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: 10/22/2012

 

THIS IS A FINAL 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.

 

This Office action is in response to applicant’s communication filed on October 5, 2012.

 

The sole issue raised in the prior Office action was the refusal to register the applicant’s mark under Trademark Act Section 2(d) based on a likelihood of confusion with the marks in U.S. Registration Nos. 3476744, 3761408, 4100120, and 4100121.  The applicant has presented no arguments against the refusal.  The refusal is hereby maintained and made final, for the reasons discussed below.  See 15 U.S.C. §1052(d); 37 C.F.R. §2.64(a).

 

FINAL SECTION 2(d) REFUSAL – LIKELIHOOD OF CONFUSION

The refusal to register the applicant’s mark because of a likelihood of confusion with the marks in U.S. Registration Nos. 3476744, 3761408, 4100120 and 4100121 is maintained and made final.  Trademark Act Section 2(d), 15 U.S.C. §1052(d); see TMEP §§1207.01 et seq. 

 

A likelihood of confusion determination in this case involves a two-part analysis.  First, the marks are compared for similarities in their appearance, sound, connotation and commercial impression.  TMEP §§1207.01, 1207.01(b).  Next, 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).

 

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 Marks

In a likelihood of confusion determination, the marks in their entireties are compared for similarities in appearance, sound, 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)-(b)(v). 

 

The applicant’s mark SENSATION is similar to the registered marks SENSATION WHITE (Reg. No. 3476744), SENSATION with DESIGN (Reg. No. 3761408), and HTC SENSATION (Reg. Nos. 4100120 and 4100121) because the dominant feature in each of the marks is the word SENSATION.  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 additional wording and design elements in the registered marks do not change the finding of similarity.  First, in Registration Nos. 4100120 and 4100121, the additional element HTC is a house mark.  When marks are otherwise virtually the same, the addition of a house mark is more likely to add to the likelihood of confusion than to distinguish the marks; it is likely that the two products sold under such marks would be attributed to the same source.  In re Dennison Mfg. Co., 229 USPQ 141, 144 (TTAB 1986) (holding GLUE STIC for general purpose adhesive in stick form likely to be confused with UHU GLU STIC for adhesives for paper and stationery); Key West Fragrance & Cosmetic Factory, Inc. v. Mennen Co., 216 USPQ 168, 170 (TTAB 1982) (holding SKIN SAVERS for face and throat lotion likely to be confused with MENNEN SKIN SAVER for hand and body lotion); see Hammermill Paper Co. v. Gulf States Paper Corp., 337 F.2d 662, 663, 143 USPQ 237, 238 (C.C.P.A. 1964) (holding HAMMERMILL E-Z CARRY PAK and E-Z PAPER PAK for carrying cases or boxes for typewriter or duplicator paper likely to be confused with E-Z PAK and E-Z CARI for paper bags); TMEP §1207.01(b)(iii).

 

In Registration No. 3476744, the additional term “WHITE” merely suggests a particular version of “SENSATION” goods, such as those that are white in color.  In this mark, it is still SENSATION that conveys the greatest trademark significance.  SENSATION is similarly the dominant element in Registration No. 3761408, as the design element in that mark is a relatively minor geometric shape that does not change the overall impression of the mark.  For a composite mark containing both words and a design, the word portion may be more likely to be impressed upon a purchaser’s memory and to be used when requesting the goods and/or services.  In re Dakin’s Miniatures, Inc., 59 USPQ2d 1593, 1596 (TTAB 1999); TMEP §1207.01(c)(ii); see In re Viterra Inc., 671 F.3d 1358, 1362, 101 USPQ2d 1905, 1908, 1911 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (citing CBS Inc. v. Morrow, 708 F. 2d 1579, 1581-82, 218 USPQ 198, 200 (Fed. Cir 1983)).  Thus, although such marks must be compared in their entireties, the word portion is often considered the dominant feature and is accorded greater weight in determining whether marks are confusingly similar, even where the word portion has been disclaimed.  In re Viterra Inc., 671 F.3d at 1366, 101 USPQ2d at 1911 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (citing Giant Food, Inc. v. Nation’s Foodservice, Inc., 710 F.2d 1565, 1570-71, 218 USPQ2d 390, 395 (Fed. Cir. 1983)). 

 

The applicant’s mark is the single word SENSATION.  As discussed above, the dominant feature in each of the registered marks is also the single word SENSATION.  Thus, the applicant’s mark is confusingly similar to each of the registered marks. 

 

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).

 

That is the case here.  The applicant seeks to register the proposed mark for use on “audio speakers, electronic docking stations, headphones” and the registered marks are used, in relevant part, on cellular phones, cell phone accessories including headsets and battery chargers, and apparatus for the transmission or reproduction of sound.  The applicant’s goods are related to the goods listed in the registrations, as the purpose and function of the applicant’s goods is the same as or similar to the purpose of the registered goods.  In addition, the applicant’s goods include those that are commonly provided under the same mark as goods listed in the cited registrations.

 

Registration Nos. 3476744 and 3761408

The goods in Registration Nos. 3476744 and 3761408 include “apparatus for recording, transmission or reproduction of sound and images.”  These goods are related to the applicant’s audio speakers and headphones, as audio speakers and headphones are both apparatus for the transmission or reproduction of sound. 

 

Analyzing the applicant’s and registrant’s goods and/or services for similarity and relatedness is based on the description of the goods and/or services set forth in the application and registration at issue.  See Octocom Sys. Inc. v. Hous. Computers Servs. Inc., 918 F.2d 937, 942, 16 USPQ2d 1783, 1787 (Fed. Cir. 1990); see also Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Packard Press Inc., 281 F.3d 1261, 1267, 62 USPQ2d 1001, 1004 (Fed. Cir. 2002); Tuxedo Monopoly, Inc. v. Gen. Mills Fun Grp. Inc., 648 F.2d 1335, 1337, 209 USPQ 986, 988 (C.C.P.A. 1981).  Absent restrictions in an application and/or registration, the identified goods and/or services are presumed to travel in the same channels of trade to the same class of purchasers.  Citigroup Inc. v. Capital City Bank Grp., Inc., 637 F.3d 1344, 1356, 98 USPQ2d 1253, 1261 (Fed. Cir. 2011); Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Packard Press Inc., 281 F.3d at 1268, 62 USPQ2d at 1005. 

 

Additionally, unrestricted and broad identifications are presumed to encompass all goods and/or services of the type described.  See In re Jump Designs, 80 USPQ2d 1370, 1374 (TTAB 2006); In re Linkvest S.A., 24 USPQ2d 1716, 1716 (TTAB 1992). 

 

In this case, the identification set forth in the application and registration has no restrictions as to nature, type, channels of trade, or classes of purchasers.  Therefore, it is presumed that these goods travel in all normal channels of trade, and are available to the same class of purchasers.  Further, the registration uses the broad wording “apparatus for transmission or reproduction of sound” to describe the goods and this wording is presumed to encompass all goods of the type described, including those in the applicant’s more narrow identification.  Thus, these goods are considered related for likelihood of confusion purposes.

 

Registration Nos. 4100120 and 4100121

The goods in Reg. No. 4100121 include mobile phones, smart phones, and cellular phones.  The goods in Reg. No. 4100120 include accessories for use with cellular and mobile phones, such as headsets, battery chargers, cradles, and connection cables.  These goods are related to the goods of the applicant because the applicant’s goods are or could be used as cellular phone accessories.  In addition, the goods are of a type commonly provided by a single entity under the same mark, and that travel in the same channels of trade.

 

First, the applicant’s “audio speakers” and “electronic docking stations” are identified broadly, as the specific purpose of the goods is not listed.  Such speakers and docking stations could be used as mobile telephone accessories.  The examining attorney references the previously attached shopping pages from www.google.com which show for sale docking stations and audio speakers intended for use with mobile phones.  Further, as such goods are used as mobile phone accessories, they are related to other accessories such as battery chargers, connection cables, and the like, which are also intended for use with cellular phones.

 

In addition, headsets and headphones are related goods, as they perform a similar function.  The examining attorney references the previously attached “Headset” entry from www.wikipedia.org, which explains that a headset is comprised of headphones and a microphone.  In essence, headsets are headphones for use with wireless phones, which headphones also include a microphone so that users can participate in telephone conversations through the headset. 

 

As discussed above, the applicant’s goods may be used with the goods of the registrant, and include items that perform the same function as those of the registrant.  As the goods are used for complementary purposes and perform similar functions, they are commonly provided by a single entity under the same mark

 

The examining attorney references the evidence attached to the prior Office action, copies of printouts from the USPTO X-Search database and third-party web pages, all evidencing the relatedness of the applicant’s and registrant’s goods.  As shown in the web pages, it is not uncommon for a single manufacturer to produce mobile phones and accessories for mobile phones such as speakers, docking stations, and/or headphones.  Headphones and headsets are also commonly produced under a single mark.  For example, the attached pages from www.bose.com and www.shure.com are shopping and information pages for entities that provide both standard headphones and headphones with microphones, or headsets.  The attached pages from www.motorola.com and www.samsung.com show that those manufacturers produce mobile phones and mobile phone accessories in the nature of docking stations.

 

The referenced evidence establishes that the same entity commonly manufactures and provides the relevant goods and markets the goods under the same mark, that 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 Trademark Act 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).

 

Response to Final Action Required to Avoid Abandonment

If applicant does not respond within six months of the date of issuance of this final Office action, the application will be abandoned.  15 U.S.C. §1062(b); 37 C.F.R. §2.65(a).  Applicant may respond to this final Office action by:

 

(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 has questions regarding this Office action, please telephone or e-mail the assigned trademark examining attorney.  All relevant e-mail communications will be placed in the official application record; however, an e-mail communication will not be accepted as a response to this Office action and will not extend the deadline for filing a proper response.  See 37 C.F.R. §2.191; TMEP §§304.01-.02, 709.04-.05. 

 

 

 

 

/Kimberly Frye/

Examining Attorney

Law Office 113

(p)571-272-9430

(f) 571-273-9430

(e) kimberly.frye@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 10/22/2012 FOR

SERIAL NO. 85505668

 

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 10/22/2012 (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.