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: 8/16/2013

 

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(a), 2.65(a); TMEP §§711, 718.03.

 

SUMMARY OF ISSUES that applicant must address:

 

• SECTION 2(d) REFUSAL – LIKELIHOOD OF CONFUSION
• IDENTIFICATION OF SERVICES

 

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. 4069045.  Trademark Act Section 2(d), 15 U.S.C. §1052(d); see TMEP §§1207.01 et seq.  See the enclosed registration.

 

Applicant’s mark is VANQUISH, in standard characters for “computer hardware” in International Class 9 and “selling of online retail computer hardware” in International Class 35.

 

Registrant’s mark is VANQUISH, in a stylized form with a design element, for “video game software; computer game programs” in International Class 9.

 

Trademark Act Section 2(d) bars registration of an applied-for mark that so resembles a registered mark that it is likely 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).  A determination of likelihood of confusion under Section 2(d) is made on a case-by case basis and the factors set forth in In re E. I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., 476 F.2d 1357, 177 USPQ 563 (C.C.P.A. 1973) aid in this determination.  Citigroup Inc. v. Capital City Bank Grp., Inc., 637 F.3d 1344, 1349, 98 USPQ2d 1253, 1256 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (citing On-Line Careline, Inc. v. Am. Online, Inc., 229 F.3d 1080, 1085, 56 USPQ2d 1471, 1474 (Fed. Cir. 2000)).  Not all the du Pont factors, however, 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 at 1355, 98 USPQ2d at 1260; 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.

 

Similarity 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 this case, applicant’s mark, VANQUISH, and registrant’s mark, VANQUISH, create the same commercial impression; the marks are identical but for registrant’s design features.

 

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)).  Here, the dominant feature of registrant’s mark is VANQUISH, and VANQUISH is the entirety of applicant’s mark.

 

Furthermore, a mark in typed or standard characters may be displayed in any lettering style; the rights reside in the wording or other literal element and not in any particular display or rendition.  See In re Viterra Inc., 671 F.3d 1358, 1363, 101 USPQ2d 1905, 1909 (Fed. Cir. 2012); In re Mighty Leaf Tea, 601 F.3d 1342, 1348, 94 USPQ2d 1257, 1260 (Fed. Cir. 2010); 37 C.F.R. §2.52(a); TMEP §1207.01(c)(iii).  Thus, a mark presented in stylized characters and/or with a design element generally will not avoid likelihood of confusion with a mark in typed or standard characters because the marks could be presented in the same manner of display.  See, e.g., In re Viterra Inc., 671 F.3d at 1363, 101 USPQ2d at 1909; Squirtco v. Tomy Corp., 697 F.2d 1038, 1041, 216 USPQ 937, 939 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (stating that “the argument concerning a difference in type style is not viable where one party asserts rights in no particular display”).  In this case, while registrant’s mark contains a design element, applicant’s mark is in standard characters.

 

Therefore, the marks create the same commercial impression because they are identical in sound and could be displayed in a similar or identical manner.

 

Relatedness of the Goods

 

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).

 

Again, applicant’s goods are “computer hardware” in International Class 9 and “selling of online retail computer hardware” in International Class 35 and registrant’s goods are “video game software; computer game programs” in International Class 9.

 

About.com defines computer hardware as “the physical components that make up a computer system.”  These physical components include items such as video cards and joysticks.  Merriam-Webster’s dictionary defines software as “something used or associated with, and usually contrasted with hardware as the entire set of programs, procedures and related documentation associated with a (computer) system.”

 

The attached Internet evidence consists of internet screenshots from Target.com, GameStop, Wii and Engadget.  This evidence establishes that the same entity commonly manufactures and provides the relevant goods and/or services and markets the goods and/or services under the same mark, that the relevant goods and/or services 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 and/or services are similar or complementary in terms of purpose or function.  Therefore, applicant’s and registrant’s goods and/or services 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).

 

Specifically, each screenshot shows computer hardware sold with video game software/programs under a single mark.  X-Box hardware and video game software is bundled in the Target screenshot; Playstation hardware and video game software is bundled in the GameStop screen shot; and Wii hardware and video game software is bundled in the Wii screen shot.  Therefore, the goods of both applicant and registrant travel through the same channels of trade, and are produced by the same company under the same mark.

 

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).

 

International Class 9

 

The Trademark Trial and Appeal Board has held that computer hardware products are related to computer software products, such that their marketing under the same or similar marks may be likely to cause source confusion.  See In re Emulex Corp., 6 USPQ2d 1312 (TTAB 1987) (holding JAVELIN for computer peripheral software storage unit likely to be confused with JAVELIN for “prerecorded computer programs in machine readable form”); In re TIE/Commc’ns, Inc., 5 USPQ2d 1457 (TTAB 1987) (holding DATA STAR likely to cause confusion when used in connection with both registrant’s “computer programs recorded on magnetic media” and applicant’s “voice/data communications terminals and parts thereof”); In re Digital Research Inc., 4 USPQ2d 1242 (TTAB 1987) (holding CONCURRENT PC-DOS likely to be confused with CONCURRENT TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION for “printed electronic circuit boards”); In re Epic Sys. Corp., 228 USPQ 213 (TTAB 1985) (holding EPIC for computer software for use in health care facilities likely to be confused with EPIC DATA for “electronic data collection terminals and electronic data collection units”); In re Teradata Corp., 223 USPQ 361 (TTAB 1984) (holding Y NET for computer hardware likely to be confused with XYNET for computer software); In re Compagnie Internationale Pour L’Informatique-Cii Honeywell Bull, 223 USPQ 363 (TTAB 1984) (holding QUESTAR for computer hardware likely to be confused with QUESTAN for computer programs); In re Graphics Tech. Corp., 222 USPQ 179 (TTAB 1984) (holding AGILE for computer programs likely to be confused with AGILE for computer data terminals); Alpha Indus., Inc. v. Alpha Microsystems, 220 USPQ 67 (TTAB 1983) (holding ALPHA MICRO for digital computer equipment and programs likely to be confused with ALPHA MICROWAVE for microwave components and sub assemblies); see also Octocom Sys., Inc. v. Houston Computer Servs., Inc., 918 F.2d 937, 16 USPQ2d 1783 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (affirming TTAB decision on summary judgment that found computer modems and computer programs highly related); cf. In re Quadram Corp., 228 USPQ 863 (TTAB 1985).

 

Additionally, the trademark examining attorney has 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 as those of both applicant and registrant in this case.  This evidence shows that the goods listed therein, namely “computer hardware” and “video game software; computer game software” 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).

 

International Class 35

 

Consumers are likely to be confused by the use of similar marks on or in connection with goods and with services featuring or related to those goods.  TMEP §1207.01(a)(ii); see In re Hyper Shoppes (Ohio), Inc., 837 F.2d 463, 6 USPQ2d 1025 (Fed. Cir. 1988) (holding BIGG’S for retail grocery and general merchandise store services likely to be confused with BIGGS for furniture); In re United Serv. Distribs., Inc., 229 USPQ 237 (TTAB 1986) (holding design for distributorship services in the field of health and beauty aids likely to be confused with design for skin cream); In re Phillips-Van Heusen Corp., 228 USPQ 949 (TTAB 1986) (holding 21 CLUB for various items of men’s, boys’, girls’ and women’s clothing likely to be confused with THE “21” CLUB (stylized) for restaurant services and towels); In re U.S. Shoe Corp., 229 USPQ 707 (TTAB 1985) (holding CAREER IMAGE (stylized) for retail women’s clothing store services and clothing likely to be confused with CREST CAREER IMAGES (stylized) for uniforms); Steelcase Inc. v. Steelcare Inc., 219 USPQ 433 (TTAB 1983) (holding STEELCARE INC. for refinishing of furniture, office furniture, and machinery likely to be confused with STEELCASE for office furniture and accessories); Mack Trucks, Inc. v. Huskie Freightways, Inc., 177 USPQ 32 (TTAB 1972) (holding similar marks for trucking services and on motor trucks and buses likely to cause confusion).

 

Thus, upon encountering VANQUISH for, computer hardware, selling of online retail computer hardware,” and VANQUISH for “video game software; computer game programs” consumers are likely to be confused and mistakenly believe that the respective goods and/or services emanate from a common source.  Therefore, registration must be refused under Section 2(d) of the Trademark Act.

 

Although applicant’s mark has been refused registration, applicant may respond to the refusal(s) by submitting evidence and arguments in support of registration.

 

Applicant must respond to the requirement(s) set forth below.

 

IDENTIFICATION OF SERVICES

 

Applicant’s recitation of services includes “selling of online retail computer hardware” in International Class 35.

 

The word “selling” in the identification of services is indefinite and must be clarified.  See TMEP §1402.01.  To be a service, an activity must be primarily for the benefit of someone other than the applicant.  See In re Reichhold Chems., Inc., 167 USPQ 376, 377 (TTAB 1970).  “Sales” or “selling” is not a service rendered for the benefit of others.  See TMEP §§1301.01(a)(ii), 1402.11.

 

Therefore, applicant must delete “selling” and indicate with greater specificity the nature of the service, e.g., “on-line retail store services featuring computer hardware.”

 

An applicant may amend an identification of services only to clarify or limit the services; adding to or broadening the scope of the services is not permitted.  37 C.F.R. §2.71(a); see TMEP §§1402.06 et seq., 1402.07 et seq.

 

For assistance with identifying and classifying goods and services in trademark applications, please see the USPTO’s online searchable U.S. Acceptable Identification of Goods and Services Manual at http://tess2.gov.uspto.report/netahtml/tidm.html.  See TMEP §1402.04.

 

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.

 

 

 

/chrisreams/

Trademark Examining Attorney

Law Office 102

571 2727815

christopher.reams@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.

 

 

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE (USPTO)

 

 

IMPORTANT NOTICE REGARDING YOUR

U.S. TRADEMARK APPLICATION

 

USPTO OFFICE ACTION (OFFICIAL LETTER) HAS ISSUED

ON 8/16/2013 FOR U.S. APPLICATION SERIAL NO. 85908660

 

Your trademark application has been reviewed.  The trademark examining attorney assigned by the USPTO to your application has written an official letter to which you must respond.  Please follow these steps:

 

(1)  Read the LETTER by clicking on this link or going to http://tsdr.gov.uspto.report/, entering your U.S. application serial number, and clicking on “Documents.”

 

The Office action may not be immediately viewable, to allow for necessary system updates of the application, but will be available within 24 hours of this e-mail notification. 

 

(2)  Respond within 6 months (or sooner if specified in the Office action), calculated from 8/16/2013, using the Trademark Electronic Application System (TEAS) response form located at http://www.gov.uspto.report/trademarks/teas/response_forms.jsp. 

 

Do NOT hit “Reply” to this e-mail notification, or otherwise e-mail your response because the USPTO does NOT accept e-mails as responses to Office actions. 

 

(3)  Questions about the contents of the Office action itself should be directed to the trademark examining attorney who reviewed your application, identified below. 

 

/chrisreams/

Trademark Examining Attorney

Law Office 102

571 2727815

christopher.reams@uspto.gov

 

WARNING

 

Failure to file the required response by the applicable response deadline will result in the ABANDONMENT of your application.  For more information regarding abandonment, see http://www.gov.uspto.report/trademarks/basics/abandon.jsp. 

 

PRIVATE COMPANY SOLICITATIONS REGARDING YOUR APPLICATION:  Private companies not associated with the USPTO are using information provided in trademark applications to mail or e-mail trademark-related solicitations.  These companies often use names that closely resemble the USPTO and their solicitations may look like an official government document.  Many solicitations require that you pay “fees.” 

 

Please carefully review all correspondence you receive regarding this application to make sure that you are responding to an official document from the USPTO rather than a private company solicitation.  All official USPTO correspondence will be mailed only from the “United States Patent and Trademark Office” in Alexandria, VA; or sent by e-mail from the domain “@uspto.gov.”  For more information on how to handle private company solicitations, see http://www.gov.uspto.report/trademarks/solicitation_warnings.jsp.