Reconsideration Letter

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE (USPTO)

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

 

 

 

REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION DENIED

 

ISSUE/MAILING DATE: 10/29/2014

 

 

The trademark examining attorney has carefully reviewed applicant’s request for reconsideration and is denying the request for the reasons stated below.  See 37 C.F.R. §2.64(b); TMEP §§715.03(a)(2)(B), (a)(2)(E), 715.04(a).  The refusal made final in the Office action dated April 11, 2014 is maintained and continues to be final.  See TMEP §§715.03(a)(2)(B), (a)(2)(E), 715.04(a).

 

In the present case, applicant’s request has not resolved the outstanding issue, nor does it raise a new issue or provide any new or compelling evidence with regard to the outstanding issue in the final Office action.  In addition, applicant’s analysis and arguments are not persuasive nor do they shed new light on the issue.  Accordingly, the request is denied.

 

Applicant asserts in the October 7, 2014 request for reconsideration that there is no likelihood of confusion because applicant’s software is a component of a software suite that is custom tailored to each purchaser and which costs millions of dollars to purchase and implement.  However, as noted in the final Office action, applicant’s goods, as currently identified, encompass software that could be purchased by solo or small healthcare practices, whose managers may not be knowledgeable about software.  In addition, the registrants’ software is not limited to particular trade channels and therefore is presumed to include software of the types described in the registrations for use in the dentistry, medical and healthcare fields.

 

With respect to applicant’s and registrants’ goods and/or services, the question of likelihood of confusion is determined based on the descriptions of the goods and/or services stated in the application and registrations at issue, not on extrinsic evidence of actual use.  See, e.g., Coach Servs., Inc. v. Triumph Learning LLC, 668 F.3d 1356, 1369-70, 101 USPQ2d 1713, 1722 (Fed. Cir. 2012); Octocom Sys. Inc. v. Hous. Computers Servs. Inc., 918 F.2d 937, 942, 16 USPQ2d 1783, 1787 (Fed. Cir. 1990).  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.”  In re Viterra Inc., 671 F.3d 1358, 1362, 101 USPQ2d 1905, 1908 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (quoting Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Packard Press, Inc., 281 F.3d 1261, 1268, 62 USPQ2d 1001, 1005 (Fed. Cir. 2002)). 

 

Therefore, applicant’s assertions concerning the process and cost involved in purchasing and implementing applicant’s software do not obviate the Section 2(d) refusal. 

 

 

Application Will Be Returned to the Board

 

Applicant has filed a timely notice of appeal with the Board.  Therefore, the Board will be notified to resume the appeal.  See TMEP §715.04(a).

 

 

If applicant has any questions about this Denial of Request for Reconsideration, please contact the undersigned examining attorney.

 

/Linda Lavache/

Trademark Examining Attorney

Law Office 106

p. 571.272.7187

f.  571.273.9106

linda.lavache@uspto.gov (informal inquiries only)

 

 

TEAS PLUS APPLICANTS – TO MAINTAIN REDUCED FEE, ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS MUST BE MET, INCLUDING SUBMITTING DOCUMENTS ONLINE:  Applicants who filed their application online using the lower-fee TEAS Plus application form must (1) continue to submit certain documents online using TEAS, including responses to Office actions (see TMEP §819.02(b) for a complete list of these documents); (2) accept correspondence from the USPTO via e-mail throughout the examination process; and (3) maintain a valid e-mail address.  See 37 C.F.R. §2.23(a)(1), (a)(2); TMEP §§819, 819.02(a).  TEAS Plus applicants who do not meet these three 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.  However, in certain situations, authorizing an examiner’s amendment by telephone will not incur this additional fee.  

 

 

 

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE (USPTO)

 

 

IMPORTANT NOTICE REGARDING YOUR

U.S. TRADEMARK APPLICATION

 

USPTO OFFICE ACTION (OFFICIAL LETTER) HAS ISSUED

ON 10/29/2014 FOR U.S. APPLICATION SERIAL NO. 85951236

 

Please follow the instructions below:

 

(1)  TO READ THE LETTER:  Click on this link or go to http://tsdr.uspto.gov,enter the U.S. application serial number, and click 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)  TIMELY RESPONSE IS REQUIRED:  Please 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 10/29/2014 (or sooner if specified in the Office action).  For information regarding response time periods, see http://www.gov.uspto.report/trademarks/process/status/responsetime.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.  Instead, the USPTO recommends that you respond online using the Trademark Electronic Application System (TEAS) response form located at http://www.gov.uspto.report/trademarks/teas/response_forms.jsp.

 

(3)  QUESTIONS:  For questions about the contents of the Office action itself, please contact the assigned trademark examining attorney.  For technical assistance in accessing or viewing the Office action in the Trademark Status and Document Retrieval (TSDR) system, please e-mail TSDR@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.