United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO)
Office Action (Official Letter) About Applicant’s Trademark Application
|
U.S. Application Serial No. 88157505
Mark: ZOOM
|
|
|
Correspondence Address: KNOBBE, MARTENS, OLSON & BEAR, LLP
|
|
|
Applicant: IMPERATIVE CARE, INC.
|
|
|
Reference/Docket No. TSP.063T
Correspondence Email Address: |
|
NONFINAL 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). A link to the appropriate TEAS response form appears at the end of this Office action.
Issue date: May 10, 2021
The referenced application has been reviewed by the assigned trademark examining attorney. Applicant must respond timely and completely to the issue(s) 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
The applicant has applied to register the mark ZOOM for aspiration catheters for use in the vascular system.
The registered mark is ZOOM WIRE for medical guidewires and parts and fittings therefor; surgical and medical apparatus and instruments for use in vascular, intravascular, neurovascular or endovascular procedures.
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. 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 proposed mark ZOOM is similar to the registered mark ZOOM WIRE. Under actual marketing conditions, consumers do not necessarily have the luxury of making side-by-side comparisons between marks, and must instead rely upon their imperfect recollections. Puma-Sportschuhfabriken Rudolf Dassler KG v. Roller Derby Skate Corp., 206 USPQ 255, 259 (TTAB 1980). Therefore, 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., 901 F.3d 1367, 1373, 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).
Moreover, the marks at issue “‘must be considered … in light of the fallibility of memory ….’” In re St. Helena Hosp., 774 F.3d 747, 113 USPQ2d 1082, 1085 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (quoting San Fernando Elec. Mfg. Co. v. JFD Elecs. Components Corp., 565 F.2d 683, 196 USPQ 1 (CCPA 1977)). Consequently, 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 (C.C.P.A. 1971)), aff’d per curiam, 777 F. App’x 516, 2019 BL 343921 (Fed. Cir. 2019); TMEP §1207.01(b).
In this instance, the respective marks create the same general overall commercial impression because the marks share the same sound, appearance, and connotation created by the shared identical and dominant term ZOOM. The term ZOOM is the dominant portion of the cited mark because it is the first portion of the mark and is not at east merely descriptive like the disclaimed term WIRE. Consumers are generally more inclined to focus on the first word, prefix, or syllable in any trademark or service mark. See Palm Bay Imps., Inc. v. Veuve Clicquot Ponsardin Maison Fondee En 1772, 396 F.3d 1369, 1372, 73 USPQ2d 1689, 1692 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (finding similarity between VEUVE ROYALE and two VEUVE CLICQUOT marks in part because “VEUVE . . . remains a ‘prominent feature’ as the first word in the mark and the first word to appear on the label”); Century 21 Real Estate Corp. v. Century Life of Am., 970 F.2d 874, 876, 23 USPQ2d 1698, 1700 (Fed Cir. 1992) (finding similarity between CENTURY 21 and CENTURY LIFE OF AMERICA in part because “consumers must first notice th[e] identical lead word”); see also In re Detroit Athletic Co., 903 F.3d 1297, 1303, 128 USPQ2d 1047, 1049 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (finding “the identity of the marks’ two initial words is particularly significant because consumers typically notice those words first”).
Although marks are compared in their entireties, one feature of a mark may be more significant or dominant in creating a commercial impression. See In re Viterra Inc., 671 F.3d 1358, 1362, 101 USPQ2d 1905, 1908 (Fed. Cir. 2012); In re Nat’l Data Corp., 753 F.2d 1056, 1058, 224 USPQ 749, 751 (Fed. Cir. 1985); TMEP §1207.01(b)(viii), (c)(ii). Disclaimed matter, e.g., WIRE, that is descriptive of or generic for a party’s goods and/or services is typically less significant or less dominant when comparing marks. In re Detroit Athletic Co., 903 F.3d 1297, 1305, 128 USPQ2d 1047, 1050 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (citing In re Dixie Rests., Inc., 105 F.3d 1405, 1407, 41 USPQ2d 1531, 1533-34 (Fed. Cir. 1997)); TMEP §1207.01(b)(viii), (c)(ii).
Thus, upon encountering applicant’s proposed mark ZOOM for aspiration catheters for use in the vascular system and registrant’s mark ZOOM WIRE for medical guidewires and parts and fittings therefor; surgical and medical apparatus and instruments for use in vascular, intravascular, neurovascular or endovascular procedures, consumers are likely to be confused and mistakenly believe that the respective closely related goods emanate from a common source.
Relatedness of the Goods
The applicant’s aspiration catheters for use in the vascular system are closely related to the registrant’s medical guidewires and parts and fittings therefor; surgical and medical apparatus and instruments for use in vascular, intravascular, neurovascular or endovascular procedures because the respective goods are marketed to the same type of customers in the same channels of trade. 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 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 attached evidence from the applicant’s website appears to show a medical guidewire as part of the applicant’s goods.
The attached internet evidence establishes that the relevant goods are sold or provided through the same trade channels and used by the same classes of consumers in the same fields of use and that the goods are similar or complementary in terms of purpose or function. 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). Some of the third party registrations explicitly state that guidewires are used with catheters.
Therefore, because the marks share the identical and dominant first term ZOOM and the goods are closely related, there is a likelihood of confusion as to the source of applicant’s goods. Consequently, the applicant’s mark is not entitled to registration.
INFORMATION ABOUT GOODS REQUIRED
Failure to comply with a request for information is grounds for refusing registration. In re Harley, 119 USPQ2d 1755, 1757-58 (TTAB 2016); TMEP §814.
Merely stating that information about the goods is available on applicant’s website is an insufficient response and will not make the relevant information of record. See In re Planalytics, Inc., 70 USPQ2d 1453, 1457-58 (TTAB 2004).
The applicant must directly and completely answer the following question(s) and/or provide the information requested:
1. Does the applicant manufacture or offer any of the goods that appear in the registrant’s identification of goods?
2. To permit proper examination of the application, applicant must submit additional product information about applicant’s goods because the nature of such goods is not clear from the present record. See 37 C.F.R. §2.61(b); TMEP §814. The requested product information should include fact sheets, instruction manuals, advertisements and promotional materials, and/or a photograph of the identified goods. If these materials are unavailable, applicant should submit similar documentation for goods of the same type, explaining how its own product will differ. Applicant must also describe in detail the nature, purpose, and channels of trade of the goods.
Factual information about the goods must clearly indicate how they operate, their salient features, and their prospective customers and channels of trade.
3. Are the applicant’s goods used with any of the registrant’s goods, e.g., medical guidewires?
4. Do the applicant’s goods incorporate or utilize a medical guidewire?
QUESTIONS ABOUT THIS ACTION
If the applicant has technical questions about the TEAS response to Office action form, the applicant may send technical questions to the TEAS Support Team at TEAS@uspto.gov via e-mail. Please include your name, telephone number, serial number and/or registration number, a description of the issue, including the name of the TEAS form you are having problems with (e.g., “Response to Office Action Form,” “Request for Extension of Time to File a Statement of Use,” etc.), and a screen shot of any error message that you are receiving. You should receive a response within two (2) hours if the e-mail message is submitted during normal business hours.
For status inquiries or copies of documents, an applicant may check the status of or view documents filed in an application or registration using the Trademark Status and Document Retrieval (TSDR) system twenty-four (24) hours a day, seven (7) days a week. Enter the application serial number or registration number and click on “Status” or “Documents.” Do not attempt to check status until approximately four to five (4-5) days after submission of a filing, to allow sufficient time for all USPTO databases to be updated. For help in resolving technical glitches, please email TSDR@uspto.gov.
For all other non-legal matters, including petitions to revive or reinstate an application, please contact the Trademark Assistance Center (TAC). TAC may be reached by e-mail at TrademarkAssistanceCenter@uspto.gov or by telephone at (800) 786-9199. For non-technical matters, TAC is open from 8:30 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. Eastern Standard Time (EST), Monday through Friday, except on federal government holidays. A list of federal government holidays is available at the following website: http://www.opm.gov/policy-data-oversight/snow-dismissal-procedures/federal-holidays/.
If applicant has questions regarding the legal issues in this Office action, please call the assigned trademark examining attorney.
How to respond. Click to file a response to this nonfinal Office action.
/Brian Pino/
Examining Attorney
Law Office 114
571.272.9209 Telephone
Brian.Pino2@uspto.gov
RESPONSE GUIDANCE
