To: | Uno Corporation (tmdoctc@fr.com) |
Subject: | U.S. Trademark Application Serial No. 87676868 - UNO - 44654.002001 |
Sent: | November 12, 2019 11:33:09 AM |
Sent As: | ecom109@uspto.gov |
Attachments: | Attachment - 1 Attachment - 2 Attachment - 3 Attachment - 4 Attachment - 5 Attachment - 6 Attachment - 7 Attachment - 8 Attachment - 9 Attachment - 10 |
United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO)
Office Action (Official Letter) About Applicant’s Trademark Application
U.S. Application Serial No. 87676868
Mark: UNO
|
|
Correspondence Address:
|
|
Applicant: Uno Corporation
|
|
Reference/Docket No. 44654.002001
Correspondence Email Address: |
|
The USPTO must receive applicant’s response to this letter within six months of the issue date below or the application will be abandoned. Respond using the Trademark Electronic Application System (TEAS). A link to the appropriate TEAS response form appears at the end of this Office action.
Issue date: November 12, 2019
On September 12, 2018, action on this application was suspended pending the disposition of U.S. Application Serial No. 79222307. The referenced prior-pending application has since registered. Therefore, registration is refused as follows.
SECTION 2(d) REFUSAL – LIKELIHOOD OF CONFUSION
· VARIOCELL UNO, in standard characters, for “Machines and machine tools for material processing and production, namely, machines and machine tools for the cutting, grinding, drilling, milling and forming of materials; machines and component parts of machines, namely, cutting, chip cutting, drilling, grinding, sharpening, and surface treatment machines; metal, wood and plastic working machines; motors other than for land vehicles; tools being parts of machines, namely, metal, plastics and woodworking machine tools; motor-driven tools, namely, power tools in the nature of cutters, grinders, drills, and millers; power-operated tools, namely, electric cutters, electric grinders, electric drills, and electric millers” in Class 7 (U.S. Registration No. 5766281)
Trademark Act Section 2(d), 15 U.S.C. §1052(d); see TMEP §§1207.01 et seq. See the attached registration(s).
Trademark Act Section 2(d) bars registration of an applied-for mark that is so similar to a registered mark that it is likely consumers would be confused, mistaken, or deceived as to the commercial source of the goods and/or services of the parties. See 15 U.S.C. §1052(d). Likelihood of confusion is determined on a case-by-case basis by applying 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) (called the “du Pont factors”). In re i.am.symbolic, llc, 866 F.3d 1315, 1322, 123 USPQ2d 1744, 1747 (Fed. Cir. 2017). Only those factors that are “relevant and of record” need be considered. M2 Software, Inc. v. M2 Commc’ns, Inc., 450 F.3d 1378, 1382, 78 USPQ2d 1944, 1947 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (citing Shen Mfg. Co. v. Ritz Hotel Ltd., 393 F.3d 1238, 1241, 73 USPQ2d 1350, 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2004)); see In re Inn at St. John’s, LLC, 126 USPQ2d 1742, 1744 (TTAB 2018).
Although not all du Pont factors may be relevant, there are generally two key considerations in any likelihood of confusion analysis: (1) the similarities between the compared marks and (2) the relatedness of the compared goods and/or services. See In re i.am.symbolic, llc, 866 F.3d at 1322, 123 USPQ2d at 1747 (quoting Herbko Int’l, Inc. v. Kappa Books, Inc., 308 F.3d 1156, 1164-65, 64 USPQ2d 1375, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2002)); Federated Foods, Inc. v. Fort Howard Paper Co.,544 F.2d 1098, 1103, 192 USPQ 24, 29 (C.C.P.A. 1976) (“The fundamental inquiry mandated by [Section] 2(d) goes to the cumulative effect of differences in the essential characteristics of the goods [or services] and differences in the marks.”); TMEP §1207.01.
1. Similarity of the Marks
Applicant’s Mark: UNO, in standard characters
Registrant’s Mark: VARIOCELL UNO, in standard characters
Marks are compared in their entireties for similarities in appearance, sound, connotation, and commercial impression. Stone Lion Capital Partners, LP v. Lion Capital LLP, 746 F.3d 1317, 1321, 110 USPQ2d 1157, 1160 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (quoting Palm Bay Imps., Inc. v. Veuve Clicquot Ponsardin Maison Fondee En 1772, 396 F.3d 1369, 1371, 73 USPQ2d 1689, 1691 (Fed. Cir. 2005)); TMEP §1207.01(b)-(b)(v). “Similarity in any one of these elements may be sufficient to find the marks confusingly similar.” In re Inn at St. John’s, LLC, 126 USPQ2d 1742, 1746 (TTAB 2018) (citing In re Davia, 110 USPQ2d 1810, 1812 (TTAB 2014)); TMEP §1207.01(b).
In this case, the marks are highly similar because the marks share the wording, UNO. The only difference between the marks is applicant’s removal of VARIOCELL in its mark.
In this case, both marks share the similar wording, UNO. This similarity creates a confusingly similar commercial impression because consumers are likely to believe that applicant’s mark is a condensed form of registrant’s mark or that registrant has begun offering similar goods under another iteration of its registered mark. Thus, the removal of the wording VARIOCELL does not create a distinct commercial impression that distinguishes applicant’s mark from registrant’s mark.
Therefore, the marks are confusingly similar.
2. Relatedness of the Goods
Applicant’s Goods:
· Class 7: Power drill bits; power saw blades; power tools, namely, reamers; Power operated chamfer mills; Power tools, namely, end mills
Registrant’s Goods:
· Class 7: Machines and machine tools for material processing and production, namely, machines and machine tools for the cutting, grinding, drilling, milling and forming of materials; machines and component parts of machines, namely, cutting, chip cutting, drilling, grinding, sharpening, and surface treatment machines; metal, wood and plastic working machines; motors other than for land vehicles; tools being parts of machines, namely, metal, plastics and woodworking machine tools; motor-driven tools, namely, power tools in the nature of cutters, grinders, drills, and millers; power-operated tools, namely, electric cutters, electric grinders, electric drills, and electric millers
The registration(s) use(s) broad wording to describe “motor-driven tools, namely, power tools in the nature of cutters, grinders, drills, and millers; power-operated tools, namely, electric cutters, electric grinders, electric drills, and electric millers”, which presumably encompasses all goods of the type described, including applicant’s more narrow identification, specifying the type of “millers” as “Power operated chamfer mills; Power tools, namely, end mills”. See, e.g., Sw. Mgmt., Inc. v. Ocinomled, Ltd., 115 USPQ2d 1007, 1025 (TTAB 2015); In re N.A.D., Inc., 57 USPQ2d 1872, 1874 (TTAB 2000). Additionally, the goods of the parties have no restrictions as to nature, type, channels of trade, or classes of purchasers and 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)).
Determining likelihood of confusion is based on the description of the goods stated in the application and registration at issue, not on 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)).
The compared goods 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); TMEP §1207.01(a)(i). They need only be “related in some manner and/or if the circumstances surrounding their marketing are 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).
Please see the following attached Internet evidence establishing that applicant’s goods and registrant(s)’ goods are highly related and commonly emanates from a single source and markets the goods under the same mark:
· http://www.dewalt.com/ (providing power drills, drill bits, circular saws for power saws, and grinders, etc.)
· http://www.milwaukeetool.com/ (providing power drills, drill bits, circular saws for power saws, etc.)
· http://www.ryobitools.com/ (providing power drills, drill bits, circular saws for power saws, etc.)
Thus, applicant’s and registrant’s goods 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).
The marks create the same commercial impression and the attached evidence illustrates that the goods are commercially related and are likely to be encountered together in the marketplace by consumers. Accordingly, consumers are likely to be confused and mistakenly believe that the products originate from a common source. Therefore, registration must be refused. Trademark Act Section 2(d), 15 U.S.C. §1052(d); see TMEP §§1207.01 et seq.
RESPONSE GUIDELINES
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 $125 per 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 or e-mail without incurring this additional fee.
How to respond. Click to file a response to this nonfinal Office action
/Philip Liu/
Trademark Examining Attorney
U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
Law Office 109
(571) 272 - 6792
Philip.Liu@uspto.gov
RESPONSE GUIDANCE