UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE (USPTO)
OFFICE ACTION (OFFICIAL LETTER) ABOUT APPLICANT’S TRADEMARK APPLICATION
U.S. APPLICATION SERIAL NO. 87785301
MARK: PRONTO
|
|
CORRESPONDENT ADDRESS: |
CLICK HERE TO RESPOND TO THIS LETTER: http://www.gov.uspto.report/trademarks/teas/response_forms.jsp
|
APPLICANT: Spotible, 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. A RESPONSE TRANSMITTED THROUGH THE TRADEMARK ELECTRONIC APPLICATION SYSTEM (TEAS) MUST BE RECEIVED BEFORE MIDNIGHT EASTERN TIME OF THE LAST DAY OF THE RESPONSE PERIOD.
ISSUE/MAILING DATE: 5/29/2018
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.
SECTION 2(d) REFUSAL – LIKELIHOOD OF CONFUSION
Applicant’s applied-for mark is PRONTO in standard characters for “Downloadable software for producing, managing and delivering high-impact ad executions with data, display and video assets, namely, downloadable or embeddable software development kits for same” in Class 9 and “Providing temporary use of on-line non-downloadable software development tools for producing, managing and delivering high-impact ad executions with data, display and video assets; Providing a website featuring non-downloadable software for producing, managing and delivering high-impact ad executions with data, display and video assets; Providing a website featuring resources, namely, non-downloadable software for producing, managing and delivering high-impact ad executions with data, display and video assets ; Providing a website featuring technology that enables users to produce, manage and deliver high-impact ad executions with data, display and video assets; Providing an interactive website featuring technology that allows users to produce, manage and deliver high-impact ad executions with data, display and video assets; Providing a web site featuring temporary use of non-downloadable software for producing, managing and delivering high-impact ad executions with data, display and video assets; Providing a website featuring on-line non-downloadable software that enables users to produce, manage and deliver high-impact ad executions with data, display and video assets; Providing a website that gives computer users the ability to produce, manage and deliver high-impact ad executions with data, display and video assets; Providing on-line non-downloadable software for producing, managing and delivering high-impact ad executions with data, display and video assets” in Class 42.
Registration No. 5346003 is for the mark IIMPRONTO in standard characters for “market research and analysis” in Class 35.
Registration No. 5296115 is for the mark FUNDSPRONTO in standard characters for “Business marketing services for the financial products industry; providing demand creation and lead generation
activities and services; and online business marketing services” in Class 35.
Registration No. 4280285 is for the mark PAZZO PRONTO in standard characters for “Administration of a consumer loyalty program to promote restaurant services and retail services of others;
Advertising services, namely, promoting and marketing the goods and services of others in the field of upscale choices such as cultural events, restaurants, shopping, and travel via print and
electronic media; Offering business management assistance in the establishment and/or operation of restaurants; On-line ordering services in the field of restaurant take-out and delivery; Promotional
services, namely, promoting the goods of others by means of providing online restaurant menus; Providing a website where users can post ratings, reviews and recommendations on restaurants, food and
wine for commercial purposes; Providing on-line consumer information concerning the location of mobile restaurants; Restaurant franchising, namely, offering business management assistance in the
establishment and/or operation of restaurants; Restaurant management for others” in Class 35.
Trademark Act Section 2(d) bars registration of an applied-for mark that so resembles a registered mark that it is likely a consumer would be confused, mistaken, or deceived as to the source of the goods and services of the applicant and registrants. See 15 U.S.C. §1052(d). Determining likelihood of confusion is made 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). In re i.am.symbolic, llc, 866 F.3d 1315, 1322, 123 USPQ2d 1744, 1747 (Fed. Cir. 2017). However, “[n]ot all of the [du Pont] factors are relevant to every case, and only factors of significance to the particular mark need be considered.” Coach Servs., Inc. v. Triumph Learning LLC, 668 F.3d 1356, 1366, 101 USPQ2d 1713, 1719 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (quoting In re Mighty Leaf Tea, 601. F.3d 1342, 1346, 94 USPQ2d 1257, 1259 (Fed. Cir 2010)). The USPTO may focus its analysis “on dispositive factors, such as similarity of the marks and relatedness of the goods [and/or services].” 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)); see TMEP §1207.01.
Comparison of the Marks
Applicant’s applied-for mark shares a similar commercial impression with registrants’ marks because each of the marks features the term “PRONTO”.
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 Davia, 110 USPQ2d 1810, 1812 (TTAB 2014) (citing In re 1st USA Realty Prof’ls, Inc., 84 USPQ2d 1581, 1586 (TTAB 2007)); In re White Swan Ltd., 8 USPQ2d 1534, 1535 (TTAB 1988)); TMEP §1207.01(b).
Specifically, the term PRONTO conveys a source of goods and services that will quickly and effectively yield positive results for the consumers of the goods and services. Thus, the marks each convey a similar commercial impression. However, while each of registrants’ marks includes additional wording besides the term “PRONTO” which could distinguish those marks from each other, applicant’s applied-for mark consists entirely of the term “PRONTO”. Thus, consumers encountering applicant’s applied-for mark are likely to mistakenly believe that the mark is a shortened form of any one of the registered marks.
Thus, the marks are confusingly similar.
Comparison of the Goods and Services
Registration No. 5346003
Applicant’s goods and services are related to registrant’s services because they are commonly provided by the same entity under the same mark.
The attached Internet evidence, consisting of website printouts from ODEC, Qualtrics, and NCC Media, and CJM establishes that the same entity commonly provides market research services as well as software for use in advertising, including software for ad execution and markets the goods and services under the same mark, the relevant goods and services are sold or provided through the same trade channels and used by the same classes of consumers in the same fields of use and the goods and services are similar or complementary in terms of purpose or function. Thus, applicant’s and registrant’s goods and services 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).
Registration No. 5296115
Applicant’s goods and services are related to registrant’s services because they are commonly provided by the same entity under the same mark.
The attached Internet evidence, consisting of website printouts from NCC Media, CJM and Centro establishes that the same entity commonly provides online business advertising or marketing services as well as software for ad execution and markets the goods and services under the same mark, the relevant goods and services are sold or provided through the same trade channels and used by the same classes of consumers in the same fields of use and the goods and services are similar or complementary in terms of purpose or function. Thus, applicant’s and registrant’s goods and services 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).
Registration No. 4280285
Applicant’s goods and services are related to registrant’s services because they are commonly provided by the same entity under the same mark.
The attached Internet evidence, consisting of website printouts from Adglow, Tube Mogul Brand Networks, and MediaNet establishes that the same entity commonly provides advertising services as well as software for developing advertisements and/or advertising campaigns and markets the goods and services under the same mark, the relevant goods and services are sold or provided through the same trade channels and used by the same classes of consumers in the same fields of use and the goods and services are similar or complementary in terms of purpose or function. Thus, applicant’s and registrant’s goods and services 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).
Because applicant’s applied-for mark is similar to registrants’ marks and applicant’s goods and services are related to registrants’ goods and services there is a likelihood of confusion as to the source of applicant’s goods and services. Accordingly, registration is refused pursuant to Section 2(d) of the Trademark Act.
Applicant should note the following additional ground for refusal.
Registration is refused because the specimen in International Class 9 is not acceptable as a display associated with downloadable software and appears to be mere advertising material; thus, the specimen fails to show the applied-for mark in use in commerce for that 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). Specifically, the specimen fails to provide the means to enable the user to download or purchase the software from the website. See In re Sones, 590 F.3d 1282, 1286-89, 93 USPQ2d 1118, 1122-24 (Fed. Cir. 2009); In re Azteca Sys., Inc., 102 USPQ2d 1955, 1957 (TTAB 2012); TMEP §§904.03(e), (i) et seq. Without this feature, the specimen is mere advertising material, which is not acceptable as a specimen to show use in commerce for goods. See In re Kohr Bros., 121 USPQ2d 1793, 1794 (TTAB 2017) (quoting In re Quantum Foods, Inc., 94 USPQ2d 1375, 1379 (TTAB 2010)); In re Genitope Corp., 78 USPQ2d 1819, 1822 (TTAB 2006); TMEP §904.04(b), (c).
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 goods 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 downloadable software include instruction manuals and screen printouts from (1) web pages showing the mark in connection with ordering or purchasing information or information sufficient to download the software, (2) the actual program that shows the mark in the title bar, or (3) launch screens that show the mark in an introductory message box that appears after opening the program. See TMEP §904.03(e), (i), (j). Webpages may also be specimens for goods when they include a picture or textual description of the goods associated with the mark and the means to order the goods. See In re Sones, 590 F.3d at 1286-89, 93 USPQ2d at 1122-24; In re Azteca Sys., Inc., 102 USPQ2d at 1957; TMEP §§904.03(i) et seq.
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 software identified in the application or amendment to allege use. A “verified substitute specimen” is a specimen that is accompanied by the following statement made in a signed affidavit or supported by a declaration under 37 C.F.R. §2.20: “The substitute (or new, or originally submitted, if appropriate) specimen(s) was/were in use in commerce at least as early as the filing date of the application or prior to the filing of the amendment to allege use.” The substitute specimen cannot be accepted without this statement.
(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 the Specimen webpage.
IDENTIFICATION OF GOODS
The identification of services in Class 42 is acceptable as written. However, the identification of goods in Class 9 is indefinite and requires clarification for the reason below.
The applicant may amend or adopt one or more of the following identifications, if accurate (additions are in bold, deletions are shown as strikethrough text):
Class 9
Downloadable or embeddable software development kits for developing software for producing, managing and delivering high-impact ad executions with data,
display and video assets, namely, downloadable or embeddable software development kits for same
Class 42-acceptable as written
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.
In response to this Office action, applicant may present arguments in support of registration by addressing the issue of the potential conflict between applicant’s mark and the marks in the referenced applications. Applicant’s election not to submit arguments at this time in no way limits applicant’s right to address this issue later if a refusal under Section 2(d) issues.
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.
/Nicole Passman/
Nicole Passman
Examining Attorney
Law Office 125
(571) 272-3244
nicole.passman@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.