| Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 no persons are required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a valid OMB control number. PTO Form 1960 (Rev 10/2011) |
| OMB No. 0651-0050 (Exp 09/20/2020) |
| Input Field |
Entered |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| SERIAL NUMBER | 87246976 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| LAW OFFICE ASSIGNED | LAW OFFICE 124 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| MARK SECTION | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| MARK | http://uspto.report/TM/87246976/mark.png | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| LITERAL ELEMENT | BENCHMARK | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| STANDARD CHARACTERS | YES | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| USPTO-GENERATED IMAGE | YES | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| MARK STATEMENT | The mark consists of standard characters, without claim to any particular font style, size or color. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ARGUMENT(S) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
In response to the final Office action issued on August 9, 2017, applicant has amended the identification of goods further in an effort to emphasize the specialized and technical nature of such goods. In view of the amendment to the goods and based on the following analysis, applicant requests reconsideration of the refusal under Section 2(d).
I. Applicant's Goods are Sufficiently Different from the Goods of the Cited Registration to Avoid Confusion
Registration has been refused under Section 2(d) based on prior Registration No. 4,743,214. The TMEP points out that in any analysis under Section 2(d), in addition to addressing “[t]he similarity or dissimilarity of the marks in their entireties,” the analysis must look at “[t]he relatedness of the goods or services as described in the application and registration(s).” TMEP 1207.01, citations omitted. Furthermore, in addressing the relatedness of the goods, the analysis should consider the channels of trade for the relevant goods or services, and the sophistication of the relevant consumer. Id. Here, the goods of the cited registration are “Packaging machines, conveyors, loading machines and stacking machines.” In contrast, applicant seeks registration for use with “Resistance projection welding machines for seam sealing and hermetic sealing of enclosures for electronic devices, all for industrial applications,” In each case, the goods are complex and highly specialized machines that are used in industrial settings by sophisticated consumers. Specifically, applicant’s goods are complex and highly specialized welding machines used for sealing electronic devices against external contaminants. Registrant’s goods are similarly specialized, though in a different field and for different specific use, and are used in logistics in packaging, moving, and storing of products. According to registrant’s website, the goods are directed to an even more specialized field of logistics as they are specifically intended for use with bakery products. See Exhibit A, a printout from the website for Benchmark Automation, LLC, the owner of the cited registration. Clearly, the consumers of both applicant’s and registrant’s goods are highly sophisticated consumers who would purchase such complex industrial machines only after careful consideration. While it is unlikely there would be any common consumers for both applicant’s goods used in manufacturing electronics and registrant’s goods used with bakery goods, even if there were common consumers, such consumers of complex machines would be sufficiently sophisticated as to not be confused as to the source of the relevant goods. These differences weigh against a likelihood of confusion.
II. The Mark at issue is a Weak and Commonly Used Term, and the Resulting Scope of Protection is Limited
The mark at issue is BENCHMARK, a commonly-used term that has an established meaning as “a standard of excellence, achievement, etc., against which similar things must be measured or judged.” See Exhibit B, a printout from the Dictionary.com website with the definition of “benchmark.” As the common element at issue here is a weak and somewhat laudatory term, the prior registration is entitled to “a narrower scope of protection than an entirely arbitrary or coined word.” TMEP 1207.01(b)(ix), citations omitted.
As still further evidence of the weakness of the term, BENCHMARK is an element in numerous active registrations owned by various parties for use with different specific types of industrial machines and equipment. The following table summarizes some of these references. See Exhibit C for TESS printouts for each registration mentioned in the table.
Active BENCHMARK Registrations:
As explained in the TMEP, the existence of active registrations, each including similar trademark terms, is probative in an analysis under Section 2(d) in showing that despite similarities in the marks themselves, where a mark is commonly used, the relevant consumers will be capable of distinguishing the source of goods or services based on differences in those goods or services. See TMEP 1207(d)(iii). Moreover, the importance of such evidence has been fully endorsed by the Federal Circuit as “powerful on its face.” Juice Generation, Inc. v. GS Enters. LLC, 794 F.3d 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1671, 1674 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (vacating and remanding the TTAB’s decision for the Board’s failure to properly consider third party registrations in an analysis under Section 2(d)). The evidence summarized in this table firmly establishes that BENCHMARK is a commonly-used term, registered by several different third parties, each identifying different specialized equipment used in distinct fields of industry and manufacturing. The inference drawn from this evidence is that no single party owns broad rights in the term, and therefore, the evidence favors registration of the subject mark in view of the specific differences in the goods.
III. Conclusion
For these reasons, namely, due to the weakness and common usage of the term at issue, and in view of the specific differences in the goods, especially when the relevant trade channels and the sophistication of the relevant consumers are considered, the refusal under Section 2(d) should be withdrawn, and the application should proceed to publication. However, if the examining attorney has any remaining questions, applicant's counsel can be reached by telephone. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| EVIDENCE SECTION | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| EVIDENCE FILE NAME(S) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ORIGINAL PDF FILE | evi_641610870-20180209122846270823_._ExhibitA-BenchmarkAutomationWebsite.pdf | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| CONVERTED PDF FILE(S) (1 page) |
\\TICRS\EXPORT17\IMAGEOUT17\872\469\87246976\xml7\RFR0002.JPG | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ORIGINAL PDF FILE | evi_641610870-20180209122846270823_._ExhibitB-DictionarycomforBENCHMARK.pdf | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| CONVERTED PDF FILE(S) (5 pages) |
\\TICRS\EXPORT17\IMAGEOUT17\872\469\87246976\xml7\RFR0003.JPG | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| \\TICRS\EXPORT17\IMAGEOUT17\872\469\87246976\xml7\RFR0004.JPG | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| \\TICRS\EXPORT17\IMAGEOUT17\872\469\87246976\xml7\RFR0005.JPG | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| \\TICRS\EXPORT17\IMAGEOUT17\872\469\87246976\xml7\RFR0006.JPG | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| \\TICRS\EXPORT17\IMAGEOUT17\872\469\87246976\xml7\RFR0007.JPG | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ORIGINAL PDF FILE | evi_641610870-20180209122846270823_._ExhibitC-PriorRegistrations.pdf | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| CONVERTED PDF FILE(S) (12 pages) |
\\TICRS\EXPORT17\IMAGEOUT17\872\469\87246976\xml7\RFR0008.JPG | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| \\TICRS\EXPORT17\IMAGEOUT17\872\469\87246976\xml7\RFR0009.JPG | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| \\TICRS\EXPORT17\IMAGEOUT17\872\469\87246976\xml7\RFR0010.JPG | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| \\TICRS\EXPORT17\IMAGEOUT17\872\469\87246976\xml7\RFR0011.JPG | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| \\TICRS\EXPORT17\IMAGEOUT17\872\469\87246976\xml7\RFR0012.JPG | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| \\TICRS\EXPORT17\IMAGEOUT17\872\469\87246976\xml7\RFR0013.JPG | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| \\TICRS\EXPORT17\IMAGEOUT17\872\469\87246976\xml7\RFR0014.JPG | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| \\TICRS\EXPORT17\IMAGEOUT17\872\469\87246976\xml7\RFR0015.JPG | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| \\TICRS\EXPORT17\IMAGEOUT17\872\469\87246976\xml7\RFR0016.JPG | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| \\TICRS\EXPORT17\IMAGEOUT17\872\469\87246976\xml7\RFR0017.JPG | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| \\TICRS\EXPORT17\IMAGEOUT17\872\469\87246976\xml7\RFR0018.JPG | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| \\TICRS\EXPORT17\IMAGEOUT17\872\469\87246976\xml7\RFR0019.JPG | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| DESCRIPTION OF EVIDENCE FILE | Exhibit A = Printout from the website for Benchmark Automation, LLC Exhibit B = Dictionary.com printout Exhibit C = Prior registrations | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| GOODS AND/OR SERVICES SECTION (current) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| INTERNATIONAL CLASS | 007 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| DESCRIPTION | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| SEAM SEALING PROJECTION WELDING EQUIPMENT, NAMELY, SEAM SEALING PROJECTION WELDING MACHINES; HERMETIC SEALING MACHINES FOR HERMETIC SEALING APPLICATIONS FOR INDUSTRIAL APPLICATIONS | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| FILING BASIS | Section 1(a) | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| FIRST USE ANYWHERE DATE | At least as early as 08/02/2001 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| FIRST USE IN COMMERCE DATE | At least as early as 08/02/2001 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| GOODS AND/OR SERVICES SECTION (proposed) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| INTERNATIONAL CLASS | 007 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| TRACKED TEXT DESCRIPTION | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| FINAL DESCRIPTION | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Resistance projection welding machines for seam sealing and hermetic sealing of enclosures for electronic devices, all for industrial applications | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| FILING BASIS | Section 1(a) | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| FIRST USE ANYWHERE DATE | At least as early as 08/02/2001 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| FIRST USE IN COMMERCE DATE | At least as early as 08/02/2001 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| SIGNATURE SECTION | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| RESPONSE SIGNATURE | /David A. Plumley/ | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| SIGNATORY'S NAME | David A. Plumley | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| SIGNATORY'S POSITION | Attorney of record, California bar member | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| SIGNATORY'S PHONE NUMBER | 626-795-9900 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| DATE SIGNED | 02/09/2018 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY | YES | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| CONCURRENT APPEAL NOTICE FILED | YES | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| FILING INFORMATION SECTION | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| SUBMIT DATE | Fri Feb 09 13:49:01 EST 2018 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| TEAS STAMP | USPTO/RFR-XX.XX.XXX.XX-20 180209134901667838-872469 76-510e827c68d920aec0d3e9 55d1a388762e499cf1f6f78bb 01b75c1b2ee4ffb999-N/A-N/ A-20180209134221908659 |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 no persons are required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a valid OMB control number. PTO Form 1960 (Rev 10/2011) |
| OMB No. 0651-0050 (Exp 09/20/2020) |
In response to the final Office action issued on August 9, 2017, applicant has amended the identification of goods further in an effort to emphasize the specialized and technical nature of such goods. In view of the amendment to the goods and based on the following analysis, applicant requests reconsideration of the refusal under Section 2(d).
I. Applicant's Goods are Sufficiently Different from the Goods of the Cited Registration to Avoid Confusion
Registration has been refused under Section 2(d) based on prior Registration No. 4,743,214. The TMEP points out that in any analysis under Section 2(d), in addition to addressing “[t]he similarity or dissimilarity of the marks in their entireties,” the analysis must look at “[t]he relatedness of the goods or services as described in the application and registration(s).” TMEP 1207.01, citations omitted. Furthermore, in addressing the relatedness of the goods, the analysis should consider the channels of trade for the relevant goods or services, and the sophistication of the relevant consumer. Id. Here, the goods of the cited registration are “Packaging machines, conveyors, loading machines and stacking machines.” In contrast, applicant seeks registration for use with “Resistance projection welding machines for seam sealing and hermetic sealing of enclosures for electronic devices, all for industrial applications,” In each case, the goods are complex and highly specialized machines that are used in industrial settings by sophisticated consumers. Specifically, applicant’s goods are complex and highly specialized welding machines used for sealing electronic devices against external contaminants. Registrant’s goods are similarly specialized, though in a different field and for different specific use, and are used in logistics in packaging, moving, and storing of products. According to registrant’s website, the goods are directed to an even more specialized field of logistics as they are specifically intended for use with bakery products. See Exhibit A, a printout from the website for Benchmark Automation, LLC, the owner of the cited registration. Clearly, the consumers of both applicant’s and registrant’s goods are highly sophisticated consumers who would purchase such complex industrial machines only after careful consideration. While it is unlikely there would be any common consumers for both applicant’s goods used in manufacturing electronics and registrant’s goods used with bakery goods, even if there were common consumers, such consumers of complex machines would be sufficiently sophisticated as to not be confused as to the source of the relevant goods. These differences weigh against a likelihood of confusion.
II. The Mark at issue is a Weak and Commonly Used Term, and the Resulting Scope of Protection is Limited
The mark at issue is BENCHMARK, a commonly-used term that has an established meaning as “a standard of excellence, achievement, etc., against which similar things must be measured or judged.” See Exhibit B, a printout from the Dictionary.com website with the definition of “benchmark.” As the common element at issue here is a weak and somewhat laudatory term, the prior registration is entitled to “a narrower scope of protection than an entirely arbitrary or coined word.” TMEP 1207.01(b)(ix), citations omitted.
As still further evidence of the weakness of the term, BENCHMARK is an element in numerous active registrations owned by various parties for use with different specific types of industrial machines and equipment. The following table summarizes some of these references. See Exhibit C for TESS printouts for each registration mentioned in the table.
Active BENCHMARK Registrations:
|
MARK |
REG. NO. |
RELEVANT GOODS |
|
BENCHMARK |
5376064 |
Electronic motion sensors |
|
BENCHMARK |
4743214 |
Machines for packaging, conveying, loading and stacking |
|
BENCHMARK |
3950927 |
Bench scales |
|
BENCHMARK (stylized) |
4808799 |
hydraulic pumps, motors, and valves |
|
BENCHMARK |
4800006 |
hydraulic pumps, motors, and valves |
|
BENCHMARK BUILDING INFORMATION MODELING SOFTWARE |
4214426 |
Software for the sheet metal and fabrication industries |
|
BUILT FOR BENCHMARKS |
3670850 |
Industrial water filtering units |
|
BENCHMARK |
3159321 |
Refrigeration and air conditioning compressors |
|
BENCHMARK |
2347688 |
Electromechanical marking machines |
|
THE BENCHMARK OF QUALITY |
2364879 |
Power operated automobile lifts and pipe bending machines |
|
BENCHMARK |
2155123 |
Industrial and commercial heaters |
|
BENCHMARK |
1879513 |
Hot melt application machines |
As explained in the TMEP, the existence of active registrations, each including similar trademark terms, is probative in an analysis under Section 2(d) in showing that despite similarities in the marks themselves, where a mark is commonly used, the relevant consumers will be capable of distinguishing the source of goods or services based on differences in those goods or services. See TMEP 1207(d)(iii). Moreover, the importance of such evidence has been fully endorsed by the Federal Circuit as “powerful on its face.” Juice Generation, Inc. v. GS Enters. LLC, 794 F.3d 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1671, 1674 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (vacating and remanding the TTAB’s decision for the Board’s failure to properly consider third party registrations in an analysis under Section 2(d)). The evidence summarized in this table firmly establishes that BENCHMARK is a commonly-used term, registered by several different third parties, each identifying different specialized equipment used in distinct fields of industry and manufacturing. The inference drawn from this evidence is that no single party owns broad rights in the term, and therefore, the evidence favors registration of the subject mark in view of the specific differences in the goods.
III. Conclusion
For these reasons, namely, due to the weakness and common usage of the term at issue, and in view of the specific differences in the goods, especially when the relevant trade channels and the sophistication of the relevant consumers are considered, the refusal under Section 2(d) should be withdrawn, and the application should proceed to publication. However, if the examining attorney has any remaining questions, applicant's counsel can be reached by telephone.
