To: | EGRANDBUY, INC (letsgo1688@yahoo.com) |
Subject: | U.S. TRADEMARK APPLICATION NO. 85453219 - THUNDER - N/A |
Sent: | 4/5/2012 10:12:53 AM |
Sent As: | ECOM109@USPTO.GOV |
Attachments: | Attachment - 1 Attachment - 2 Attachment - 3 Attachment - 4 Attachment - 5 Attachment - 6 Attachment - 7 Attachment - 8 Attachment - 9 Attachment - 10 Attachment - 11 Attachment - 12 Attachment - 13 Attachment - 14 Attachment - 15 Attachment - 16 Attachment - 17 Attachment - 18 Attachment - 19 |
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE (USPTO)
OFFICE ACTION (OFFICIAL LETTER) ABOUT APPLICANT’S TRADEMARK APPLICATION
APPLICATION SERIAL NO. 85453219
MARK: THUNDER
|
|
CORRESPONDENT ADDRESS: |
CLICK HERE TO RESPOND TO THIS LETTER: http://www.gov.uspto.report/trademarks/teas/response_forms.jsp
|
APPLICANT: EGRANDBUY, INC
|
|
CORRESPONDENT’S REFERENCE/DOCKET NO: CORRESPONDENT E-MAIL ADDRESS: |
|
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: 4/5/2012
THIS IS A FINAL ACTION.
This Office action is in response to applicant’s communication filed on March 14, 2012.
The applicant (1) amended the identification of goods in International Class 9; and (2) made further arguments against the refusal under Section 2(d).
No. (1) is acceptable and the amended identification of goods in International Class 9 has been entered in the application record.
Final Refusal under Section 2(d) – Likelihood of Confusion
The applicant has applied to register the mark THUNDER for “battery chargers for Lead-Acid (PB) batteries, Nickel Metal Hydride (NIMH) batteries, Lithium-ion Polymer (LiPo) batteries, Lithium-ion (Li-ion) batteries, and Lithium Iron Phosphate (LiFePO4) batteries.” Registration No. 3304417 is for the mark iTHUNDER for “portable digital media player speaker systems comprised of a wireless remote control, a docking station, audio speakers and speaker system enclosure; battery chargers.”
Similarities of the Marks
As indicated in the prior Office actions, the only difference between the marks is that the registrant has placed the lower case letter “i” before the word THUNDER. The applicant argues that the addition of this one letter changes the commercial impression of the mark such that there is not longer a likelihood of confusion. The examining attorney disagrees.
The additional letter does not somehow hide the common word, as HAIR would be hidden in CHAIR, nor does it change the meaning of the common word, as ALL is changed in ALL CLEAR. The mere addition of a term or letter to a mark generally does not obviate the similarity between the marks nor does it overcome a likelihood of confusion under Trademark Act Section 2(d). See In re Chatam Int’l Inc., 380 F.3d 1340, 71 USPQ2d 1944 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (GASPAR’S ALE and JOSE GASPAR GOLD); Coca-Cola Bottling Co. v. Jos. E. Seagram & Sons, Inc., 526 F.2d 556, 188 USPQ 105 (C.C.P.A. 1975) (BENGAL and BENGAL LANCER); Lilly Pulitzer, Inc. v. Lilli Ann Corp., 376 F.2d 324, 153 USPQ 406 (C.C.P.A. 1967) (THE LILLY and LILLI ANN); In re Toshiba Med. Sys. Corp., 91 USPQ2d 1266 (TTAB 2009) (TITAN and VANTAGE TITAN); In re El Torito Rests., Inc., 9 USPQ2d 2002 (TTAB 1988) (MACHO and MACHO COMBOS); In re Corning Glass Works, 229 USPQ 65 (TTAB 1985) (CONFIRM and CONFIRMCELLS); In re U.S. Shoe Corp., 229 USPQ 707 (TTAB 1985) (CAREER IMAGE and CREST CAREER IMAGES); In re Riddle, 225 USPQ 630 (TTAB 1985) (ACCUTUNE and RICHARD PETTY’S ACCU TUNE); TMEP §1207.01(b)(iii).
Relatedness of the Goods
Both the applicant and the registrant make battery charges. The fact that the applicant has limited its identification to certain types of battery chargers does not overcome the likelihood of confusion. In a likelihood of confusion analysis, the comparison of the parties’ goods is based on the goods as they are identified in the application and registration, without limitations or restrictions that are not reflected therein. In re Dakin’s Miniatures, Inc., 59 USPQ2d 1593, 1595 (TTAB 1999); see Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Packard Press Inc., 281 F.3d 1261, 1267-68, 62 USPQ2d 1001, 1004-05 (Fed. Cir. 2002); In re Thor Tech, Inc., 90 USPQ2d 1634, 1638-39 (TTAB 2009); TMEP §1207.01(a)(iii).
In this case, the identification set forth in the cited registration uses broad wording to describe registrant’s goods and does not contain any limitations as to nature, type, channels of trade or classes of purchasers. Therefore, it is presumed that the registration encompasses all goods of the type described, including those in applicant’s more specific identification, that the goods move in all normal channels of trade, and that they are available to all potential customers. See Citigroup Inc. v. Capital City Bank Grp., Inc., 637 F.3d 1344, 1356, 98 USPQ2d 1253, 1261 (Fed. Cir. 2011); In re Jump Designs LLC, 80 USPQ2d 1370, 1374 (TTAB 2006); In re Elbaum, 211 USPQ 639, 640 (TTAB 1981); TMEP §1207.01(a)(iii). Specifically, it must be presumed that registrant’s battery chargers can be used to charge Lead-Acid (PB) batteries, Nickel Metal Hydride (NIMH) batteries, Lithium-ion Polymer (LiPo) batteries, Lithium-ion (Li-ion) batteries, and Lithium Iron Phosphate (LiFePO4) batteries.
The applicant also argues that there is no evidence that the registrant does in fact use the mark iTHUNDER on battery chargers. However, a trademark registration on the Principal Register is prima facie evidence of the validity of the registration and the registrant’s exclusive right to use the mark in commerce in connection with the specified goods. See 15 U.S.C. §1057(b); TMEP §1207.01(d)(iv).
Thus, evidence and arguments that constitute a collateral attack on a cited registration, such as information or statements regarding a registrant’s nonuse of its mark, are not relevant during ex parte prosecution. See In re Dixie Rests., 105 F.3d 1405, 1408, 41 USPQ2d 1531, 1534-35 (Fed. Cir. 1997); In re Peebles Inc., 23 USPQ2d 1795, 1797 n.5 (TTAB 1992); TMEP §1207.01(d)(iv). Such evidence and arguments may, however, be pertinent to a formal proceeding before the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board to cancel the cited registration.
Finally, the attached Internet evidence consists of excerpts from www.batteryspace.com, www.batterychargers.com, www.geniuschargers.com, www.batterystuff.com and www.batteriesplus.com. This evidence establishes that the same entity commonly provides all types of battery charges and markets these chargers under the same mark, the relevant goods are sold or provided through the same trade channels and used by the same classes of consumers in the same fields of use and that the goods are similar or complementary in terms of purpose or function. Therefore, applicant’s and registrant’s goods are considered related for likelihood of confusion purposes. See, e.g., In re Davey Prods. Pty Ltd., 92 USPQ2d 1198, 1202-04 (TTAB 2009); In re Toshiba Med. Sys. Corp., 91 USPQ2d 1266, 1268-69, 1271-72 (TTAB 2009).
Evidence obtained from the Internet may be used to support a determination under Section 2(d) that goods and/or services are related. See, e.g., In re G.B.I. Tile & Stone, Inc., 92 USPQ2d 1366, 1371 (TTAB 2009); In re Paper Doll Promotions, Inc., 84 USPQ2d 1660, 1668 (TTAB 2007).
Conclusion
The marks are nearly identical. The only difference is that the registrant has added the letter ”i” to the beginning of the mark. The goods must be presumed to be identical types of battery chargers. The similarities between the marks and the goods are so great as to create a likelihood of confusion. Therefore for the reasons stated, the refusal under Section 2(d) as to Registration No. 3304417 is MAINTAINED and made FINAL.
Proper Response to Final Refusal
(1) Submitting a response that fully satisfies all outstanding requirements, if feasible; and/or
(2) Filing an appeal to the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board, with an appeal fee of $100 per class.
37 C.F.R. §§2.6(a)(18), 2.64(a); TBMP ch. 1200; TMEP §714.04.
In certain rare circumstances, a petition to the Director may be filed pursuant to 37 C.F.R. §2.63(b)(2) to review a final Office action that is limited to procedural issues. 37 C.F.R. §2.64(a); TMEP §714.04; see 37 C.F.R. §2.146(b); TBMP §1201.05; TMEP §1704 (explaining petitionable matters). The petition fee is $100. 37 C.F.R. §2.6(a)(15).
If applicant does not respond to this Office action within six months of the issue/mailing date, or responds by expressly abandoning the application, the application process will end, the trademark will fail to register, and the application fee will not be refunded. See 15 U.S.C. §1062(b); 37 C.F.R. §§2.65(a), 2.68(a), 2.209(a); TMEP §§405.04, 718.01, 718.02. Where the application has been abandoned for failure to respond to an Office action, applicant’s only option would be to file a timely petition to revive the application, which, if granted, would allow the application to return to live status. See 37 C.F.R. §2.66; TMEP §1714. There is a $100 fee for such petitions. See 37 C.F.R. §§2.6, 2.66(b)(1).
Because of the legal technicalities involved in this application, applicant may wish to hire an attorney specializing in trademark or intellectual property law. For attorney referral information, applicant may consult the American Bar Association’s Consumers’ Guide to Legal Help at http://www.abanet.org/legalservices/findlegalhelp/home.cfm or a local telephone directory. The USPTO cannot aid in the selection of an attorney. 37 C.F.R. §2.11.
Where an applicant is represented by an attorney, and then later retains a different attorney from a different firm, the newly retained attorney may not sign responses until applicant files a new power and/or revocation of attorney. See 37 C.F.R. §2.18(a)(7); TMEP §604.03.
Where an applicant is not represented by an attorney, 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. §2.193(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).
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.
/Julie A. Watson/
Trademark Attorney
Law Office 109
(571) 272-9236
julie.watson@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.