To: | Lockwood, Robert G. (us_trademarks@yahoo.com) |
Subject: | U.S. TRADEMARK APPLICATION NO. 86046439 - ULTRALITE - 142/043 |
Sent: | 7/2/2014 12:00:36 PM |
Sent As: | ECOM115@USPTO.GOV |
Attachments: |
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE (USPTO)
OFFICE ACTION (OFFICIAL LETTER) ABOUT APPLICANT’S TRADEMARK APPLICATION
U.S. APPLICATION SERIAL NO. 86046439
MARK: ULTRALITE
|
|
CORRESPONDENT ADDRESS: |
CLICK HERE TO RESPOND TO THIS LETTER: http://www.gov.uspto.report/trademarks/teas/response_forms.jsp
|
APPLICANT: Lockwood, Robert G.
|
|
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: 7/2/2014
THIS IS A FINAL ACTION.
This Office action is in response to applicant’s communication filed on June 11, 2014. On the issue of the likelihood of confusion, applicant’s arguments have been considered and found unpersuasive for the reason(s) set forth below. The refusal under Trademark Act Section 2(d) is now made FINAL with respect to U.S. Registration No. 3686677. See 15 U.S.C. §1052(d); 37 C.F.R. §2.64(a).
SUMMARY OF ISSUES MADE FINAL that applicant must address:
Section 2(d) Refusal—Likelihood of Confusion
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.
Similar 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).
Applicant’s proposed mark is “ULTRALITE” in standard characters. Registrant’s mark is “ULTRALIGHT” in standard characters.
The marks are highly similar because they are phonetic equivalents and thus sound identical, and both impart the same commercial impression due to the shared ULTRA+LITE/LIGHT wording. The sole difference between the marks is applicant’s use of the “LITE” alternative spelling for “LIGHT”, however this does not change the commercial impression of the marks, nor their sound. As the enclosed dictionary definition reflects, “lite” is simply an alternative spelling of “light”.
As phonetic and legal equivalents, the marks are extremely similar, both imparting the same commercial impression. With “light”/“lite” being a generic name for both applicant’s and registrant’s goods, there is a possible double meaning of the marks relative to the goods: that of lights being the ultimate product, or invoking the impression of lighting goods that have less weight than competitors.
Applicant urges allowance of this application in light of the applicant’s prior registration which registered originally in 1990. As noted by applicant, unfortunately Office records were not updated automatically to show the registration as cancelled after applicant failed to file maintenance documents. While it is unfortunate that Office records were not updated in a timely fashion, the instant application must be examined based on its merits at the current time. The fact remains that there is an existing live registration for a highly similar mark and identical goods. The refusal must be made final accordingly.
However, in In re Strategic Partners, Inc., 102 USPQ2d 1397, 1399-1400 (TTAB 2012), the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (Board) only reversed a Section 2(d) refusal based on an applicant’s prior registration for the following unique set of facts: (1) the marks in applicant’s prior registration and application were virtually identical (“no meaningful difference” existed between them, such that they were “substantially similar”); (2) the goods were identical in part; and (3) the prior registration had co-existed for at least five years with the cited registration. See TMEP §1207.01. The Board acknowledged these facts constituted a “unique situation,” such that an applicant’s prior registration would generally need to fit within these precise parameters to overcome a Section 2(d) refusal. In re Strategic Partners, Inc., 102 USPQ2d at 1400; see TMEP §1207.01.
In this case, by contrast, applicant’s prior registration does not correspond to the facts set forth in In re Strategic Partners, Inc. See TMEP §1207.01. Specifically, applicant’s prior registration did not co-exist for at least five years with the cited registration. Thus applicant’s prior registration does not obviate the Section 2(d) refusal.
Identical Goods
Both applicant’s and registrant’s goods are specialty lighting fixtures for use in showcases/displays. The items are identical in purpose as identified. Applicant has not argued otherwise.
Conclusion
Since the marks are similar and the goods are related, there is a likelihood of confusion as to the source of applicant’s goods. Therefore, applicant’s mark is not entitled to registration.
Proper Response to Final Office Action
(1) A response that fully satisfies all outstanding requirements;
(2) An appeal to the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board, with the appeal fee of $100 per class.
37 C.F.R. §2.64(a); TMEP §714.04; see 37 C.F.R. §2.6(a)(18); TBMP ch. 1200.
In certain rare circumstances, an applicant may respond by filing a petition to the Director pursuant to 37 C.F.R. §2.63(b)(2) to review procedural issues. 37 C.F.R. §2.64(a); TMEP §714.04; see 37 C.F.R. §2.146(b); TBMP §1201.05; TMEP §1704 (explaining petitionable matters). The petition fee is $100. 37 C.F.R. §2.6(a)(15).
If applicant has questions about its application or needs assistance in responding to this Office action, please telephone the assigned trademark examining attorney directly at the number below.
/Rebecca Povarchuk/
Examining Attorney
Law Office 115
571-270-1529
Rebecca.Povarchuk@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.