To: | ORHub, Inc. (efiling@knobbe.com) |
Subject: | U.S. TRADEMARK APPLICATION NO. 88153119 - ORIO - ORHUB.026T |
Sent: | 11/8/2018 11:46:53 AM |
Sent As: | ECOM114@USPTO.GOV |
Attachments: | Attachment - 1 Attachment - 2 Attachment - 3 Attachment - 4 Attachment - 5 Attachment - 6 Attachment - 7 Attachment - 8 Attachment - 9 Attachment - 10 Attachment - 11 Attachment - 12 Attachment - 13 Attachment - 14 Attachment - 15 Attachment - 16 Attachment - 17 Attachment - 18 Attachment - 19 Attachment - 20 Attachment - 21 Attachment - 22 Attachment - 23 Attachment - 24 Attachment - 25 Attachment - 26 Attachment - 27 Attachment - 28 Attachment - 29 Attachment - 30 Attachment - 31 Attachment - 32 Attachment - 33 Attachment - 34 Attachment - 35 Attachment - 36 Attachment - 37 Attachment - 38 Attachment - 39 Attachment - 40 |
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE (USPTO)
OFFICE ACTION (OFFICIAL LETTER) ABOUT APPLICANT’S TRADEMARK APPLICATION
U.S. APPLICATION SERIAL NO. 88153119
MARK: ORIO
|
|
CORRESPONDENT ADDRESS: |
CLICK HERE TO RESPOND TO THIS LETTER: http://www.gov.uspto.report/trademarks/teas/response_forms.jsp
|
APPLICANT: ORHub, 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: 11/8/2018
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.
SUMMARY OF ISSUES:
FULL AND PARTIAL SECTION 2(d) REFUSALS—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.
Applicant’s mark is ORIO, presented in standard characters, for use in connection with “Computer software; computer software in the field of medicine and healthcare; digital and cloud based software tools that utilize data, analytics, and machine learning technology; digital and cloud based software tools that utilize data, analytics, and machine learning technology to recommend, in real-time or substantially real time, what supplies should be listed on a medical professional's surgical preference card; electronic records software system; electronic records software system, including a user-friendly graphical interface in the field of medicine or healthcare; Computer software for controlling and managing information and supplies for physicians and other medical professionals; Computer software for the collection, editing, organizing, modifying, transmission, storage and sharing of data and information; Medical software for web based applications; providing non-downloadable software, including providing a website featuring temporary use of non-downloadable software in the field of medicine or healthcare; Application service provider (asp) featuring software for use in physician practice management; data mining and data consulting services; consulting services, including assisting others in designing, developing, implementing and using data warehouses in the field of health care; Providing temporary use of an interactive webbased non-downloadable software application used for data management and data assessment, decision-making and as a reporting tool in the fields of health care.”
Registration No. 4438921 is for the mark ORIO, presented in standard characters, for use in connection with, in most pertinent part, “bone implants composed of artificial materials; fixation implants comprised of artificial material; implants comprising natural, non-living materials; implants consisting of artificial materials; medical and surgical apparatus and instruments, namely, devices used in orthopedic surgery to position surgical instruments, implants and/or patients' limbs; medical and surgical apparatus and instruments, namely, orthopedic fixation device used in orthopedic transplant and/or implant surgery; medical devices, namely, devices for spinal disc repair in the nature of spinal disc implants made from artificial substances; medical devices, namely, spinal implants composed of artificial materials; medical, surgical and orthopaedic implants made of artificial materials; orthopedic joint implants; osseous implants; spinal implants composed of artificial material; surgical and medical apparatus and instruments for use in orthopedic surgery; surgical apparatus and instruments for medical, dental or veterinary use; surgical apparatus and instruments for use in orthopedic surgery; surgical implants comprising artificial material; surgical implants comprising artificial material and associated surgical instrument sets; surgical instruments and apparatus; surgical instruments for use in orthopedic and spinal surgery” in International Class 10. The refusal as to this mark is made in full and applies to ALL of Applicant’s goods/services.
Registration No. 5234261 is for the mark ORIO, presented in standard characters, for use in connection with, in pertinent part, “providing technical support information in relation to motor vehicle software information” in International Class 42.
Registration No. 5029000 is for the mark ORIO, presented in stylized form, for use in connection with, in pertinent part, “on-line non-downloadable software for use in website hosting and for use in the management, recording and ticketing of technical support issues and cases related to motor vehicle repair procedures, technical labor times for motor vehicle repair, motor vehicle parts catalogues, motor vehicle fault tracing procedures, motor vehicle diagnostic and software information, technical training information on the repair of motor vehicles, motor vehicle technical service bulletins, customer literature on motor vehicles, motor vehicle key code information, technical description of vehicles, service program/maintenance program schedules for motor vehicle and pre-delivery inspection of motor vehicles; and the provision of information related to software for use in website hosting and for use in the management, recording and ticketing of technical support issues and cases related to motor vehicle repair procedures” in International Class 42.
U.S. Registration Nos. 5234261 and 5029000 are owned by the same entity. The refusal as to these registrations is partial, and applies ONLY to the following of Applicant’s goods/services: “computer software; digital and cloud based software tools that utilize data, analytics, and machine learning technology; electronic records software system; Computer software for the collection, editing, organizing, modifying, transmission, storage and sharing of data and information.”
Similarity of the Marks
In the present case, Applicant’s mark is ORIO and registrant’s marks are ORIO. 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 the registrants’ respective goods and/or services. Id.
Although the mark in U.S. Registration No. 5029000 is presented with stylization and/or design elements, these elements are entitled to minimal significance because Applicant’s mark is presented in standard characters. A mark in typed or standard characters may be displayed in any lettering style; the rights reside in the wording or other literal element and not in any particular display or rendition. See In re Viterra Inc., 671 F.3d 1358, 1363, 101 USPQ2d 1905, 1909 (Fed. Cir. 2012); In re Mighty Leaf Tea, 601 F.3d 1342, 1348, 94 USPQ2d 1257, 1260 (Fed. Cir. 2010); 37 C.F.R. §2.52(a); TMEP §1207.01(c)(iii). Thus, a mark presented in stylized characters and/or with a design element generally will not avoid likelihood of confusion with a mark in typed or standard characters because the word portion could be presented in the same manner of display. See, e.g., In re Viterra Inc., 671 F.3d at 1363, 101 USPQ2d at 1909; Squirtco v. Tomy Corp., 697 F.2d 1038, 1041, 216 USPQ 937, 939 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (stating that “the argument concerning a difference in type style is not viable where one party asserts rights in no particular display”).
Consequently, Applicant’s and the registrants’ marks are similar.
Relatedness of the Goods and/or Services
With respect to U.S. Registration No. 4438921, Registrant provides a wide variety orthopedic implants and orthopedic surgery instruments, apparatus, and devices. Applicant provides a wide variety of medical software and software services, most of which have no clearly specified purpose or function. Such unclarified software must therefore be presumed to encompass software of any purpose or function. See, e.g., In re Solid State Design Inc., 125 USPQ2d 1409, 1412-15 (TTAB 2018); Sw. Mgmt., Inc. v. Ocinomled, Ltd., 115 USPQ2d 1007, 1025 (TTAB 2015). The attached evidence from Materialise and Stryker shows that software and orthopedic devices and instruments may be provided by the same entities, and that such goods/services may travel in the same channels of trade to the same classes of purchasers.
With respect to U.S. Registration Nos. 5234261 and 5029000, Applicant’s pertinent goods/services include software or software services with either no identified function or purpose or with general data management functions, which must therefore be construed broadly. Registrant provides vehicle repair related software and/or information services related thereto. The attached evidence from WinWorks and Mitchell1 shows that Applicant’s pertinent software goods/services may encompass Registrant’s, that such goods/services may be provided by the same entities, and that such goods/services may travel in the same channels of trade to the same classes of purchasers.
Accordingly, Applicant’s and the registrants’ goods/services are considered related for purposes of likelihood of confusion analysis. 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).
Conclusion
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).
Accordingly, since Applicant’s and the registrants’ marks are similar and their goods/services related, registration of Applicant’s mark must be refused under Trademark Act Section 2(d) due to a likelihood of confusion.
Applicant may respond to the refusal(s) by submitting evidence and arguments in support of registration. However, if applicant responds to the refusal(s), applicant must also respond to the requirement(s) set forth below.
IDENTIFICATION OF GOODS AND SERVICES
The identification of goods and services contains indefinite wording that must be clarified. TMEP § 1402.01.
In the identification of goods and services, Applicant must use the common commercial or generic names for the goods and services, be as complete and specific as possible, and avoid the use of indefinite words and phrases. TMEP §1402.03(a); see 37 C.F.R. §2.32(a)(6). Indefinite words for goods such as “apparatus,” “components,” “devices,” “materials,” or “parts,” must be followed by “namely” and a list of each specific product identified by its common commercial or generic name. See TMEP §§1401.05(d), 1402.03(a). Indefinite words for services such as “services in connection with,” “including,” “and like services,” “concepts,” or “not limited to,” must be followed by “namely” and a list of each specific service identified by its common commercial or generic name. See TMEP §1402.03(a).
In addition, software is in Class 9 if provided in recorded (i.e., on disk) or downloadable form, and in Class 42 if provided as a service (unless it is gaming software, in which case it is in Class 41 if provided as a service).
In light of the above, Applicant may adopt the following suggested amendments, if accurate:
Class 9: computer software for {specify the function or purpose of the software and, if field specific, its field of us}; computer software in the field of medicine and healthcare, namely, software for {specify the function or purpose of the software and, if field specific, its field of use}; downloadable digital software tools that use machine learning technology to collect and analyze medical data; downloadable digital software tools that use machine learning technology to collect and analyze medical data and recommend, in real-time or substantially real time, what surgical supplies should be listed on a medical professional’s surgical preference card; downloadable software for managing electronic medical records; downloadable software for managing electronic medical records via a user-friendly graphical interface, for use in the medicine and healthcare fields; computer software for database management and supply inventory management for use by physicians and other medical professionals; computer software for the collection, editing, organizing, modifying, transmission, storage and sharing of data and information
Class 42: providing online non-downloadable digital software tools that use machine learning technology to collect and analyze medical data; providing online non-downloadable digital software tools that use machine learning technology to collect and analyze medical data and recommend, in real-time or substantially real time, what surgical supplies should be listed on a medical professional’s surgical preference card; providing online non-downloadable software for managing electronic medical records; providing online non-downloadable software for managing electronic medical records via a user-friendly graphical interface, for use in the medicine and healthcare fields; providing a website featuring online non-downloadable medical software for {state the function or purpose of the software and, if field-specific, its field of use}; providing online non-downloadable software for use in the medicine and healthcare fields, namely, software for {state the function or purpose of the software and, if field-specific, its field of use}; application service provider (ASP) featuring software for physician practice management; data mining and consulting services related thereto; IT consulting services, including IT consulting services provided to assist others with designing, developing, implementing and using data warehouses in the field of health care; providing temporary use of an interactive web-based non-downloadable software application used for medical database management, analyzing medical data, and for using machine learning technology to create medical decision recommendations and medical reports, all for use in the health care field
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.
MULTIPLE-CLASS APPLICATION REQUIREMENTS
(1) List the goods and/or services by their international class number in consecutive numerical order, starting with the lowest numbered class.
(2) Submit a filing fee for each international class not covered by the fee already paid (view the USPTO’s current fee schedule). The application identifies goods and/or services that are classified in at least 2 classes; however, applicant submitted a fee sufficient for only 1 class. Applicant must either submit the filing fees for the classes not covered by the submitted fees or restrict the application to the number of classes covered by the fees already paid.
See 15 U.S.C. §§1051(b), 1112, 1126(e); 37 C.F.R. §§2.32(a)(6)-(7), 2.34(a)(2)-(3), 2.86(a); TMEP §§1403.01, 1403.02(c).
See an overview of the requirements for a Section 1(b) multiple-class application and how to satisfy the requirements online using the Trademark Electronic Application System (TEAS) form.
The fee for adding classes to a TEAS Reduced Fee (RF) application is $275 per class. See 37 C.F.R. §§2.6(a)(1)(iii), 2.23(a). See more information regarding the requirements for maintaining the lower TEAS RF fee and, if these requirements are not satisfied, for adding classes at a higher fee using regular TEAS.
For this application to proceed, applicant must explicitly address each refusal and/or requirement in this Office action. For a refusal, applicant may provide written arguments and evidence against the refusal, and may have other response options if specified above. For a requirement, applicant should set forth the changes or statements. Please see “Responding to Office Actions” and the informational video “Response to Office Action” for more information and tips on responding.
Please call or email the assigned trademark examining attorney with questions about this Office action. Although the trademark examining attorney cannot provide legal advice or statements about applicant’s rights, the trademark examining attorney can provide applicant with additional explanation about the refusal(s) and/or requirement(s) in this Office action. See TMEP §§705.02, 709.06. Although the USPTO does not accept emails as responses to Office actions, emails can be used for informal communications and will be included in the application record. See 37 C.F.R. §§2.62(c), 2.191; TMEP §§304.01-.02, 709.04-.05.
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.
/Jason Malashevich/
Examining Attorney
Law Office 114
571-272-4597
jason.malashevich@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.