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: 9/23/2014

 

 

 

 

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(a), 2.65(a); TMEP §§711, 718.03.

 

SUMMARY OF ISSUES that applicant must address:

 

·        SECTION 2(d) REFUSAL – LIKELIHOOD OF CONFUSION

• DESCRIPTION OF MARK REQUIRED
• IDENTIFICATION OF GOODS

 

SECTION 2(d) REFUSAL – LIKELIHOOD OF CONFUSION

 

Registration of the applied-for mark is refused because of a likelihood of confusion with the marks in U.S. Registration Nos. 3411936, 2246406, 2847812, 4123946, and 3830008.  Trademark Act Section 2(d), 15 U.S.C. §1052(d); see TMEP §§1207.01 et seq.  See the enclosed registrations.

 

The applicant has applied for the stylized design mark having the literal element EPICENTER with the design of a flattened globe and radiating rings for services identified as “non-downloadable computer software in the field of project management”.

 

The cited registrations are shown in the table below.

 

Mark	Registration No.	Relevant Goods/Services
EPI CENTER	3411936	Class 9:  Computer software in the field of industrial equipment predictive maintenance and industrial equipment monitoring, for use by owners and operators of industrial equipment Class 42:  : Computer services, namely, computer software installation and design for others, in the field of industrial equipment predictive maintenance and monitoring
EPICENTER	2246406	Class 9:  Computer programs and accompanying user manuals sold as a unit for use in the health care industry for master patient indexing, and for coordinating, linking, indexing, accessing or integrating clinical, health care or related data among, across, from or to similar or disparate computer systems.
EPICENTER	2847812	Class 9:  Network management software for managing and monitoring network nodes, network devices and network systems, namely, capabilities for network configuration, troubleshooting and status monitoring and users manuals packaged as a unit therewith
EPICENTRE	4123946	Class 42: Scientific and technological services, namely, research and design in the field of earthquake engineering, tsunami engineering, earthquake protection, tsunami protection, disaster risk reduction, and disaster management; industrial research services in the field of earthquake engineering, tsunami engineering, earthquake protection, tsunami protection, disaster risk reduction, and disaster management; design and development of computer hardware and software; engineering services for building and property condition assessment
EPICENTRO	3830008	Class 9:  Computer software package comprised of middleware in the nature of software components consisting of source code compiled and executable object code and software applications for use in delivering multimedia content, data networking, person-to-person communication, namely, computer telephony software, computer software application for instant messaging and video conferencing, computer software for use in database management, use as a spreadsheet, word processing for health-care in the field of tele-medicine and wellness programs, domotics, namely, home and office automation systems comprising computer hardware and computer software for use in database management, use as a spreadsheet, word processing, for home and office monitoring, for use in database management, use as a spreadsheet, word processing, for control applications, and for network storage of data and computer hardware and computer software for use in database management, use as a spreadsheet, word processing for energy management services, sold embedded in as an integral component part of multimedia end user internet protocol set top boxes

 

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.

 

In any likelihood of confusion determination, two key considerations are similarity of the marks and similarity or relatedness of the goods and/or services.  Syndicat Des Proprietaires Viticulteurs De Chateauneuf-Du-Pape v. Pasquier DesVignes, 107 USPQ2d 1930, 1938 (TTAB 2013) (citing Federated Foods, Inc. v. Fort Howard Paper Co., 544 F.2d 1098, 1103, 192 USPQ 24, 29 (C.C.P.A. 1976)); In re Iolo Techs., LLC, 95 USPQ2d 1498, 1499 (TTAB 2010); see TMEP §1207.01.  That is, the 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).  Additionally, the goods and/or services are compared to determine whether they are similar or commercially related or travel in the same trade channels.  See Coach Servs., Inc. v. Triumph Learning LLC, 668 F.3d 1356, 1369-71, 101 USPQ2d 1713, 1722-23 (Fed. Cir. 2012); Herbko Int’l, Inc. v. Kappa Books, Inc., 308 F.3d 1156, 1165, 64 USPQ2d 1375, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2002); TMEP §1207.01, (a)(vi).

 

COMPARISON OF 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).

 

When comparing marks, the test is not whether the marks can be distinguished in a side-by-side comparison, but rather whether the marks are sufficiently similar in their entireties that confusion as to the source of the goods and/or services offered under applicant’s and registrant’s marks is likely to result.  Midwestern Pet Foods, Inc. v. Societe des Produits Nestle S.A., 685 F.3d 1046, 1053, 103 USPQ2d 1435, 1440 (Fed. Cir. 2012); Edom Labs., Inc. v. Lichter, 102 USPQ2d 1546, 1551 (TTAB 2012); TMEP §1207.01(b).  The focus is on the recollection of the average purchaser, who normally retains a general rather than specific impression of trademarks.  L’Oreal S.A. v. Marcon, 102 USPQ2d 1434, 1438 (TTAB 2012); Sealed Air Corp. v. Scott Paper Co., 190 USPQ 106, 108 (TTAB 1975); TMEP §1207.01(b).

 

In this case, the applied-for mark is similar in sound, appearance and meaning to each of the registered marks.  With respect to Registration Nos. 3411936, 2246406, 2847812, and 4123946

the applied-for mark shares a nearly identical literal element.  The wording in the applied-for mark EPICENTER would be pronounced in an identical manner as the wording in each of these registered marks.  Indeed, the marks are essentially phonetic equivalents and thus sound similar.  Similarity in sound alone may be sufficient to support a finding that the marks are 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)(iv).

 

Further, though the applicant’s mark and the mark in Registration No. 4123946 are both claimed in a design, consumers are more likely to focus on the wording EPICENTER in the applied-for mark when retaining the overall commercial impression of the mark.  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.  Joel Gott Wines, LLC v. Rehoboth Von Gott, Inc., 107 USPQ2d 1424, 1431 (TTAB 2013) (citing 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, as the marks in Registration Nos. 2847812, 2246406, and 3411936, are claimed in either standard characters or as a typed drawings, there is no other stylization claimed to distinguish the marks.  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”).

 

The marks have the same connotation and overall commercial impression. The differences between them are slight, and do not overcome the likelihood of confusion between the marks.

 

With respect to Registration No. 3830008, the registered mark is the Spanish word meaning EPICENTER.  See http://translate.google.com/#auto/en/epicentro.  Under the doctrine of foreign equivalents, a mark in a foreign language and a mark that is its English equivalent may be held to be confusingly similar.  TMEP §1207.01(b)(vi); see, e.g., In re Thomas, 79 USPQ2d 1021, 1025 (TTAB 2006); In re Hub Distrib., Inc., 218 USPQ 284 (TTAB 1983).  Therefore, marks comprised of foreign words are translated into English to determine similarity in meaning and connotation with English word marks.  See Palm Bay Imps., Inc. v. Veuve Clicquot Ponsardin Maison Fondee en 1772, 396 F.3d 1369, 1377, 73 USPQ2d 1689, 1696 (Fed. Cir. 2005).  Equivalence in meaning and connotation can be sufficient to find such marks confusingly similar.  See In re Thomas, 79 USPQ2d at 1025.

 

The doctrine is applicable when it is likely that an ordinary American purchaser would “stop and translate” the foreign term into its English equivalent.  Palm Bay, 396 F.3d at 1377, 73 USPQ2d at 1696; TMEP §1207.01(b)(vi)(A).  The ordinary American purchaser refers to “all American purchasers, including those proficient in a non-English language who would ordinarily be expected to translate words into English.”  In re Spirits Int’l, N.V., 563 F.3d 1347, 1352, 90 USPQ2d 1489, 1492 (Fed. Cir. 2009); see In re Thomas, 79 USPQ2d at 1024 (citing J. Thomas McCarthy, McCarthy on Trademarks and Unfair Competition §23:26 (4th ed. 2006), which states “[t]he test is whether, to those American buyers familiar with the foreign language, the word would denote its English equivalent.”).

 

Generally, the doctrine is applied when the English translation is a literal and exact translation of the foreign wording.  See In re Thomas, 79 USPQ2d at 1021 (holding MARCHE NOIR for jewelry likely to be confused with the cited mark BLACK MARKET MINERALS for retail jewelry and mineral store services where evidence showed that MARCHE NOIR is the exact French equivalent of the English idiom “Black Market,” and the addition of MINERALS did not serve to distinguish the marks); In re Ithaca Indus., Inc., 230 USPQ 702 (TTAB 1986) (holding applicant’s mark LUPO for men’s and boys’ underwear likely to be confused with the cited registration for WOLF and design for various clothing items, where LUPO is the Italian equivalent of the English word “wolf”); In re Hub Distrib., Inc., 218 USPQ at 284 (holding the Spanish wording EL SOL for clothing likely to be confused with its English language equivalent SUN for footwear where it was determined that EL SOL was the “direct foreign language equivalent” of the term SUN).

 

Thus the applied-for mark is similar to the registered mark because the direct and literal translation of the registered mark is EPICENTER, the dominant feature of the applied-for mark.  The applied-for mark and the mark in Registration No. 3830008 are thus considered similar. 

 

Thus the applied for mark is similar to the registered marks.

 

COMPARISON OF GOODS/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).

 

With respect to applicant’s and registrants’s goods and/or services, the question of likelihood of confusion is determined based on the description 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)).  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). 

 

In this case, the identification set forth in the application has no restrictions as to nature, type, channels of trade, or classes of purchasers.  Therefore, it is presumed that these goods and/or services travel in all normal channels of trade, and are available to the same class of purchasers.  Further, the application uses broad wording to describe the goods and/or services and this wording is presumed to encompass all goods and/or services of the type described, including those in registrants’s more narrow identification.

 

Specifically, the applicant has identified “non-downloadable computer software in the field of project management,” however, the applicant has not specified the purpose or function of the computer software.  Thus the applicant’s computer software includes all computer software within the field of project management – which could include computer software with the specific functions in each of the cited registrations. 

 

With respect to Registration No. 2246406, the applicant’s non-downloadable computer software in the field of project management is broad enough to include computer programs for use in the health care industry to index patient information and for coordinating, linking, indexing, accessing or integrating clinical, health care or related data among, across, from or to similar or disparate computer systems.  Further, with Respect to Registration No. 2847812, the applicant’s non-downloadable computer software for project management is broad enough to include computer software for managing networks and for network configurations, and monitoring networks as part of project management.  With respect to Registration No. 3411936, the applicant’s computer software in the field of project management is broad enough to include computer software for maintaining and monitoring industrial equipment.  With respect to Registration No. 3830008, the applicant’s non-downloadable computer software in the field of project management is broad enough to include computer software for delivering multimedia content, data networking, communication, for database management, and for creating spreadsheets, sold as an integral part of internet protocol set top boxes.

 

Further, with respect to the services identified in Registration Nos. 3411936 and 4123946, the applicant’s services of non-downloadable computer software in the field of project management are related to the registrants’s services of “Computer services, namely, computer software installation and design for others, in the field of industrial equipment predictive maintenance and monitoring”  and “design and development of computer hardware and software” because it is common for the same entity to provide computer software installation and design for others together with non-downloadable computer software in the field of project management together under the same mark and in the same channels of trade. 

 

The attached Internet evidence consists of screenshots from companies that provide a variety of computer software, including computer software in the field of project management and computer software development and design for others.  This evidence establishes that the same entity commonly provides the relevant goods and/or services and markets the goods and/or services under the same mark, 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 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, the attached evidence from Microsoft (http://office.microsoft.com/en-us/project/, http://www.microsoft.com/en-us/microsoftservices/professional_services.aspx), Oracle (http://www.oracle.com/applications/primavera/solutions/products.html, http://www.oracle.com/us/solutions/index.html), and IBM (http://www-03.ibm.com/software/products/en/ibmtrircapiprojmanasoft, and http://www-01.ibm.com/software/sw-services/?lnk=mseIS-soft-usen) shows that it is common for computer software in the broad field of project management to be provided by the same company as computer software consulting and development and design. 

 

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).

 

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 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 designing and developing computer software and hardware and non-downloadable software in the broad field of project management, 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).

 

See Third Party Registration Nos. 3568268, 4569841, 4444554, 4568756, 4464280, 4500787, 4483729, 4518465, and 4082243.

 

IDENTIFICATION OF SERVICES

 

The wording used to describe the services is indefinite and must be clarified because the applicant’s identification of “non-downloadable computer software in the field of project management” does not set forth the function of the computer software claimed.  See TMEP §1402.01.

 

An identification for computer software must specify the purpose or function of the software.  See TMEP §1402.03(d).  If the software is field-specific, the identification must also specify the field of use.  Id.  Clarification of the purpose, function, or field of use of the software is necessary for the USPTO to properly examine the application and make appropriate decisions concerning possible conflicts between the applicant’s mark and other marks.  See In re N.A.D. Inc., 57 USPQ2d 1872, 1874 (TTAB 2000).

 

Applicant may adopt the following identification of services, if accurate: 

 

Class 42:  Providing on-line non-downloadable computer software for {applicant must specify the function of the software, e.g., for database management, word processing} in the field of project management

 

See TMEP §1402.01.

 

Note that bolding, italics, and the like are used only to highlight suggested changes to the original language.

 

An applicant may only amend an identification to clarify or limit the goods and/or services, but not to add to or broaden the scope of the goods and/or services.  37 C.F.R. §2.71(a); see TMEP §§1402.06 et seq., 1402.07.

 

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.

 

DESCRIPTION OF MARK REQUIRED

 

The description of the mark is accurate but incomplete because it does not describe all the significant aspects of the applied-for mark. Applications for marks not in standard characters must include an accurate and concise description of the entire mark that identifies literal elements as well as any design elements. See 37 C.F.R. §2.37; TMEP §§808 et seq.

 

Additionally, the drawing shows the applied-for mark in various colors, including black, white and/or gray.  Although the application includes a claim of color and a mark description referencing color, the colors black, white and/or gray are not included in either the color claim or description.  The color claim and mark description must be complete and reference all the colors in the mark.  See 37 C.F.R. §§2.37, 2.52(b)(1); TMEP §§807.07(a) et seq.  Therefore, applicant must clarify whether black, white and/or gray are being claimed as color and/or are intended to indicate background, outlining, shading and/or transparent areas.  TMEP §807.07(d).

 

To clarify whether black, white and/or gray are being claimed as color, applicant must satisfy one of the following:

 

(1)  If black, white and/or gray are being claimed as colors in the mark, applicant must amend the color claim to include these colors, and amend the mark description to identify the literal and design elements that include these colors and specify where the black, white and/or gray appears in these elements; or

 

(2)  If black, white and/or gray are not being claimed as colors in the mark, applicant must provide a statement that the colors black, white, and/or gray represent background, outlining, shading and/or transparent areas and are not part of the mark.

 

Id.

 

If the color white is being claimed as a feature of the mark, the applicant may substitute the below description of the mark and color claim, if accurate:

 

The mark consists of an image of with radiating circles displayed in red, the inner most of which are fully displayed and the outer circles are cut off, all in front of a flattened image of earth with the oceans displayed in light blue and the continents displayed in white. The letter “C” is displayed in navy blue and is placed at the center of the radiating circles with the wording “EPI” in gray lettering to the left of the letter “C” and the wording “ENTER” in navy blue lettering to the right of the letter C forming the overall literal element “EPICENTER”.

 

The color(s) gray, red, light blue, navy blue and white is/are claimed as a feature of the mark.

 

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 active 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.

 

 

 

/Natalie L. Kenealy/

Examining Attorney

Law Office 104

(571) 272-7817

Natalie.Kenealy@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 9/23/2014 FOR U.S. APPLICATION SERIAL NO. 86301426

 

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 9/23/2014 (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.