UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE (USPTO)

OFFICE ACTION (OFFICIAL LETTER) ABOUT APPLICANT’S TRADEMARK APPLICATION

 

 

 

EXAMINER’S AMENDMENT/PRIORITY 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: 12/3/2012

 

PRIORITY ACTION

 

DATABASE SEARCH:  The trademark examining attorney has searched the USPTO’s database of registered and pending marks and has found no conflicting marks that would bar registration under Trademark Act Section 2(d).  TMEP §704.02; see 15 U.S.C. §1052(d).

 

ISSUES APPLICANT MUST ADDRESS:  On November 30, 2012, the trademark examining attorney and Teresa Tersol-Wiseman discussed the issues below.  Applicant must timely respond to these issues.  See 15 U.S.C. §1062(b); 37 C.F.R. §2.62(a); TMEP §§708, 711.

 

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. 2189555, 2189554, 2106124, 2196129, 2106123, 2189535, 2189534, 2100597, 2100596, 2102487 and 2102486.  Trademark Act Section 2(d), 15 U.S.C. §1052(d); see TMEP §§1207.01 et seq.  See the enclosed 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, 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).  In the seminal decision In re E. I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., 476 F.2d 1357, 177 USPQ 563 (C.C.P.A. 1973), the court 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 the factors are necessarily relevant or of equal weight, and any one of the factors may control in a given case, depending upon the evidence of record.  Citigroup Inc. v. Capital City Bank Grp., Inc., 637 F.3d 1344, 1355, 98 USPQ2d 1253, 1260 (Fed. Cir. 2011); In re Majestic Distilling Co., 315 F.3d 1311, 1315, 65 USPQ2d 1201, 1204 (Fed. Cir. 2003); see In re E. I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., 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 and nature of the goods and/or services, and similarity of the trade channels of the goods and/or services.  See In re Viterra Inc., 671 F.3d 1358, 1361-62, 101 USPQ2d 1905, 1908 (Fed. Cir. 2012); In re Dakin’s Miniatures Inc., 59 USPQ2d 1593, 1595-96 (TTAB 1999); TMEP §§1207.01 et seq.

 

1.  The Marks Are Similar

 

Marks are compared in their entireties for similarities in appearance, sound, connotation, and commercial impression.  In re Viterra Inc., 671 F.3d 1358, 1362, 101 USPQ2d 1905, 1908 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (quoting 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).  Similarity in any one of these elements may be sufficient to find the marks confusingly similar.  In re White Swan Ltd., 8 USPQ2d 1534, 1535 (TTAB 1988); see In re 1st USA Realty Prof’ls, Inc., 84 USPQ2d 1581, 1586 (TTAB 2007); TMEP §1207.01(b).

 

Applicant is attempting to register a mark that consists of the underscored term JUMPSTART in stylized letters and with a small star located thereabove.  The following marks are owned by a single entity distinct from applicant:

 

JUMP START 5TH GRADE (U.S. Reg. No. 2189555);

JUMP START 4TH GRADE (U.S. Reg. No. 2189554);

JUMPSTART PRESCHOOL (U.S. Reg. Nos. 2106124 and 2106123);

JUMP START 2ND GRADE (U.S. Reg. Nos. 2189535 and 2189534);

JUMP START FIRST GRADE (U.S. Reg. Nos. 2100597 and 2100596); and

JUMP START KINDERGARTEN (U.S. Reg. Nos. 2102487 and 2102486). 

JUMP START 3RD GRADE (U.S. Reg. No. 2196129)

 

The marks are similar in sound, appearance, connotation and overall commercial impression because the word portion of the applied-for mark is essentially the same as the dominant feature of each registered mark. 

 

Marks may be confusingly similar when the dominant feature of each mark is the same, notwithstanding peripheral differences.  See, e.g., In re Mighty Leaf Tea, 601 F.3d 1342, 1347-48, 94 USPQ2d 1257, 1260-61 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (affirming TTAB’s finding that applicant’s mark, ML, is likely to be perceived as a shortened version of registrant’s mark, ML MARK LEES (stylized), when used on the same or closely related skin-care products); Palm Bay Imps., Inc. v. Veuve Clicquot Ponsardin Maison Fondee En 1772 , 396 F.3d 1369, 1372-73, 73 USPQ2d 1689, 1692 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (affirming TTAB’s holding that contemporaneous use of appellant’s mark, VEUVE ROYALE, for sparkling wine, and appellee’s marks, VEUVE CLICQUOT and VEUVE CLICQUOT PONSARDIN, for champagne, is likely to cause confusion, noting that the presence of the “strong distinctive term [VEUVE] as the first word in both parties’ marks renders the marks similar, especially in light of the largely laudatory (and hence non-source identifying) significance of the word ROYALE”); In re Chatam Int’l Inc., 380 F.3d 1340 , 1343, 71 USPQ2d 1944, 1946 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (“Viewed in their entireties with non-dominant features appropriately discounted, the marks [GASPAR’S ALE for beer and ale and JOSE GASPAR GOLD for tequila] become nearly identical.”); Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Packard Press, Inc., 281 F.3d 1261, 1266, 62 USPQ2d 1001, 1004 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (finding that, even though applicant’s mark PACKARD TECHNOLOGIES (with “TECHNOLOGIES” disclaimed) does not incorporate every feature of opposer’s HEWLETT PACKARD marks, a similar overall commercial impression is created); In re Max Capital Grp. Ltd., 93 USPQ2d 1243, 1248 (TTAB 2010) (holding applicant’s mark, MAX with pillar design, and registrant’s mark, MAX, likely to cause confusion, noting that the “addition of a column design to the cited mark . . . is not sufficient to convey that [the] marks . . . identify different sources for legally identical insurance services”). 

 

Although marks are compared in their entireties, one feature of a mark may be more significant or dominant in creating a commercial impression.  See In re Viterra Inc., 671 F.3d 1358, 1362, 101 USPQ2d 1905, 1908 (Fed. Cir. 2012); In re Nat’l Data Corp., 753 F.2d 1056, 1058, 224 USPQ 749, 751 (Fed. Cir. 1985); TMEP §1207.01(b)(viii), (c)(ii).  Greater weight is often given to this dominant feature when determining whether marks are confusingly similar.  See In re Nat’l Data Corp., 753 F.2d at 1058, 224 USPQ at 751.

 

The dominant feature of each mark is the term “JUMP START” or “JUMPSTART”.  The term “JUMPSTART” or “JUMP START” is the first term in each of the registered marks.  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).

 

In contrast the remaining words in each registered mark are disclaimed.  Disclaimed matter is typically less significant or less dominant when comparing marks.  See In re Dixie Rests., Inc., 105 F.3d 1405, 1407, 41 USPQ2d 1531, 1533-34 (Fed. Cir. 1997); In re Nat’l Data Corp., 753 F.2d 1056, 1060, 224 USPQ 749, 752 (Fed. Cir. 1985); TMEP §1207.01(b)(viii), (c)(ii).

 

With respect to the applied-for mark, the dominant feature is also the term “JUMPSTART” since it is the word portion 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)). 

 

In each mark the term “JUMP START” conveys the same idea to consumers, i.e., that the software and games aid children in getting up and functions. 

 

Accordingly, giving each feature of the marks appropriate weight, the marks when compared in their entireties are sufficiently similar that despite some differences confusion as to the source of the goods is likely. 

 

2.  The Goods And Services Are Overlapping And Related

 

Applicant is attempting to register its JUMPSTART mark for “Computer game software for personal computers and home video game consoles; Computer game programmes; Computer game programmes downloadable via the Internet” and “Entertainment services, namely, providing online video games; Entertainment services, namely, providing virtual environments in which users can interact for recreational, leisure or entertainment purposes; Interactive educational and entertainment services, namely, providing a web-based virtual educational theme-park featuring animated children's characters and avatars.”  The registered JUMPSTART marks are used with game software or related software:

 

Computer programs for interactive, multimedia, virtual reality and three dimensional simulation applications and instructional manuals sold as a unit, exclusive of sound recordings providing accompaniment for students learning to play musical instruments (U.S. Reg. Nos. 2189555, 2189554, 2106124, 2196129, 2189534 and 2102487);

 

Multimedia computer game and interactive story telling software exclusive of sound recordings providing accompaniment for students learning to play musical instruments (U.S. Reg. No. 2102486 and 2189535);

 

Scientific and electrical apparatus and instruments, namely, computer peripherals and computer programs for interactive, multimedia, virtual reality and three dimensional simulation applications and instructional manuals sold as a unit (U.S. Reg. No. 2100597); and

 

Games and playthings, namely, multimedia computer game and interactive story telling software exclusive of sound recordings providing accompaniment for students learning to play musical instruments (U.S. Reg. No. 2100596 and 2102486). 

 

The game software listed in the application overlaps with the game software explicitly listed or described in the registrations.  It is presumed that the multimedia interactive software not explicitly described as computer game software is nonetheless game software. 

 

The game-related services in the application are closely related to the software listed in the registrations.  The goods and/or services of the parties need not be identical or even competitive to find a likelihood of confusion.  See On-line Careline Inc. v. Am. Online Inc., 229 F.3d 1080, 1086, 56 USPQ2d 1471, 1475 (Fed. Cir. 2000); Recot, Inc. v. Becton, 214 F.3d 1322, 1329, 54 USPQ2d 1894, 1898 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (“[E]ven if the goods in question are different from, and thus not related to, one another in kind, the same goods can be related in the mind of the consuming public as to the origin of the goods.”); TMEP §1207.01(a)(i).  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).  Attached are examples of game software and educational game software as well as online games marketed through the same trade channels by a single source.

 

Under these circumstances use of similar JUMP START marks by different parties on the identified goods and services is likely to lead to consumer confusion or mistake as to the source of the goods and services. 

 

APPLICANT MAY PROVE OWNERSHIP OF CITED REGISTRATIONS

 

Applicant is Knowledge Adventure, Inc., a corporation of Delaware.  Office records show that the cited registrations are owned by Knowledge Adventure, Inc., a corporation of California, which is a facially distinct entity.  If the marks in the cited registrations have been assigned to applicant, applicant may provide evidence of ownership of the marks by satisfying one of the following:

 

(1)  Record the assignment with the USPTO’s Assignment Recordation Branch (ownership transfer documents such as assignments can be filed online at http://etas.uspto.gov) and promptly notify the trademark examining attorney that the assignment has been duly recorded.

 

(2)  Submit copies of documents evidencing the chain of title.

 

(3)  Submit the following statement, verified with an affidavit or signed declaration under 37 C.F.R. §2.20:  “Applicant is the owner of U.S. Registration Nos. 2189555, 2189554, 2106124, 2196129, 2106123, 2189535, 2189534, 2100597, 2100596, 2102487 and 2102486.” 

 

TMEP §812.01; see 15 U.S.C. §1060; 37 C.F.R. §§2.193(e)(1), 3.25, 3.73(a)-(b); TMEP §502.02(a).

 

Recording a document with the Assignment Recordation Branch does not constitute a response to an Office action.  TMEP §503.01(d).

 

APPLICANT TO SUBMIT SUBSTITUTE SPECIMEN FOR CLASS 9

 

The specimen does not show the applied-for mark used in connection with any of the goods specified in International Class 9, and therefore is not acceptable.  An application based on Trademark Act Section 1(a) must include a specimen showing the applied-for mark in use in commerce for each international class of goods and/or services identified in the application.  Trademark Act Sections 1 and 45, 15 U.S.C. §§1051, 1127; 37 C.F.R. §§2.34(a)(1)(iv), 2.56(a); TMEP §§904, 904.07(a). 

 

In this case, the specimen is a web page that appears to refer to downloadable products, but appears to only offer access to a subscription type service.   The web page specimen is not acceptable to show trademark use as a display associated with downloadable software because it fails to provide sufficient information to enable the user to download or purchase the software from the website and thus, appears to be mere advertising material.  See In re Sones, 590 F.3d 1282, 1286-89, 93 USPQ2d 1118, 1122-24 (Fed. Cir. 2009); In re Azteca Sys., Inc., 102 USPQ2d 1955, 1957 (TTAB 2012); In re Genitope Corp., 78 USPQ2d 1819, 1822 (TTAB 2006); TMEP §904.03(e), (i); cf. Lands’ End, Inc. v. Manbeck, 797 F. Supp. 511, 513-14, 24 USPQ2d 1314, 1316 (E.D. Va. 1992).

 

Advertising material, which merely tells prospective purchasers about the goods or promotes the sale of the goods, is generally not acceptable as a specimen to show trademark use in connection with goods.  See In re Genitope Corp., 78 USPQ2d at 1822; In re MediaShare Corp., 43 USPQ2d 1304, 1307 (TTAB 1997); TMEP §904.04(b), (c).

 

However, a web catalog, web page, or similar specimen, which is otherwise a form of advertising, is acceptable to show trademark use as a display associated with the goods if it includes (1) a picture of the relevant goods or a textual description that identifies the actual features or inherent characteristics of the goods such that the goods are recognizable, (2) the mark appearing sufficiently near the picture or textual description of the goods so as to associate the mark with the goods, and (3) information necessary to order the goods (e.g., an order form or offer to accept orders via phone or e-mail), a visible weblink to order the goods, or, for downloadable software, information necessary to download the software.  See In re Sones, 590 F.3d at 1286-89, 93 USPQ2d at 1122-24; In re Genitope Corp., 78 USPQ2d at 1822; TMEP §904.03(e), (h)-(i); cf. Lands’ End, Inc. v. Manbeck, 797 F. Supp. at 513-14, 24 USPQ2d at 1316.  Without this information, the specimen is mere advertising and is not acceptable to show use in commerce for goods.  See, e.g., In re Osterberg, 83 USPQ2d 1220, 1222-24 (TTAB 2007); In re Genitope Corp., 78 USPQ2d at 1822.

 

Therefore, applicant must submit the following:

 

(1)  A substitute specimen showing the mark in actual use in commerce for International Class 9.

 

(2)  The following statement, verified with an affidavit or signed declaration under 37 C.F.R. §2.20:  “The substitute specimen was in use in commerce at least as early as the filing date of the application.”  37 C.F.R. §2.59(a); TMEP §904.05; see 37 C.F.R. §2.193(e)(1).  If submitting a substitute specimen requires an amendment to the dates of use, applicant must also verify the amended dates.  37 C.F.R. §2.71(c); TMEP §904.05.

 

Examples of specimens for goods are tags, labels, instruction manuals, containers, photographs that show the mark on the actual goods or packaging, or displays associated with the actual goods at their point of sale.  See TMEP §§904.03 et seq. 

 

If applicant cannot satisfy the above requirements, applicant may amend the application from a use in commerce basis under Section 1(a) to an intent to use basis under Section 1(b), for which no specimen is required.  See TMEP §806.03(c).  However, if applicant amends the basis to Section 1(b), registration will not be granted until applicant later amends the application back to use in commerce by filing an acceptable allegation of use with a proper specimen.  See 15 U.S.C. §1051(c), (d); 37 C.F.R. §§2.76, 2.88; TMEP §1103. 

 

To amend to Section 1(b), applicant must submit the following statement, verified with an affidavit or signed declaration under 37 C.F.R. §2.20:  “Applicant has had a bona fide intention to use the mark in commerce on or in connection with the goods and/or services listed in the application as of the filing date of the application.”  37 C.F.R. §2.34(a)(2); TMEP §806.01(b); see 15 U.S.C. §1051(b); 37 C.F.R. §§2.35(b)(1), 2.193(e)(1).

 

Pending receipt of a proper response, registration is refused because the specimen does not show the applied-for mark in use in commerce as a trademark and/or service mark for the identified goods and/or services.  Trademark Act Sections 1 and 45, 15 U.S.C. §§1051, 1127; 37 C.F.R. §§2.34(a)(1)(iv), 2.56(a); TMEP §§904, 904.07(a). 

 

EXAMINER'S AMENDMENT

 

APPLICATION HAS BEEN AMENDED:  In accordance with the authorization granted by the individual identified in the Priority Action section above, the trademark examining attorney has amended the application as indicated below.  Please advise the undersigned immediately of any objections.  TMEP §707.  Any amendments to the identification of goods and/or services may clarify or limit the goods and/or services, but may not add to or broaden the scope of the goods and/or services.  37 C.F.R. §2.71(a); see TMEP §§1402.06 et seq.

 

COLOR CLAIM AND DESCRIPTION

 

The following statements describing color in the mark are added to the record:

 

The colors blue and gold are claimed as a feature of the mark. 

 

The mark consists of the term “JUMPSTART” in the color blue, above which is a gold star and below which is a gold underscore. 

 

37 C.F.R. §2.52(b)(1); TMEP §807.07(a)(i), (a)(ii).

 

PRIOR REGISTRATIONS

 

The following claim of ownership is added to the record:

 

            Applicant is the owner of U.S. Registration No. 3442922, 3442921, 3175354, 3379274, 2986075, 3881461, 2460530, 2462886, 2499700, 2356767, 2601370, 3178830, 2830250, 3303023, 2136628, 2473819 and 2145124.

 

See 37 C.F.R. §2.36; TMEP §812.

           

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.

 

If applicant has questions regarding this Office action, please telephone or e-mail the assigned trademark examining attorney. 

 

/Mark Rademacher/

Examining Attorney

Law Office 114

Trademarks

United States Patent and Trademark Office

(571) 272 9723

mark.rademacher@uspto.gov (informal only)

 

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 TRADEMARK APPLICATION

Your trademark application (Serial No. 85752261) has been reviewed.   The examining attorney assigned by the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) has written a letter (an “Office Action”) on 12/3/2012 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 12/3/2012 (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:

 

/Mark Rademacher/

Examining Attorney

Law Office 114

Trademarks

United States Patent and Trademark Office

(571) 272 9723

mark.rademacher@uspto.gov (informal only)

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.