To: | Coalition of Advocates for Responsible E ETC. (kmccoy@soonerlaw.com) |
Subject: | U.S. TRADEMARK APPLICATION NO. 86133497 - ICARE - N/A |
Sent: | 3/15/2014 3:24:42 PM |
Sent As: | ECOM112@USPTO.GOV |
Attachments: | Attachment - 1 Attachment - 2 |
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE (USPTO)
OFFICE ACTION (OFFICIAL LETTER) ABOUT APPLICANT’S TRADEMARK APPLICATION
U.S. APPLICATION SERIAL NO. 86133497
MARK: ICARE
|
|
CORRESPONDENT ADDRESS: |
CLICK HERE TO RESPOND TO THIS LETTER: http://www.gov.uspto.report/trademarks/teas/response_forms.jsp
|
APPLICANT: Coalition of Advocates for Responsible E ETC.
|
|
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: 3/15/2014
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.
I. SECTION 2(d) REFUSAL – LIKELIHOOD OF CONFUSION
In this case, the following factors are the most relevant: similarity of the marks, similarity of the goods and/or services, and similarity of trade channels of the goods and/or services. See In re Opus One, Inc., 60 USPQ2d 1812 (TTAB 2001); In re Dakin’s Miniatures Inc., 59 USPQ2d 1593 (TTAB 1999); In re Azteca Rest. Enters., Inc., 50 USPQ2d 1209 (TTAB 1999); TMEP §§1207.01 et seq.
For the following reasons, the examining attorney concludes that there exists a likelihood of confusion between applicant’s proposed mark, ICARE (standard characters), for “Advertising services, namely, creating corporate logos for others; Business information services, namely, gathering and reporting information regarding e-mail addresses of others that are made available to other companies for commercial purposes; Lobbying services, namely, promoting the interests of international, real estate and nonprofit companies in the fields of politics, legislation, and regulation” and registrant’s mark, ICARE (standard characters), for “Business services, namely providing marketing and advertising consultation services, sales promotion services, public relations services, and developing advertising and promotional campaigns, for professionals in the food industry.”
A. Similarity of the Marks
In the present case, applicant’s mark is ICARE (standard characters) and registrant’s mark is ICARE (standard characters). Thus, the marks are identical in terms of appearance and sound. In addition, the connotation and commercial impression of the marks do not differ when considered in connection with applicant’s and registrant’s respective goods and/or services.
Therefore, the marks are confusingly similar.
B. Relatedness of the Goods/Services
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)). Additionally, unrestricted and broad identifications are presumed to encompass all goods and/or services of the type described. See In re Jump Designs, LLC, 80 USPQ2d 1370, 1374 (TTAB 2006) (citing In re Elbaum, 211 USPQ 639, 640 (TTAB 1981)); In re Linkvest S.A., 24 USPQ2d 1716, 1716 (TTAB 1992).
Here, applicant’s services are identified as “Advertising services, namely, creating corporate logos for others; Business information services, namely, gathering and reporting information regarding e-mail addresses of others that are made available to other companies for commercial purposes; Lobbying services, namely, promoting the interests of international, real estate and nonprofit companies in the fields of politics, legislation, and regulation,” and registrant’s services are “Business services, namely providing marketing and advertising consultation services, sales promotion services, public relations services, and developing advertising and promotional campaigns, for professionals in the food industry.”
As applicant’s identification of services contains no restrictions as to nature, type, channels of trade, or classes of purchasers of its services, it is presumed that these goods and/or services travel in all normal channels of trade, and are available to the all potential purchasers. Notably, although registrant’s services are focused on professionals in the food industry, applicant’s identification contains no such limitation with regard to the classes of purchasers of its services. Consequently, applicant’s services are presumed to be available to all consumers, including those in the food industry.
Applicant’s services involving creating corporate logos for others, applicant’s business information services are of types that are encompassed by or that overlap with registrant’s marketing and advertising consulting services and sales promotion services. Further, registrant’s “public relations services” are sufficiently broad as to include services overlapping with applicant’s “lobbying services.” Thus, applicant’s and registrant’s identifications appear to include some legally identical services.
Any doubt regarding a likelihood of confusion is resolved in favor of the prior registrant. Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Packard Press Inc., 281 F.3d 1261, 62 USPQ2d 1001, 1004 (Fed. Cir. 2002); In re Hyper Shoppes (Ohio), Inc., 837 F.2d 463, 6 USPQ2d 1025 (Fed. Cir. 1988); TMEP §§1207.01(d)(i).
Accordingly, registration is REFUSED under Trademark Act Section 2(d), 15 U.S.C. §1052(d)
Although applicant’s mark has been refused registration, applicant may respond to the refusal(s) by submitting evidence and arguments in support of registration.
II. ENTITY INDEFINITE – CLARIFICATION NEEDED
Therefore, applicant must specify the type of entity applying, e.g., non-profit corporation, unincorporated non-profit association, non-profit partnership or non-profit joint venture. In addition, applicant must specify the U.S. state or foreign country under which it is organized. 37 C.F.R. §2.32(a)(3)(ii); see TMEP §§803.03 et seq.
Note: If applicant clarifies its entity type as something other than a partnership or trust, applicant should request deletion of the previously entered information in the “NAME OF ALL GENERAL PARTNERS, ACTIVE MEMBERS, INDIVIDUAL, TRUSTEES, OR EXECUTORS, AND CITIZENSHIP/ INCORPORATION.”
III. SPECIMEN DOES NOT SHOW USE IN CONNECTION WITH THE APPLIED-FOR GOODS/SERVICES
Registration is refused because the specimen does not show the applied-for mark in use in commerce in connection with any of the goods and/or services specified in the application. 15 U.S.C. §§1051, 1127; 37 C.F.R. §§2.34(a)(1)(iv), 2.56(a); TMEP §§904, 904.07(a). Specifically, the specimen of record is in the nature of a digital rendering showing a slightly stylized variation of the applied-for mark on its own. As such, it does not show actual use in the mark in commerce in connection with the sale or advertising of any of the services described in the application.
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 or amendment to allege use. 15 U.S.C. §1051(a)(1); 37 C.F.R. §§2.34(a)(1)(iv), 2.56(a); TMEP §§904, 904.07(a).
Examples of specimens for goods may include tags, labels, instruction manuals, containers, and 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. Webpages may also be specimens for goods when they include a picture or textual description of the goods associated with the mark and the means to order the goods. TMEP §904.03(i). Examples of specimens for services may include advertising and marketing materials, brochures, photographs of business signage and billboards, and website printouts that show the mark used in the actual sale, rendering, or advertising of the services. See TMEP §§1301.04 et seq.
Applicant may respond to this refusal by satisfying one of the following:
(1) Submit a different specimen (a verified “substitute” specimen) that (a) was in actual use in commerce at least as early as the filing date of the application or prior to the filing of an amendment to allege use and (b) shows the mark in actual use in commerce for the goods and/or services identified in the application.
(2) Amend the filing basis to intent to use under Section 1(b), for which no specimen is required. This option will later necessitate additional fee(s) and filing requirements such as providing a specimen at a subsequent date.
For an overview of both response options referenced above and instructions on how to satisfy either option online using the Trademark Electronic Application System (TEAS) form, please go to http://www.gov.uspto.report/trademarks/law/specimen.jsp.
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 and request that the Office enter them into the application record.
Applicant’s response must be properly signed by (1) the individual applicant (for joint individual applicants, both must sign) or (2) someone with legal authority to bind a juristic applicant (e.g., a corporate officer or general partner). See 37 C.F.R. §§2.62(b), 2.193(a), (e)(2)(ii); TMEP §§611.03(b), 611.06 et seq., 712.01. If applicant retains an attorney, the attorney must sign the response. 37 C.F.R. §2.193(e)(2)(i); TMEP §§611.03(b), 712.01. The individual(s) signing must personally sign or personally enter his/her electronic signature. See 37 C.F.R. §2.193(a), (e)(2)(ii); TMEP §§611.01(b), 611.02.
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. In such case, 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).
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.
/Kevin S. Corwin/
Trademark Examining Attorney
Law Office 112
571-270-1521 (Voice)
571-270-2521 (Fax)
Kevin.Corwin@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.