To: | Apache Corporation (docketing@bgllp.com) |
Subject: | U.S. TRADEMARK APPLICATION NO. 85706000 - APACHE - N/A |
Sent: | 12/11/2012 11:00:30 PM |
Sent As: | ECOM101@USPTO.GOV |
Attachments: | Attachment - 1 Attachment - 2 Attachment - 3 Attachment - 4 Attachment - 5 |
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE (USPTO)
OFFICE ACTION (OFFICIAL LETTER) ABOUT APPLICANT’S TRADEMARK APPLICATION
U.S. APPLICATION SERIAL NO. 85706000
MARK: APACHE
|
|
CORRESPONDENT ADDRESS: |
CLICK HERE TO RESPOND TO THIS LETTER: http://www.gov.uspto.report/trademarks/teas/response_forms.jsp
|
APPLICANT: Apache Corporation
|
|
CORRESPONDENT’S REFERENCE/DOCKET NO: CORRESPONDENT E-MAIL ADDRESS: |
|
OFFICE ACTION
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: 12/11/2012
The referenced application has been reviewed by the assigned trademark examining attorney. Applicant must respond timely and completely to the issue(s) below. 15 U.S.C. §1062(b); 37 C.F.R. §§2.62, 2.65(a); TMEP §§711, 718.03.
Section 2(d) Refusal – Likelihood of Confusion
Registration of the applied-for mark is refused because of a likelihood of confusion with the marks in U.S. Registration Nos. 1141230 and 3621287. Trademark Act Section 2(d), 15 U.S.C. §1052(d); see TMEP §§1207.01 et seq. See the attached cited registrations.
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.
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).
In this case, the applicant’s mark APACHE is identical to the mark APACHE in cited U.S. Registration No. 1141230.
Also, the applicant’s mark APACHE is similar in sound and appearance to the mark APACHE SERVICES, INC. (and design) in cited U.S. Registration No. 3621287. The design element of registrant’s mark does not distinguish it from applicant’s 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)). In this case, it is the wording APACHE SERVICES, INC. in registrant’s mark that is accorded greater weight in the likelihood of confusion analysis because, as wording, it is more likely to be impressed upon a purchaser’s memory and to be used when requesting the services.
Despite the differences, the applicant’s mark and mark in cited U.S. Registration No. 3621287 share the confusingly identical sounding, similar appearing and dominant word APACHE.
The respective goods and/or services need only be related in some manner or the conditions surrounding their marketing be such that they will be encountered by the same consumers under circumstances that would lead to the mistaken belief that the goods and/or services originate from the same source. Gen. Mills Inc. v. Fage Dairy Processing Indus., 100 USPQ2d 1584, 1597 (TTAB 2012); TMEP §1207.01(a)(i); see On-line Careline Inc. v. Am. Online Inc., 229 F.3d at 1086, 56 USPQ2d at 1475; In re Martin’s Famous Pastry Shoppe, Inc., 748 F.2d 1565, 1566-68, 223 USPQ 1289, 1290 (Fed. Cir. 1984).
In this case, the registrant’s goods (in U.S. Registration No. 1141230) are “mobile drills for water, oil and gas wells and mineral exploration” and registrant’s services (in U.S. Registration No. 3621287) are “Construction and repair of plants and industrial facilities used for oil and gas production, processing and manufacturing polymers and chemicals, oil refining and gas processing; Building construction services, namely, constructing buildings used for manufacturing, warehousing, distribution, retailing, industrial processing, applying protective coatings, treatment of concrete and concrete finishing; Repair of buildings used for manufacturing, warehousing, distribution, retailing, industrial processing, applying protective coatings, treatment of concrete and concrete finishing; Construction and repair of security enclosures and buildings, entertainment facilities, governmental and infrastructural buildings and facilities, office buildings, educational facilities, and laboratories; Consulting in the fields of construction, repair, maintenance and installation of buildings, oil and gas production plants and industrial facilities used for processing and manufacturing polymers and chemicals, oil refining, and gas processing; Consulting in the field of construction planning; Construction planning services; Technical consulting in the fields of maintenance and repair of oil and gas production plants, industrial facilities used for processing and manufacturing polymers, oil refining, and gas processing; Technical consulting in the fields of maintenance and repair of buildings and facilities used for manufacturing, warehousing, distribution, industrial processing, applying protective coatings, treatment of concrete and concrete finishing; Technical consulting in the fields construction, maintenance and repair of security enclosures and buildings, entertainment facilities, governmental and infrastructural buildings and facilities, office buildings, educational facilities, and laboratories” and “Technical consulting in the field of design of buildings, oil and gas production plants and industrial facilities used for processing and manufacturing polymers and chemicals, oil refining, and gas processing; Technical consulting in the field of design of security enclosures and buildings, entertainment facilities, governmental and infrastructural buildings and facilities, office buildings, educational facilities, and laboratories; Technical consulting in the field of computer-based information systems used in construction and repair of oil and gas production plants and industrial facilities used for processing and manufacturing polymers and chemicals, oil refining, gas processing; Technical consulting in the field of computer-based information systems used in maintenance and repair of buildings and facilities used for manufacturing, warehousing, distribution, industrial processing, applying protective coatings, treatment of concrete and concrete finishing; Technical consulting in the field of computer-based information systems used in security enclosures and buildings, entertainment facilities, governmental and infrastructural buildings and facilities, office buildings, educational facilities, and laboratories.”
The applicant’s services are “Oil and gas drilling and pumping; Installation, maintenance and repair of liquid and compressed natural gas fueling systems; Maintenance of facilities for operating fleets of compressed natural gas vehicles; Vehicle refueling services” and “Natural gas liquefaction services; Oil and gas well treatment; Oil and gas production services; Oil and gas well treatment” and “Analysis of oil and gas fields; Exploration and searching of oil and gas; Geophysical exploration for the oil industry; Geophysical exploration for the gas industry; Oil and gas field surveying; Oil and gas prospecting; Oil and gas well testing; Surveying of oil and gas beds and fields.”
The applicant’s services are related to registrant’s goods because registrant’s goods could be featured and/or used in connection with applicant’s oil and gas drilling and pumping services and related oil and gas production, exploration, surveying and prospecting services. Also, applicant’s services are related to registrant’s services because both are providing repair services of equipment used in the field of gas and/or gas processing, and also both applicant’s services and registrant’s services deal directly with aspects of oil and gas production and processing.
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).
Although applicant’s mark has been refused registration, applicant may respond to the refusal(s) by submitting evidence and arguments in support of registration.
/Andrew Rhim/
Andrew Rhim
Law Office 101
Phone (571) 272-9711
E-mail: andrew.rhim@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 the Trademark Electronic Application System (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 the Trademark Status and Document Retrieval (TSDR) system at http://tsdr.gov.uspto.report/. Please keep a copy of the TSDR status screen. If the status shows no change for more than six months, contact the Trademark Assistance Center by e-mail at TrademarkAssistanceCenter@uspto.gov or 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/trademarks/teas/correspondence.jsp.