR

SERIAL NO. 85263948

 

Please follow the instructions below to continue the prosecution of your application:

 

 

TO READ OFFICE ACTION: Click on this link or go to http://portal.gov.uspto.report/external/portal/tow and enter the application serial number to access the Office action.

 

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

 

RESPONSE IS REQUIRED: You should carefully review the Office action to determine (1) how to respond; and (2) the applicable response time period. Your response deadline will be calculated from 6/14/2011 (or sooner if specified in the office action).

 

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, the USPTO recommends that you respond online using the Trademark Electronic Application System Response Form.

 

HELP: For technical assistance in accessing the Office action, please e-mail

TDR@uspto.gov.  Please contact the assigned examining attorney with questions about the Office action. 

 

        WARNING

 

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