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:  August 05, 2019

 

The assigned examining attorney has reviewed the referenced application and determined the following.

 

This Office Action is in response to applicant’s communication filed on July 17, 2019.

 

The prior Office Action(s) is/are incorporated by reference.

 

SECTION 2(d) REFUSAL – LIKELIHOOD OF CONFUSION

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). 5208829.  See 15 U.S.C. §1052(d); 37 C.F.R. §2.63(b).

 

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.

 

The overriding concern is not only to prevent buyer confusion as to the source of the goods and/or services, but to protect the registrant from adverse commercial impact due to use of a similar mark by a newcomer.  See In re Shell Oil Co., 992 F.2d 1204, 1208, 26 USPQ2d 1687, 1690 (Fed. Cir. 1993).  Therefore, any doubt regarding a likelihood of confusion determination is resolved in favor of the registrant.  TMEP §1207.01(d)(i); see Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Packard Press, Inc., 281 F.3d 1261, 1265, 62 USPQ2d 1001, 1003 (Fed. Cir. 2002); In re Hyper Shoppes (Ohio), Inc., 837 F.2d 463, 464-65, 6 USPQ2d 1025, 1026 (Fed. Cir. 1988).

 

The applicant’s mark is SYSTEMAX (stylized) and design for “holding company services, namely, providing business management, business administration, and human resource management services to subsidiaries and affiliates.”  The registrant’s mark is SYSTEMAX SIMPLIFY ORGANIZE ENERGIZE and design for advertising and marketing consulting services.

 

The marks are similar in this case.  First, when evaluating a composite mark consisting of words and a design, the word portion is normally accorded greater weight because it is likely to make a greater impression upon purchasers, be remembered by them, and be used by them to refer to or request the goods and/or services.  In re Aquitaine Wine USA, LLC, 126 USPQ2d 1181, 1184 (TTAB 2018) (citing In re Viterra Inc., 671 F.3d 1358, 1362, 101 USPQ2d 1905, 1908 (Fed. Cir. 2012)); TMEP §1207.01(c)(ii).  Thus, although marks must be compared in their entireties, the word portion is often considered the dominant feature and is accorded greater weight in determining whether marks are confusingly similar, even where the word portion has been disclaimed.  In re Viterra Inc., 671 F.3d at 1366-67, 101 USPQ2d at 1911 (citing Giant Food, Inc. v. Nation’s Foodservice, Inc., 710 F.2d 1565, 1570-71, 218 USPQ2d 390, 395 (Fed. Cir. 1983)).

 

Furthermore, the marks contain the identical term SYSTEMAX.  Although the registrant’s mark contains the additional three words, the mere deletion of wording from a registered mark may not be sufficient to overcome a likelihood of confusion.  See In re Mighty Leaf Tea, 601 F.3d 1342, 94 USPQ2d 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2010); In re Optica Int’l, 196 USPQ 775, 778 (TTAB 1977); TMEP §1207.01(b)(ii)-(iii).  Applicant’s mark does not create a distinct commercial impression because it contains the same common wording as registrant’s mark, and there is no other wording to distinguish it from registrant’s mark.

 

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).  Consumers are likely to be confused as to the source of the services when they encounter the services bearing the marks because they are likely to believe that the services emanate from the same SYSTEMAX source.  The marks are highly similar.

 

The goods and/or services 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 and/or services 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 services are related in this case.  Business management, business administration, and human resource management service and advertising and marketing consulting services emanate from the same sources.  The trademark examining attorney has previously and presently 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 services as those of both applicant and registrant in this case.  This evidence shows that the services listed therein 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 addition, the previously and presently attached representative Internet evidence establishes that the same entity commonly provides the relevant services, markets the services under the same mark, and the relevant services are sold or provided through the same trade channels and used by the same classes of consumers in the same fields of use.  Thus, applicant’s and registrant’s 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).

 

The services travel in the same channels of trade.  Or, the conditions surrounding their marketing may be such, that they could be encountered by the same purchasers under circumstances that could give rise to the mistaken belief that the services come from a common source.

 

The similarities among the marks and the services of the parties are so great as to create a likelihood of confusion.

 

The applicant argues that the marks are not similar and the services are not related.  Applicant’s arguments have been considered and found unpersuasive.

 

First, as discussed above, the marks contain the identical term SYSTEMAX.  The fact that the registered mark contains other wordings and a design portion does not obviate the refusal because SYSTEMAX is the dominant feature of both marks.  In the registrant’s mark, SYSTEMAX is the largest part of the mark with the other words in small letterings below.  The applicant’s mark also shows SYSTEMAX as the dominant feature.  When comparing marks, “[t]he proper test is not a side-by-side comparison of the marks, but instead whether the marks are sufficiently similar in terms of their commercial impression such that [consumers] who encounter the marks would be likely to assume a connection between the parties.”  Cai v. Diamond Hong, Inc., __ F.3d __, 127 USPQ2d 1797, 1801 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (quoting Coach Servs., Inc. v. Triumph Learning LLC, 668 F.3d 1356, 1368, 101 USPQ2d 1713, 1721 (Fed. Cir. 2012)); TMEP §1207.01(b).  The proper focus is on the recollection of the average purchaser, who retains a general rather than specific impression of trademarks.  In re Inn at St. John’s, LLC, 126 USPQ2d 1742, 1746 (TTAB 2018) (citing In re St. Helena Hosp., 774 F.3d 747, 750-51, 113 USPQ2d 1082, 1085 (Fed. Cir. 2014); Geigy Chem. Corp. v. Atlas Chem. Indus., Inc., 438 F.2d 1005, 1007, 169 USPQ 39, 40 (CCPA 1971)); TMEP §1207.01(b).  The marks contain the dominant feature SYSTEMAX, and therefore the marks are similar.

 

The services are also related because business management, business administration, and human resource management services emanate from the same sources as advertising and marketing consulting services.  Please see the previously and presently attached evidence.  The fact that the registrant provides consulting services does not obviate the refusal as the evidence shows that the services derive from the same sources.

 

Also, the fact that the services of the parties differ is not controlling in determining likelihood of confusion.  The issue is not likelihood of confusion between particular services, but likelihood of confusion as to the source or sponsorship of those services.  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.

 

The marks containing the identical term SYSTEMAX are similar and the services are related, resulting in a likelihood of confusion as to the source of the services.

 

The refusal is maintained and made FINAL.

 

FAILURE TO FUNCTION AS SERVICE MARK

 

Registration is refused because the activities recited in the identification of services are not registrable services as contemplated by the Trademark Act.  Trademark Act Sections 1, 2, 3, and 45, 15 U.S.C. §§1051-1053, 1127; see TMEP §§1301.01 et seq.

 

The activities set forth as services in an application are reviewed using the following criteria to determine whether the services are registrable:

 

(1)       A service is a real activity, not an idea, concept, process, or system.

 

(2)       A service is performed primarily for the benefit of someone other than the applicant.

 

(3)       A service is an activity that is sufficiently separate and qualitatively different from an applicant’s principal activity, i.e., it cannot be an activity that is merely incidental or necessary to an applicant’s larger business.

 

TMEP §1301.01(a); see In re Dr Pepper Co., 836 F.2d 508, 509-510, 5 USPQ2d 1207, 1208-1209 (Fed. Cir. 1987); In re Canadian Pac. Ltd., 754 F.2d 992, 994-95, 224 USPQ 971, 973 (Fed. Cir. 1985).

 

In this case, the description set forth in the identification of services is as follows:  “holding company services, namely, providing business management, business administration, and human resource management services to subsidiaries and affiliates.”  These activities are not registrable services because the applicant appears to be providing the services to its own subsidiaries and affiliates, which is not activities for the benefit of others.

 

The applicant argues that the services are an activity for the benefit of others because the subsidiaries are legally separate corporate entities.  Applicant’s arguments have been considered and found unpersuasive.

 

A “holding company” is defined as “a company whose primary business is holding a controlling interest in the securities of other companies.”  The applicant as a holding company controls the partially or wholly other companies.  The applicant providing the business services to the companies that it owns is not an activity under Trademark Law because the services are not performed for the benefit of others.  Any benefit would inure to the applicant because it controls the subsidiaries and affiliates.  See attached representative articles showing the structure and use of holding companies.

 

The refusal is maintained and made FINAL.

 

SPECIMEN

 

Registration is refused because the specimen does not show use in commerce of the applied-for mark with the identified services.  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), 1301.04(f)(ii), (g)(i).  Specifically, the specimen fails to show the mark used in a way that would create in the minds of potential consumers a sufficient nexus or direct association between the mark and the services being offered.  In re Universal Oil Prods. Co., 476 F.2d 653, 655, 177 USPQ 456, 457 (C.C.P.A. 1973); TMEP §1301.04(f)(ii); see also In re JobDiva, Inc., 843 F.3d 936, 942, 121 USPQ2d 1122, 1126 (Fed. Cir. 2016); In re Adver. & Mktg. Dev., Inc., 821 F.2d 614, 620, 2 USPQ2d 2010, 2014 (Fed. Cir. 1987). 

 

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 services 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).  A service mark is used in commerce “when it is used or displayed in the sale or advertising of services.”  See 15 U.S.C. § 1127; 37 C.F.R. §2.56(b)(2). 

 

When determining whether a mark is used in connection with the services in the application, a key consideration is the perception of the user.  In re JobDiva, Inc., 843 F.3d at 942, 121 USPQ2d at 1126 (citing Lens.com, Inc. v. 1-800 Contacts, Inc., 686 F.3d 1376, 1381-82, 103 USPQ2d 1672, 1676 (Fed Cir. 2012)).  A specimen must show the mark used in a way that would create in the minds of potential consumers a sufficient nexus or direct association between the mark and the services being offered.  In re Universal Oil Prods. Co., 476 F.2d at 655, 177 USPQ2d at 457; TMEP §1301.04(f)(ii); see also In re JobDiva, Inc., 843 F.3d at 942, 121 USPQ2d at 1126; In re Adver. & Mktg. Dev., Inc., 821 F.2d at 620, 2 USPQ2d at 2014.  

 

To show a direct association, specimens consisting of advertising or promotional materials must (1) explicitly reference the services and (2) show the mark used to identify the services and their source.  In re WAY Media, Inc., 118 USPQ2d at 1698 (quoting In re Osmotica Holdings, Corp., 95 USPQ2d 1666, 1668 (TTAB 2010)); TMEP §1301.04(f)(ii).  Although the exact nature of the services does not need to be specified in the specimen, there must be something which creates in the mind of the purchaser an association between the mark and the services.  In re Adair, 45 USPQ2d 1211, 1215 (TTAB 1997) (quoting In re Johnson Controls Inc., 33 USPQ2d 1318, 1320 (TTAB 1994)). 

 

In the present case, the specimen does not show a direct association between the mark and services because the specimen appears to show the use of the mark for marketing services.  The specimen states “Systemax Inc., through its operating subsidiaries, operates as a direct marketer of brand name and private label products.”  The specimens do not refer to business management, business administration, and human resource management services. 

 

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 services 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 the response options above and instructions on how to satisfy them using the Trademark Electronic Application System (TEAS) response form, see the Specimen webpage.

 

Substitute Specimen Statement and Declaration

 

To submit a verified specimen or verified substitute specimen online using the Trademark Electronic Application System (TEAS) response form, (1) answer “Yes” to form wizard question #2; and then, continuing on to the next portion of the form, under the heading “Classification and Listing of Goods/Services/Collective Membership Organization,” do the following for each relevant class for which a specimen is being submitted:  (2) check the box next to the following statement:  “Check here to modify the current classification number; listing of goods/services/the nature of the collective membership organization; dates of use; and/or filing basis; or to submit a substitute specimen, a foreign registration certificate, or proof of renewal of a foreign registration.  If not checked, the changes will be ignored.”; (3) under “Specimen File,” attach a specimen (attachment may not exceed 5 megabytes); (4) describe in the box below where you attached the file what the specimen consists of; and (5) check the box next to the following statement below the specimen description (to ensure that the declaration language is inserted into the form): “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” [for an application based on Section 1(a), Use in Commerce] OR “The substitute (or new, or originally submitted, if appropriate) specimen(s) was/were in use in commerce prior either to the filing of the Amendment to Allege Use or expiration of the filing deadline for filing a Statement of Use” [for an application based on Section 1(b) Intent-to-Use].  Additionally, when submitting a verified specimen, the TEAS online form requires two signatures: one in the “Declaration Signature” section and one in the “Response Signature” section.

 

The specimen remains unacceptable to show the use of the mark for the specified services.

 

The refusal is maintained and made FINAL.

 

Response to 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).  Applicant may respond by providing one or both of the following:

 

(1)  A response that fully satisfies all outstanding requirements and/or resolves all outstanding refusals.

 

(2)  An appeal to the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board, with the appeal fee of $100 per class.

 

37 C.F.R. §2.64(a); TMEP §714.04; see 37 C.F.R. §2.6(a)(18); TBMP ch. 1200.

 

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.  37 C.F.R. §2.64(a); TMEP §714.04; see 37 C.F.R. §2.146(b); TBMP §1201.05; TMEP §1704 (explaining petitionable matters).  The petition fee is $100.  37 C.F.R. §2.6(a)(15).

 

All other Amendment(s) has/have been accepted.

 

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 final Office action and/or appeal it to the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB).

 

 

 

/Alex Seong Keam/

Attorney-Advisor

Law Office 114

Phone:  (571) 272-9176

Fax for Responses:  (571) 273-9114

Email: alex.keam@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 August 05, 2019 for

U.S. Trademark Application Serial No. 88151072

 

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. 

 

 

/Alex Seong Keam/

Attorney-Advisor

Law Office 114

Phone:  (571) 272-9176

Fax for Responses:  (571) 273-9114

Email: alex.keam@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 August 05, 2019, 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.”