To: | Opal Labs Inc. (gc@workwithopal.com) |
Subject: | U.S. TRADEMARK APPLICATION NO. 86697210 - LOCALIZER - N/A |
Sent: | 11/30/2015 5:42:19 PM |
Sent As: | ECOM108@USPTO.GOV |
Attachments: |
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE (USPTO)
OFFICE ACTION (OFFICIAL LETTER) ABOUT APPLICANT’S TRADEMARK APPLICATION
U.S. APPLICATION SERIAL NO. 86697210
MARK: LOCALIZER
|
|
CORRESPONDENT ADDRESS: |
CLICK HERE TO RESPOND TO THIS LETTER: http://www.gov.uspto.report/trademarks/teas/response_forms.jsp
|
APPLICANT: Opal Labs Inc.
|
|
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: 11/30/2015
This Office action supersedes the previous Office action issued on November 3, 2015 in connection with this application.
Applicant must address all issues raised in this Office action, in addition to the issues raised in the Office action dated November 3, 2015. The issues raised in the previous November 3, 2015 Office action are as follow and are maintained: the Section 2(d) likelihood of confusion refusal and amend the identification of services.
Applicant filed an Amendment to Allege Use on November 9, 2015. The Amendment to Allege Use raises a new specimen issue discussed below.
Applicant must respond to all issues raised in this Office action and the previous November 3, 2015 Office action, within six (6) months of the date of issuance of this Office action. 37 C.F.R. §2.62(a). If applicant does not respond within this time limit, the application will be abandoned. 37 C.F.R. §2.65(a).
SUMMARY OF ISSUES:
SECTION 2(d) REFUSAL – LIKELIHOOD OF CONFUSION
Applicant’s mark LOCALIZER is for “Non-downloadable computer software and related web-based services for automated replication of multi-platform omni-channel marketing content, namely non-downloadable software that enables users to create a content template which can be automatically replicated by the user or other users for subsequent customization applicable to a specifically targeted demographic, culture, language, or geographic region,” in Class 42.
The mark LOCALIZ (Registration No. 4115675) (in standard characters) is for “Providing temporary use of on-line non-downloadable software for use in database management of information and statistics gathered in connection with advertising,” in Class 42.
The mark LOCALIZER (Registration No. 4141100) (in standard characters) is for “Application service provider (ASP) featuring software for use in marketing, promoting, optimizing, hosting, managing, developing, analyzing, and maintaining applications, software, and web sites, of others,” in Class 42.
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
Applicant’s mark and registrants’ marks create similar commercial impressions.
Applicant’s mark is identical to the mark LOCALIZER (Registration No. 4141100); and Applicant’s mark uses the entire mark LOCALIZ (Registration No. 4115675). Consumers are generally more inclined to focus on the first word, prefix, or syllable in any trademark or service mark. See Palm Bay Imps., Inc. v. Veuve Clicquot Ponsardin Maison Fondee En 1772, 396 F. 3d 1369, 1372, 73 USPQ2d 1689, 1692 (Fed. Cir. 2005); Presto Prods., Inc. v. Nice-Pak Prods., Inc., 9 USPQ2d 1895, 1897 (TTAB 1988) (“it is often the first part of a mark which is most likely to be impressed upon the mind of a purchaser and remembered” when making purchasing decisions).
Relatedness of the Services
Applicant’s services and registrants’ services commonly travel through the same channels of trade.
The 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 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)); TMEP §1207.01(a)(i).
Absent restrictions in an application and/or registration, the identified 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).
Applicant’s services are providing non-downloadable software that enables users to create a marketing content template which can be automatically replicated by the user or other users for subsequent customization applicable to a specifically targeted demographic, culture, language, or geographic region.
Applicant’s services are related to the ASP services of Registration No. 4141100 because companies that offer registrant’s services commonly also offer software for managing and promoting websites.
Applicant’s services are related to software for use in database management of information and statistics gathered in connection with advertising because the attached evidence shows that companies that offer software for creating marketing content also offers database management of information and statistics related to advertising.
The website of Hub Spot attached to the November 3, 2015 Office action, located at http://www.hubspot.com/products/social-inbox, shows that it offers software for creating marketing content, manage and analyze marketing data, and managing websites. The website of Marketo attached to the November 3, 2015 Office action, located at http://www.marketo.com/software/marketing-automation/, shows that it offers software to create marketing content across different marketing channels, manage database of advertising data, and analyze advertising data. The website of Bonto attached to the November 3, 2015 Office action, located at http://bronto.com/platform, shows that it offers software for creating advertising or marketing content for various marketing channels, manage marketing database, and manage marketing campaigns. The website of SILVERPOP attached to the November 3, 2015 Office action, located at http://www.silverpop.com/Software/overview/, shows that it offers software to analyze and manage marketing data, and create marketing content for different channels.
For the reasons discussed above, registration is refused under Section 2(d) of the Lanham Act.
Class 42
Providing online non-downloadable computer software and related web-based services for automated replication of multi-platform omni-channel marketing content, namely non-downloadable software that enables users to create a content template which can be automatically replicated by the user or other users for subsequent customization applicable to a specifically targeted demographic, culture, language, or geographic region
See TMEP §1402.01.
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.
Applicant should note the additional requirement below.
SPECIMEN
Registration is refused because the specimen in International Class 42 does not show a direct association between the applied-for mark and the identified services; thus the specimen fails to show the applied-for mark in use in commerce for each international class. Trademark Act Sections 1 and 45, 15 U.S.C. §§1051, 1127; 37 C.F.R. §§2.34(a)(1)(iv), 2.56(a); TMEP §§904, 904.07(a), 1301.04(f)(ii), (g)(i).
Specimens consisting of advertising or promotional materials generally must show a direct association between the mark and the services for which registration is sought. See In re Universal Oil Prods. Co., 476 F.2d 653, 655, 177 USPQ 456, 457 (C.C.P.A. 1973); In re HSB Solomon Assocs., 102 USPQ2d 1269, 1274 (TTAB 2012); TMEP §1301.04(f)(ii). While the exact nature of the services does not need to be specified in the specimen, there must be something which creates in the mind of the purchaser an association between the mark and the service. In re Adair, 45 USPQ2d 1211, 1215 (TTAB 1997) (quoting In re Johnson Controls Inc., 33 USPQ2d 1318, 1320 (TTAB 1994)); see In re Osmotica Holdings, Corp., 95 USPQ2d 1666, 1668 (TTAB 2010).
In the present case, the specimen shows a redacted order form and a screen shot of a webpage with training videos. Neither the order form nor the training video webpage shows the mark used for providing a non-downloadable software “that enables users to create a content template which can be automatically replicated by the user or other users for subsequent customization applicable to a specifically targeted demographic, culture, language, or geographic region.” While the order form indicates that applicant’s suite of software are for marketing creation and planning of brand content, there’s no indication that LOCALIZER is used for software “that enables users to create a content template which can be automatically replicated by the user or other users for subsequent customization applicable to a specifically targeted demographic, culture, language, or geographic region.”
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 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 services include advertising and marketing materials, brochures, photographs of business signage and billboards, and webpages that show the mark used in the actual sale, rendering, or advertising of the services. See TMEP §1301.04(a), (h)(iv)(C).
Applicant may respond to this refusal by satisfying one of the following for each applicable international class:
(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 services identified in the application or amendment to allege use.
(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.
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.
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).
TEAS PLUS OR TEAS REDUCED FEE (TEAS RF) APPLICANTS – TO MAINTAIN LOWER FEE, ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS MUST BE MET, INCLUDING SUBMITTING DOCUMENTS ONLINE: Applicants who filed their application online using the lower-fee TEAS Plus or TEAS RF application form must (1) file certain documents online using TEAS, including responses to Office actions (see TMEP §§819.02(b), 820.02(b) for a complete list of these documents); (2) maintain a valid e-mail correspondence address; and (3) agree to receive correspondence from the USPTO by e-mail throughout the prosecution of the application. See 37 C.F.R. §§2.22(b), 2.23(b); TMEP §§819, 820. TEAS Plus or TEAS RF applicants who do not meet these requirements must submit an additional processing fee of $50 per international class of goods and/or services. 37 C.F.R. §§2.6(a)(1)(v), 2.22(c), 2.23(c); TMEP §§819.04, 820.04. However, in certain situations, TEAS Plus or TEAS RF applicants may respond to an Office action by authorizing an examiner’s amendment by telephone without incurring this additional fee.
/Kathy Wang/
Trademark Examining Attorney
Law Office 108
571-272-7906
kathy.wang@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.