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: 6/15/2016

 

The referenced application has been reviewed by the assigned trademark examining attorney.  Applicant must respond timely and completely to the issues below.  15 U.S.C. §1062(b); 37 C.F.R. §§2.62(a), 2.65(a); TMEP §§711, 718.03.

 

SUMMARY OF ISSUES:

 

• Section 2(d) Refusal – Likelihood of Confusion
• Identification of Goods and Services
• Signature Required

 

SECTION 2(d) REFUSAL – LIKELIHOOD OF CONFUSION

THIS PARTIAL REFUSAL APPLIES ONLY TO THE GOODS AND SERVICES SPECIFIED THEREIN.

 

Registration of the applied-for mark is refused because of a likelihood of confusion with the marks in U.S. Registration Nos. 4713704, 4379559, 4283980, and 4913123.  Trademark Act Section 2(d), 15 U.S.C. §1052(d); see TMEP §§1207.01 et seq.  See the attached registrations.

 

Applicant’s applied-for mark is DEEPCONSUMER for “Software; software for entertainment” and “Software as a service.”

 

U.S. Registration No. 4713704 is DEEP for “Computer game software for gaming machines including slot machines or video lottery terminals; Computer software and firmware for games of chance on any computerized platform, including dedicated gaming consoles, video based slot machines, reel based slot machines, and video lottery terminals; Gaming software that generates or displays wager outcomes of gaming machines.”

 

U.S. Registration No. 4379559 is DEEP for “Computer software for electronic storage of data.”

 

U.S. Registration No. 4283980 is DEEP for “Computer software for electronic storage of data.”

 

U.S. Registration No. 4913123 is DEEP for “Software as a service (SAAS) services featuring software for facilitating custom printing and framing from digital images.”

 

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 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, 1361, 177 USPQ 563, 567 (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 services, and similarity of the trade channels of the goods and 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

 

Marks may be confusingly similar in appearance where similar terms or phrases or similar parts of terms or phrases appear in the compared marks and create a similar overall commercial impression.  See Crocker Nat’l Bank v. Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce, 228 USPQ 689, 690-91 (TTAB 1986), aff’d sub nom. Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce v. Wells Fargo Bank, Nat’l Ass’n, 811 F.2d 1490, 1495, 1 USPQ2d 1813, 1817 (Fed. Cir. 1987) (finding COMMCASH and COMMUNICASH confusingly similar); In re Corning Glass Works, 229 USPQ 65, 66 (TTAB 1985) (finding CONFIRM and CONFIRMCELLS confusingly similar); In re Pellerin Milnor Corp., 221 USPQ 558, 560 (TTAB 1983) (finding MILTRON and MILLTRONICS confusingly similar); TMEP §1207.01(b)(ii)-(iii).  In this case, the parties’ marks contain the shared word “DEEP.”  This shared word is sufficient to find a likelihood of confusion.

 

Similarity of the Goods and Services

 

With respect to the parties’ goods and services, the question of likelihood of confusion is determined based on the description of the goods and services stated in the application and registration at issue, not on extrinsic evidence of actual use.  See Stone Lion Capital Partners, LP v. Lion Capital LLP, 746 F.3d 1317, 1323, 110 USPQ2d 1157, 1162 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (quoting 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 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 and registrations has no restrictions as to nature, type, channels of trade, or classes of purchasers.  Therefore, it is presumed that these goods and 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 services and this wording (“Software; software for entertainment” and “Software as a service”) is presumed to encompass all goods and services of the type described, including those in registrants’ more narrow identification (for U.S. Registration No. 4713704: “Computer game software for gaming machines including slot machines or video lottery terminals; Computer software and firmware for games of chance on any computerized platform, including dedicated gaming consoles, video based slot machines, reel based slot machines, and video lottery terminals; Gaming software that generates or displays wager outcomes of gaming machines,” for U.S. Registration Nos. 4379559 and 4283980: “Computer software for electronic storage of data,” and for U.S. Registration No. 4913123: “Software as a service (SAAS) services featuring software for facilitating custom printing and framing from digital images”).

 

Based on the analysis above, the parties’ goods and services are related. 

 

Because applicant and registrants’ marks are similar and the goods and services are related, there is a likelihood of confusion and applicant’s applied-for mark must be refused under Section 2(d) of the Lanham Act.

 

Although applicant’s mark has been refused registration, applicant may respond to the refusal by submitting evidence and arguments in support of registration.  However, if applicant responds to the refusal, applicant must also respond to the requirements set forth below.

 

IDENTIFICATION OF GOODS AND SERVICES

 

THIS PARTIAL REQUIREMENT APPLIES ONLY TO THE GOODS AND SERVICES SPECIFIED THEREIN.

 

 

 

The wording “Software” and “Software as a service” in the identification of goods and services is indefinite and must be clarified because the specific function of software is not clear.  See 37 C.F.R. §2.32(a)(6); TMEP §1402.01. 

 

Applicant must specify the purpose or function of the software, and if content- or field-specific, the content or field of use of the software.  TMEP §1402.03(d).  The USPTO requires such specificity in identifying computer software in order for a trademark examining attorney to examine the application properly 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); TMEP §1402.03(d).

 

Applicant may adopt the following identification, if accurate:

 

“Class 9: Software for {specify the function of software, e.g., managing bank accounts, editing photos, making restaurant reservations, etc. and, if software is content- or field- specific, the content or field of use}; software for machine learning; software for artificial intelligence; software for data management; software for video, image, voice, audio, text, social networking, and other data feeds; software for personalized offerings; software for event management; software for retail services; software for consumer services; software for entertainment; software for banking; software for financial services; software for payment processing; software for fraud management; software for risk management; software for cyber security; software for industrial plant management; software for commercial plant management

 

Class 42: Software as a service, namely software for {specify the function of the software, e.g., for use in database management, for use as a spreadsheet, for word processing, etc. and, if software is content - or field-specific, the field of use}; software as a service, namely, software for machine learning; software as a service, namely, software for artificial intelligence; software as a service, namely, software for data management; software as a service, namely, software for video, image, voice, audio, text, social networking, and other data feeds; software as a service, namely, software for personalized offerings; software as a service, namely, software for event management; software as a service, namely, software for retail services; software as a service, namely, software for consumer services; software as a service, namely, software for entertainment; software as a service, namely, software for banking; software as a service, namely, software for financial services; software as a service, namely, software for payment processing; software as a service, namely, software for fraud management; software as a service, namely, software for risk management; software as a service, namely, software for cyber security; software as a service, namely, software for industrial plant management; software as a service, namely, software for commercial plant management”.

 

Applicant’s goods and services may be clarified or limited, but may not be expanded beyond those originally itemized in the application or as acceptably amended.  See 37 C.F.R. §2.71(a); TMEP §1402.06.  Applicant may clarify or limit the identification by inserting qualifying language or deleting items to result in a more specific identification; however, applicant may not substitute different goods and services or add goods and services not found or encompassed by those in the original application or as acceptably amended.  See TMEP §1402.06(a)-(b).  The scope of the goods and services sets the outer limit for any changes to the identification and is generally determined by the ordinary meaning of the wording in the identification.  TMEP §§1402.06(b), 1402.07(a)-(b).  Any acceptable changes to the goods and services will further limit scope, and once goods and services are deleted, they are not permitted to be reinserted.  TMEP §1402.07(e).

 

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.  See TMEP §1402.04.

 

SIGNATURE REQUIRED

 

The application was not signed and verified, which are application requirements.  See 15 U.S.C. §§1051(b), 1126(d)-(e); 37 C.F.R. §§2.33(a), (b)(2), 2.34(a)(2), (a)(3)(i), (a)(4)(ii).  Therefore, applicant must verify the statements specified further below in an affidavit or signed declaration under 37 C.F.R. §2.20.  See 15 U.S.C. §§1051(b)(3), 1126(d)-(e); 37 C.F.R. §§2.33(a), (b)(2), 2.34(a)(2), (a)(3)(i), (a)(4)(ii), 2.193(e)(1); TMEP §§804.02, 806.01(b)-(d).

 

To respond to this requirement online using the Trademark Electronic Application System (TEAS) response form, answer “yes” to the TEAS response form wizard question relating to submitting a “signed declaration,” and follow the instructions within the form for signing. 

 

To respond to this requirement on paper, via regular mail, applicant may provide the following statements and declaration at the end of the response, personally signed by a person authorized under 37 C.F.R. §2.193(e)(1) and dated, with the printed or typed name of the signatory appearing immediately below the signature.  See 37 C.F.R. §§2.20, 2.33(a), (b)(2), 2.34(a)(2), (a)(3)(i), (a)(4)(ii), 2.193(a), (d); TMEP §§611.01(b), 804.01(b).  The signatory’s particular title or position should also be specified.  See TMEP §804.04.

 

STATEMENTS:  The signatory believes that:  the applicant is entitled to use the mark in commerce on or in connection with the goods or services specified in the application; the applicant has a bona fide intention to use the mark in commerce and had a bona fide intention to use the mark in commerce as of the application filing date; and to the best of the signatory’s knowledge and belief, no other person has the right to use the mark in commerce, either in the identical form or in such near resemblance as to be likely, when applied to the goods and/or services of such other person, to cause confusion or mistake, or to deceive. 

 

DECLARATION:  The signatory being warned that willful false statements and the like are punishable by fine or imprisonment, or both, under 18 U.S.C. §1001, and that such willful false statements and the like may jeopardize the validity of the application or any registration resulting therefrom, declares that all statements made of his or her own knowledge are true and all statements made on information and belief are believed to be true.

 

_____________________________

(Signature)

 

_____________________________

(Print or Type Name and Position)

 

_____________________________

(Date)

 

 

 

ASSISTANCE

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. §§2.62(c), 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.

 

 

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. 

 

 

 

/Anna H. Rosenblatt/

Examining Attorney

Law Office 120

(571) 272-4599

anna.rosenblatt@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 6/15/2016 FOR U.S. APPLICATION SERIAL NO. 86969408

 

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 6/15/2016 (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.