To: | Perception Health, LLC (edl@iplawgroup.com) |
Subject: | U.S. TRADEMARK APPLICATION NO. 88161426 - TEAM - 019626 |
Sent: | 3/26/2019 1:21:52 PM |
Sent As: | ECOM113@USPTO.GOV |
Attachments: | Attachment - 1 Attachment - 2 |
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE (USPTO)
OFFICE ACTION (OFFICIAL LETTER) ABOUT APPLICANT’S TRADEMARK APPLICATION
U.S. APPLICATION SERIAL NO. 88161426
MARK: TEAM
|
|
CORRESPONDENT ADDRESS: |
CLICK HERE TO RESPOND TO THIS LETTER: http://www.gov.uspto.report/trademarks/teas/response_forms.jsp
|
APPLICANT: Perception Health, LLC
|
|
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: 3/26/2019
This Office action responds to applicant’s communication dated 03/05/2019 where applicant:
The examining attorney has reviewed the applicant’s response and determined the following:
In response to this Office action, the applicant must address the following issues:
Please note the advisory regarding the disclaimer, although no response to this issue is required.
SECTION 2(d) PARTIAL REFUSAL – LIKELIHOOD OF CONFUSION
The stated refusal refers to the following services and does not bar registration for the other services: “Scientific and technological services, namely, conducting research and analysis to determine the extent and impact of different relationships between medical providers through specific disease states as indicated by medical coding to create benchmarks to create new classifications of medical providers for purposes of noting effectiveness and efficiency of the care network and for developing community care networks based on the data; Scientific and technological services, namely, correlation, regression analysis, and machine language learning to determine the extent and impact of different relationships between medical coding through the aggregation of specific disease states into proprietary service lines across multiple medical disciplines as indicated by medical coding, research and analytics specifically for developing a system capable of medical coding interoperability in the field of health providers and medical coding; Scientific and technological services, namely, medical research and analytics specifically for developing community care networks and medical coding interoperability in the fields of health providers and medical coding; Scientific and technological services, namely, medical research and design in the fields of healthcare analytics in medical coding; industrial analysis and research in the field of developing algorithms, care networks, care outcomes, and medical coding as it relates to specific communities.”
Registration of the applied-for mark is refused because of a likelihood of confusion with the mark in U.S. Registration No. 5660606. Trademark Act Section 2(d), 15 U.S.C. §1052(d); see TMEP §§1207.01 et seq. See the attached registration.
In this case, applicant has applied to register the mark TEAM for use in connection with, in relevant part, “Scientific and technological services, namely, conducting research and analysis to determine the extent and impact of different relationships between medical providers through specific disease states as indicated by medical coding to create benchmarks to create new classifications of medical providers for purposes of noting effectiveness and efficiency of the care network and for developing community care networks based on the data; Scientific and technological services, namely, correlation, regression analysis, and machine language learning to determine the extent and impact of different relationships between medical coding through the aggregation of specific disease states into proprietary service lines across multiple medical disciplines as indicated by medical coding, research and analytics specifically for developing a system capable of medical coding interoperability in the field of health providers and medical coding; Scientific and technological services, namely, medical research and analytics specifically for developing community care networks and medical coding interoperability in the fields of health providers and medical coding; Scientific and technological services, namely, medical research and design in the fields of healthcare analytics in medical coding; industrial analysis and research in the field of developing algorithms, care networks, care outcomes, and medical coding as it relates to specific communities.”
Registration No. 5660606 is for the mark TEAM used in connection with “Scientific study and research in the fields of health and wellness.”
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 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 [services] and differences in the marks.”); TMEP §1207.01.
Similarity of the Marks
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 Inn at St. John’s, LLC, 126 USPQ2d 1742, 1746 (TTAB 2018) (citing In re Davia, 110 USPQ2d 1810, 1812 (TTAB 2014)); TMEP §1207.01(b).
Here, applicant’s mark, TEAM, is confusingly similar to the registered mark TEAM. Specifically, the word portion of 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 the word portions 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 services. Id. Therefore, the marks are confusingly similar.
Further, the design element in the registered mark does not obviate the similarities of the marks. 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 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)). Accordingly, the dominant portion of the marks are the wording, which is identical. Thus, the additional of less significant design elements does not obviate the similarity between the marks.
Ultimately, when purchasers call for the services of the applicant and registrant using TEAM and TEAM, they are likely to be confused as to the sources of those services by the similarities between the marks. Thus, the marks are confusingly similar.
Relatedness of the Services
In this case, applicant's “Scientific study and research in the fields of health and wellness” are related to registrant’s “Scientific and technological services, namely, conducting research and analysis to determine the extent and impact of different relationships between medical providers through specific disease states as indicated by medical coding to create benchmarks to create new classifications of medical providers for purposes of noting effectiveness and efficiency of the care network and for developing community care networks based on the data; Scientific and technological services, namely, correlation, regression analysis, and machine language learning to determine the extent and impact of different relationships between medical coding through the aggregation of specific disease states into proprietary service lines across multiple medical disciplines as indicated by medical coding, research and analytics specifically for developing a system capable of medical coding interoperability in the field of health providers and medical coding; Scientific and technological services, namely, medical research and analytics specifically for developing community care networks and medical coding interoperability in the fields of health providers and medical coding; Scientific and technological services, namely, medical research and design in the fields of healthcare analytics in medical coding; industrial analysis and research in the field of developing algorithms, care networks, care outcomes, and medical coding as it relates to specific communities.” Specifically, both the application and registration identify research services in the health field.
In this case, the registration uses broad wording to describe health related research services, which presumably encompasses all services of the type described, including applicant’s more narrow medical coding research services. 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). Thus, applicant’s and registrant’s services are legally identical. See, e.g., In re i.am.symbolic, llc, 127 USPQ2d 1627, 1629 (TTAB 2018) (citing Tuxedo Monopoly, Inc. v.Gen. Mills Fun Grp., Inc., 648 F.2d 1335, 1336, 209 USPQ 986, 988 (C.C.P.A. 1981); Inter IKEA Sys. B.V. v. Akea, LLC, 110 USPQ2d 1734, 1745 (TTAB 2014); Baseball Am. Inc. v. Powerplay Sports Ltd., 71 USPQ2d 1844, 1847 n.9 (TTAB 2004)).
Additionally, the services of the parties have no restrictions as to nature, type, channels of trade, or classes of purchasers and are “presumed to travel in the same channels of trade to the same class of purchasers.” In re Viterra Inc., 671 F.3d 1358, 1362, 101 USPQ2d 1905, 1908 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (quoting Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Packard Press, Inc., 281 F.3d 1261, 1268, 62 USPQ2d 1001, 1005 (Fed. Cir. 2002)). Thus, applicant’s and registrant’s services are related.
When purchasers encounter the health research services of the applicant and registrant, they are likely to be confused as to the source of the services by the relationship between them. Thus, the services are closely related.
Applicant has argued that the research of the registrant seems to produce data for health care decision-making rather than applicant’s medical coding research. However, as discussed above, determining likelihood of confusion is based on the description of the services stated in the application and registration at issue. Here, the board nature of the registrant’s services creates a relationship between the research services. Therefore, applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
Therefore, because the marks are confusingly similar and the services are closely related, purchasers encountering these services are likely to believe, mistakenly, that they emanate from a common source. Accordingly, there is a likelihood of confusion and registration is refused pursuant to Section 2(d) of the Trademark Act.
(1) Deleting the services to which the refusal pertains;
(2) Filing a request to divide out the goods and services that have not been refused registration, so that the mark may proceed toward publication for opposition for those goods or services to which the refusal does not pertain. See 37 C.F.R. §2.87. See generally TMEP §§1110 et seq. (regarding the requirements for filing a request to divide). If applicant files a request to divide, then to avoid abandonment, applicant must also file a timely response to all outstanding issues in this Office action, including the refusal. 37 C.F.R. §2.87(e).
ADVISORY REGARDING DISCLAIMER
Therefore, applicant may request to withdraw this disclaimer for Class 42 from the application. If applicant does not expressly request its withdrawal, the disclaimer will remain in the application and will be printed on the registration certificate.
RESPONSE TO THIS OFFICE ACTION
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.
/Emma Sirignano/
Examining Attorney, Law Office 113
United States Patent and Trademark Office
(571) 272-7031
emma.sirignano@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.