UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE (USPTO)
OFFICE ACTION (OFFICIAL LETTER) ABOUT APPLICANT’S TRADEMARK APPLICATION
|
U.S. APPLICATION SERIAL NO. 85875784
MARK: SRS
|
|
|
CORRESPONDENT ADDRESS: CHARLES ARIS, INC. CHARLES ARIS, INC. 300 N GREENE ST STE 1800 |
CLICK HERE TO RESPOND TO THIS LETTER: http://www.gov.uspto.report/trademarks/teas/response_forms.jsp
|
|
APPLICANT: Charles Aris, Inc.
|
|
|
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: 6/24/2013
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.
The applicant must address the following issues:
Section 2(d) Refusal – Likelihood of Confusion
Registration of the applied-for mark is refused because of a likelihood of confusion with the mark in U.S. Registration No. 3549094. Trademark Act Section 2(d), 15 U.S.C. §1052(d); see TMEP §§1207.01 et seq. See the enclosed registration.
The applicant has applied to register SRS for Class 035: “Business advisory services, namely, search for and selection of the best potential suppliers for others; Consultancy of personnel recruitment; Employment services, namely, providing a web site with online video, audio and textual interviewing forms to support recruiting, admissions, and general candidate screening processes; Executive recruiting services; Executive search and placement services.”
The registered mark is SRS STRATEGIC RELOCATION SOLUTIONS with design for Class 035: “Corporate relocation consulting, namely, consulting in the field of employee relocation for corporate executives and their families.”
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.
Taking into account the relevant du Pont factors, a likelihood of confusion determination in this case involves a two-part analysis. See In re E. I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., 476 F.2d 1357, 1361-62, 177 USPQ 563, 567 (C.C.P.A. 1973); In re 1st USA Realty Prof’ls Inc., 84 USPQ2d 1581, 1584 (TTAB 2007); see also In re Dixie Rests. Inc., 105 F.3d 1405, 1406-07, 41 USPQ2d 1531, 1533 (Fed. Cir. 1997). 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).
Comparison of the Marks
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).
In the present case, applicant’s mark SRS is similar to the registered mark SRS STRATEGIC RELOCATION SOLUTIONS with design in sound, appearance, and connotation. First, both marks are similar in appearance as they begin with SRS which is also identically spelled. Consumers are generally more inclined to focus on the first word, prefix or syllable in any trademark or service mark. In re Power Distrib., Inc., ___ USPQ2d ___, Ser. No. 77825939, 2012 TTAB LEXIS 402, at *5 (Sept. 29, 2012); 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); 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).
Next, although the registrant’s mark contains a design element, consumers are likely to give greater weight to the word portion of the mark which begins with SRS and is dominated by SRS STRATEGIC as stated in more detail below. 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)).
Further, the wording RELOCATION SERVICES is disclaimed apart from the registrant’s mark because the wording is merely descriptive in connection with the identified 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). 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).
Overall, the marks have the same commercial impression.
Comparison of Services
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 and/or if the circumstances surrounding their marketing [be] such that they could give rise to the mistaken belief that [the goods and/or services] emanate from the same source.” Coach Servs., Inc. v. Triumph Learning LLC, 668 F.3d 1356, 1369, 101 USPQ2d 1713, 1722 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (quoting 7-Eleven Inc. v. Wechsler, 83 USPQ2d 1715, 1724 (TTAB 2007)); Gen. Mills Inc. v. Fage Dairy Processing Indus. SA, 100 USPQ2d 1584, 1597 (TTAB 2011); TMEP §1207.01(a)(i).
In the present case, applicant’s various employee and executive recruitment services are related to registrant’s various employee and executive relocation services because the services are the type encountered by consumers seeking recruitment and subsequent relocation services due to the aforesaid recruitment. Specifically, the services are commonly encountered by employees who are recruited in a geographic area other than the one they currently live. In such situations, the employees secure a job in another area and are subsequently relocated. Therefore, the applicant’s and registrant’s services are encountered by the same consumer in connection with employment activities. Attached is evidence from multiple websites showing recruitment and relocation services provided concurrently in employment activities.
The trademark examining attorney has also 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 goods and/or services as those of both applicant and registrant in this case. This evidence shows that the goods and/or services listed therein, namely recruiting and relocation services, are of a kind that may emanate from a single source under a single mark. See In re Anderson, 101 USPQ2d 1912, 1919 (TTAB 2012); 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).
Accordingly, the services would be sold to the same class of purchasers and encountered under circumstances leading one to mistakenly believe the services originate from the same source.
Since the marks are similar and the services are related, there is a likelihood of confusion as to the source of the applicant’s services. Therefore, applicant’s mark is not entitled to registration.
Applicant must respond to the requirement(s) set forth below.
PROCEDURAL ISSUE
Specimen Requirement
The specimen is not acceptable because it is merely a photocopy of the drawing or a picture or rendering of the applied-for mark; it does not show the applied-for mark in actual use in commerce. See 37 C.F.R. §2.56(c); TMEP §§904.04(a), 904.07(a). Trademark Act Section 45 requires use of the mark “in the sale or advertising of services.” 15 U.S.C. §1127; see 37 C.F.R. §2.56(b)(2); TMEP §1301.04.
An application based on Section 1(a) must include a specimen showing the applied-for mark in use in commerce for each class of 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).
Therefore, applicant must submit the following:
(1) A substitute specimen showing the mark in use in commerce for each class of services specified in the application; and
(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 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.
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 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 service mark. 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).
Response Options for Specimen Requirement
If applicant responds to this Office action online via the Trademark Electronic Application System (TEAS), applicant should provide a substitute specimen as follows: (1) answer “yes” to the TEAS response form wizard question to “submit a new or substitute specimen,” (2) attach a jpg or pdf file of the substitute specimen, and (3) select the statement that “The substitute specimen(s) was in use in commerce at least as early as the filing date of the application.” However, if applicant is responding by amending the application to a Section 1(b) filing basis, applicant should do the following: (1) answer “yes” to the TEAS response form wizard questions to “change filing basis” and for a “signed declaration,” respectively; (2) uncheck the box for “Filing Basis Section 1(a);” and (3) check the box for “Filing Basis Section 1(b).” Please note that these steps appear on different pages of the TEAS response form.
Whether submitting a substitute specimen or amending the filing basis to Section 1(b), applicant must also personally sign or personally enter his/her electronic signature and date after the declaration at the end of the TEAS response form, and print or type the name of the signatory immediately below or adjacent to his/her signature or identify it elsewhere in the filing. See 37 C.F.R. §§2.34(a)(2), 2.59(a), 2.193(a), (c)-(d), (e)(1); TMEP §§611.01(c), 804.01(b).
If applicant experiences difficulty in submitting the required substitute specimen, supporting statement and/or declaration, or changing the filing basis, please e-mail TEAS@uspto.gov for technical assistance regarding the TEAS response form.
If applicant responds to this Office action on paper, via regular mail, applicant may provide a verified substitute specimen by (1) checking the first statement below and personally signing, dating, and printing or typing the name of the signatory in the declaration appearing below the statement; and (2) submitting a substitute specimen showing the applied-for mark in use in commerce. See 37 C.F.R. §§2.20, 2.59(a), 2.193(a)(1), (d), (e)(1); TMEP §§611.01(b), 804.01(b), 904.05. If applicant is responding by amending the application to a Section 1(b) filing basis, applicant may check the second statement below, and personally sign, date, and enter the printed or typed name of the signatory in the declaration appearing below the statement. See 37 C.F.R. §§2.20, 2.34(a)(2), 2.193(a)(1), (d), (e)(1); TMEP §§611.01(b), 804.01(b), 806.03(c).
q The substitute specimen was in use in commerce at least as early as the filing date of the application.
q 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.
The undersigned being warned that willful false statements and the like are punishable by fine or imprisonment, or both, under 18 U.S.C. §1001, and that such willful false statements and the like may jeopardize the validity of the application or document or any registration resulting therefrom, declares that all statements made of his/her own knowledge are true; and all statements made on information and belief are believed to be true.
_____________________________
(Signature)
_____________________________
(Print or Type Name and Position)
_____________________________
(Date)
RESPONSE GUIDELINES
For this application to proceed toward registration, applicant must explicitly address each refusal and/or requirement raised in this Office action. If the action includes a refusal, applicant may provide arguments and/or evidence as to why the refusal should be withdrawn and the mark should register. Applicant may also have other options for responding to a refusal and should consider such options carefully. To respond to requirements and certain refusal response options, applicant should set forth in writing the required changes or statements.
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).
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. Further, although the trademark examining attorney may provide additional explanation pertaining to the refusal(s) and/or requirement(s) in this Office action, the trademark examining attorney may not provide legal advice or statements about applicant’s rights. See TMEP §§705.02, 709.06.
/mvaghani/
Mayur Vaghani
Examining Attorney
Law Office 102
Phone: (571) 272-1615
Fax: (571) 273-9102
mayur.vaghani@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.
