Offc Action Outgoing

United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO)

Office Action (Official Letter) About Applicant’s Trademark Application

 

 

 

FINAL OFFICE ACTION

 

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) and/or Electronic System for Trademark Trials and Appeals (ESTTA).  A link to the appropriate TEAS response form and/or to ESTTA for an appeal appears at the end of this Office action. 

 

 

Issue date:  June 11, 2020

 

 

INTRODUCTION

 

This Office action is in response to applicant’s communication filed on May 12, 2020.

 

In a previous Office action(s) dated November 12, 2019, the trademark examining attorney refused registration of the applied-for mark based on the following:  Trademark Act Section 2(d) for a likelihood of confusion with a registered mark.

 

For the reasons set forth below, the refusal under Trademark Act Section 2(d) is now made FINAL with respect to U.S. Registration No(s). 5766281.  See 15 U.S.C. §1052(d); 37 C.F.R. §2.63(b).

 

Applicant’s arguments have been considered and found unpersuasive for the reason(s) set forth below.

 

SECTION 2(d) REFUSAL – LIKELIHOOD OF CONFUSION

 

Registration of the applied-for mark is refused because of a likelihood of confusion with the following mark(s):

 

 

·       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 previously 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).  Any evidence of record related to those factors need be considered; however, “not all of the DuPont factors are relevant or of similar weight in every case.”  In re Guild Mortg. Co., 912 F.3d 1376, 1379, 129 USPQ2d 1160, 1162 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (quoting In re Dixie Rests., Inc., 105 F.3d 1405, 1406, 41 USPQ2d 1531, 1533 (Fed. Cir. 1997)).

 

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)), aff’d per curiam, 777 F. App’x 516, 2019 BL 343921 (Fed. Cir. 2019); 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 VARIOCELL, in its mark.

 

Applicant contends that the wording VARIOCELL is the dominant portion of Registrant’s mark. See Response.

 

Incorporating the entirety of one mark within another does not obviate the similarity between the compared marks, as in the present case, nor does it overcome a likelihood of confusion under Section 2(d).  See Wella Corp. v. Cal. Concept Corp., 558 F.2d 1019, 1022, 194 USPQ 419, 422 (C.C.P.A. 1977) (finding CALIFORNIA CONCEPT and surfer design and CONCEPT confusingly similar); Coca-Cola Bottling Co. v. Jos. E. Seagram & Sons, Inc., 526 F.2d 556, 557, 188 USPQ 105, 106 (C.C.P.A. 1975) (finding BENGAL LANCER and design and BENGAL confusingly similar); In re Integrated Embedded, 120 USPQ2d 1504, 1513 (TTAB 2016) (finding BARR GROUP and BARR confusingly similar); In re Mr. Recipe, LLC, 118 USPQ2d 1084, 1090 (TTAB 2016) (finding JAWS DEVOUR YOUR HUNGER and JAWS confusingly similar); TMEP §1207.01(b)(iii).  In the present case, the marks are identical in part.

 

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, both marks share the similar wording, UNO – both with the same translation statement. 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.

 

Applicant’s contention is unpersuasive.

 

Where the goods and/or services of an applicant and registrant are “similar in kind and/or closely related,” the degree of similarity between the marks required to support a finding of likelihood of confusion is not as great as in the case of diverse goods and/or services.  In re J.M. Originals Inc., 6 USPQ2d 1393, 1394 (TTAB 1987); see Shen Mfg. Co. v. Ritz Hotel Ltd., 393 F.3d 1238, 1242, 73 USPQ2d 1350, 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2004); TMEP §1207.01(b).

 

Therefore, the marks are confusingly similar.

 

Applicant contends that the “Principal[sic] Register is replete with registrations that include the word ?uno? and all of its foreign and numerical equivalents. ?1? and its equivalents are an exceedingly common laudatory designation. The unparalleled ubiquity of ?1? as a device used in marks is a fact that speaks for itself and of which consumers are well aware.” See Response. Applicant appears to contend that the wording UNO is weak or diluted. It should be noted that the common wording between the two marks is UNO and not the foreign and numerical equivalents.

 

Applicant has submitted zero third-party registrations – or any evidence - for marks containing the wording UNO to support the argument that this wording is weak, diluted, or so widely used that it should not be afforded a broad scope of protection. 

 

The weakness or dilution of a particular mark is generally determined in the context of the number and nature of similar marks in use in the marketplace in connection with similar goods and/or services. [emphasis added] See Nat’l Cable Tel. Ass’n, Inc. v. Am. Cinema Editors, Inc., 937 F.2d 1572, 1579-80, 19 USPQ2d 1424, 1430 (Fed. Cir. 1991); In re E. I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., 476 F.2d 1357, 1361, 177 USPQ 563, 567 (C.C.P.A. 1973).  Evidence of widespread third-party use of similar marks with similar goods and/or services “is relevant to show that a mark is relatively weak and entitled to only a narrow scope of protection” in that particular industry or field. [emphasis added] Omaha Steaks Int’l, Inc. v. Greater Omaha Packing Co., 908 F.3d 1315, 1324, 128 USPQ2d 1686, 1693 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (quoting Palm Bay Imps., Inc. v. Veuve Clicquot Ponsardin Maison Fondee en 1772, 396 F.3d 1369, 1373, 73 USPQ2d 1689, 1693 (Fed. Cir. 2005)).

 

Further, evidence comprising third-party registrations for similar marks with different or unrelated goods has “no bearing on the strength of the term in the context relevant to this case.”  See Tao Licensing, LLC v. Bender Consulting Ltd., 125 USPQ2d 1043, 1058 (TTAB 2017) (citing In re i.am.symbolic, llc, 866 F.3d at 1328, 123 USPQ2d at 1751). 

 

Since applicant has submitted no evidence, no weight is given in determining the strength of the mark. See In re i.am.symbolic, llc, 866 F.3d 1315, 1328-29, 123 USPQ2d 1744, 1751-52 (Fed. Cir. 2017); AMF Inc. v. Am. Leisure Products, Inc., 474 F.2d 1403, 1406, 177 USPQ 268, 269 (C.C.P.A. 1973). 

 

Thus, the mere statement by the applicant is insufficient to establish that the wording UNO is weak or diluted.

 

Applicant’s contention is unpersuasive.

 

 

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 “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; . . . 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 as “power tools, namely, reamers” and “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)). 

 

Therefore, applicant’s goods and registrant’s goods are considered related for likelihood of confusion purposes.

 

The goods are compared to determine whether they are similar, 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, 1207.01(a)(vi).

 

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).

 

The attached Internet evidence establishes that the same entity commonly manufactures, produces, or provides the relevant goods and markets the goods under the same mark.  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).

 

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.craftsman.com/products/power-tools (offering electric drills, grinders, power drill bits, power saw blades)

·       http://www.makitatools.com/ (offering metal, wood and plastic working machines, electric drills, grinders, power drill bits, power saw blades)

·       http://www.worx.com/power-tools.html (offering electric drills, grinders, power drill bits, power saw blades)

·       http://www.skil.com/ (offering electric drills, grinders, power drill bits, power saw blades)

·       http://www.blackanddecker.com/products/power-tools (offering electric drills, grinders, power drill bits, power saw blades)

·       http://www.ridgid.com/ (offering 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, electric drills, and power saw blades)

 

Thus, applicant’s and registrant’s goods are considered related for likelihood of confusion purposes. See id.

 

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 as those of both applicant and registrant in this case.  This evidence shows that the goods listed therein, namely "power drill bits", "power saw blades", "reamers", "chamfer mills", or  "end mills" and "electric cutters”, "electric grinders", "electric drills", or "electric millers", are of a kind that may emanate from a single source under a single mark.  See In re I-Coat Co., 126 USPQ2d 1730, 1737 (TTAB 2018) (citing In re Infinity Broad. Corp., 60 USPQ2d 1214, 1217-18 (TTAB 2001); 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).

 

 

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. 

 

 

How to respond.  Click to file a request for reconsideration of this final Office action that fully resolves all outstanding requirements and refusals and/or click to file a timely appeal to the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB) with the required filing fee(s).

 

 

/Philip Liu/

Trademark Examining Attorney

U.S. Patent and Trademark Office

Law Office 109

(571) 272 - 6792

Philip.Liu@uspto.gov

 

 

 

RESPONSE GUIDANCE

• Missing the response deadline to this letter will cause the application to abandon.  A response or notice of appeal must be received by the USPTO before midnight Eastern Time of the last day of the response period.  TEAS and ESTTA maintenance or unforeseen circumstances could affect an applicant’s ability to timely respond.  

 

• Responses signed by an unauthorized party are not accepted and can cause the application to abandon.  If applicant does not have an attorney, the response must be signed by the individual applicant, all joint applicants, or someone with legal authority to bind a juristic applicant.  If applicant has an attorney, the response must be signed by the attorney.

 

• If needed, find contact information for the supervisor of the office or unit listed in the signature block.

 

United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO)

 

USPTO OFFICIAL NOTICE

 

Office Action (Official Letter) has issued

on June 11, 2020 for

U.S. Trademark Application Serial No. 87676868

 

Your trademark application has been reviewed by a trademark examining attorney.  As part of that review, the assigned attorney has issued an official letter that you must respond to by the specified deadline or your application will be abandoned.  Please follow the steps below.

 

(1)  Read the official letter.

 

(2)  Direct questions about the contents of the Office action to the assigned attorney below. 

 

 

/Philip Liu/

Trademark Examining Attorney

U.S. Patent and Trademark Office

Law Office 109

(571) 272 - 6792

Philip.Liu@uspto.gov

 

 

Direct questions about navigating USPTO electronic forms, the USPTO website, the application process, the status of your application, and/or whether there are outstanding deadlines or documents related to your file to the Trademark Assistance Center (TAC).

 

(3)  Respond within 6 months (or earlier, if required in the Office action) from June 11, 2020, using the Trademark Electronic Application System (TEAS).  The response must be received by the USPTO before midnight Eastern Time of the last day of the response period.  See the Office action for more information about how to respond

 

 

 

GENERAL GUIDANCE

·       Check the status of your application periodically in the Trademark Status & Document Retrieval (TSDR) database to avoid missing critical deadlines.

 

·       Update your correspondence email address, if needed, to ensure you receive important USPTO notices about your application.

 

·       Beware of misleading notices sent by private companies about your application.  Private companies not associated with the USPTO use public information available in trademark registrations to mail and email trademark-related offers and notices – most of which require fees.  All official USPTO correspondence will only be emailed from the domain “@uspto.gov.”