United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO)
Office Action (Official Letter) About Applicant’s Trademark Application
|
U.S. Application Serial No. 88124374
Mark: VISION
|
|
|
Correspondence Address: 1255 W. Rio Salado Pkwy., Ste. 215
|
|
|
Applicant: Titan3 Technology LLC
|
|
|
Reference/Docket No. 2000.044
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) 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: August 03, 2019
This Office action is in response to applicant’s communication filed on July 3, 2019.
In a previous Office action dated January 3, 2019, the trademark examining attorney refused registration of the applied-for mark based on Trademark Act Section 2(d) for a likelihood of confusion with the marks in U.S. Registration Nos. 5177808 and 5510983. The Section 2(d) refusal as it pertains to registration No. 5177808 is withdrawn.
However, the trademark examining attorney maintains and now makes FINAL the refusal in the summary of issues below. See 37 C.F.R. §2.63(b); TMEP §714.04.
SUMMARY OF ISSUES MADE FINAL that applicant must address:
SECTION 2(d) REFUSAL – LIKELIHOOD OF CONFUSION
Applicant’s mark is VISION for “electrical outlet plates” in International Class 9.
The registered mark, owned by Spirit, LLC is:
Standard for Likelihood of Confusion
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.
Similarity of the Marks
In the present case, applicant’s mark is VISION and registrant’s mark is VISION. These marks are identical in appearance, sound, and meaning, “and have the potential to be used . . . in exactly the same manner.” In re i.am.symbolic, llc, 116 USPQ2d 1406, 1411 (TTAB 2015), aff’d, 866 F.3d 1315, 123 USPQ2d 1744 (Fed. Cir. 2017). Additionally, because they are identical, these marks are likely to engender the same connotation and overall commercial impression when considered in connection with applicant’s and registrant’s respective goods. Id.
Therefore, the marks are confusingly similar.
Relatedness of the Goods
Applicant contends that the goods of the applicant and registrant are not similar. Applicant contends that the difference in classification between the goods at issue indicates that consumers would recognize the difference between them. However, the fact that the Office classifies goods or services in different classes does not establish that the goods and services are unrelated under Trademark Act Section 2(d). See TMEP §1207.01(d)(v). The determination concerning the proper classification of goods or services is a purely administrative determination unrelated to the determination of likelihood of confusion. In re Detroit Athletic Co., 903 F.3d 1297, 1307, 128 USPQ2d 1047, 1051 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (citing Jean Patou, Inc. v. Theon, Inc., 9 F.3d 971, 975, 29 USPQ2d 1771, 1774 (Fed. Cir. 1993)). Moreover, the classification for registration No. 5510983 was erroneously set forth as International Class 11. As noted above and as set forth in the previously attached registration information, the correct classification is International Class 9.
Applicant’s contention that the goods at issue are not similar is misplaced. The fact that the goods of the parties differ is not controlling in determining likelihood of confusion. The issue is not likelihood of confusion between particular goods, but likelihood of confusion as to the source or sponsorship of those goods. In re Majestic Distilling Co., 315 F.3d 1311, 1316, 65 USPQ2d 1201, 1205 (Fed. Cir. 2003); In re Shell Oil Co., 992 F.2d 1204, 1208, 26 USPQ2d 1687, 1689 (Fed. Cir. 1993); TMEP §1207.01.
Further, applicant contends that the primary question is whether a consumer would confuse applicant’s goods with those of the registrant, not with those goods offered by the entities in the previously attached evidence, namely, GE, Hampton Bay, Eaton, Amarelle, Commercial Electric, and Power Gear. However, this evidence was offered to demonstrate likelihood of confusion because the goods are commercially related, travel in the same trade channels, and are likely to emanate from the same source. For example, the trademark examining attorney attached evidence showing that Eaton, Leviton, and GE offer applicant’s electrical outlet plates, as well as registrant’s light switches, electric light dimmers, and electric light switches, thus establishing that the goods at issue are likely to emanate from the same source. See previously attached evidence from Home Depot.
See attached website screenshots from Lowes.com. Further, the attached evidence from Bellacor, Menard’s, and Kyle show that the relevant goods are sold or provided through the same trade channels, either in the same sections of stores or in specialty stores. For example, the evidence from Bellacor and Menard’s shows that consumers seeking the registrant’s goods are likely to encounter the goods of the applicant in the same store sections, and particularly in the lighting or electrical departments. In addition, the goods at issue are likely to be found at specialty stores such as Kyle. See attached evidence. 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).
Lastly, the trademark examining attorney has attached evidence from the USPTO’s X-Search database consisting of a representative sample 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 further shows that the goods at issue, namely, electrical outlet plates, light switches, and light dimmers, 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).
In sum, upon encountering the similar marks of the applicant and registrant on the closely related goods concerned in this case, consumers are likely to be confused and mistakenly believe that the respective goods emanate from a common source or are connected in some way. Based on this likelihood of source confusion, the refusal to register under Section 2(d) of the Trademark Act is made final.
RESPONSE GUIDELINES FOR FINAL OFFICE ACTION
Applicant must respond within six months of the date of issuance of this final Office action or the application will be abandoned. 15 U.S.C. §1062(b); 37 C.F.R. §2.65(a).
How to respond. Click to file a response to this final Office action and/or appeal it to the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB).
In certain rare circumstances, an applicant may respond by filing a petition to the Director pursuant to 37 C.F.R. §2.63(b)(2) to review procedural issues. TMEP §714.04; see 37 C.F.R. §2.146(b); TBMP §1201.05; TMEP §1704 (explaining petitionable matters). There is a fee required for filing a petition. 37 C.F.R. §2.6(a)(15).
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.
/Luz Adorno/
Trademark Examining Attorney, Law Office 111
United States Patent and Trademark Office
(571) 272-4902
Luz.Adorno@uspto.gov
RESPONSE GUIDANCE
