To: | Cambridge Quantum Computing Limited (jgerben@gerbenlawfirm.com) |
Subject: | U.S. TRADEMARK APPLICATION NO. 88177918 - CQC - 07255-0002 |
Sent: | 2/13/2019 7:01:39 PM |
Sent As: | ECOM120@USPTO.GOV |
Attachments: | Attachment - 1 Attachment - 2 Attachment - 3 Attachment - 4 Attachment - 5 Attachment - 6 Attachment - 7 |
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE (USPTO)
OFFICE ACTION (OFFICIAL LETTER) ABOUT APPLICANT’S TRADEMARK APPLICATION
U.S. APPLICATION SERIAL NO. 88177918
MARK: CQC
|
|
CORRESPONDENT ADDRESS: |
CLICK HERE TO RESPOND TO THIS LETTER: http://www.gov.uspto.report/trademarks/teas/response_forms.jsp
|
APPLICANT: Cambridge Quantum Computing Limited
|
|
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: 2/13/2019
SECTION 2(d) PARTIAL REFUSAL – LIKELIHOOD OF CONFUSION
Applicant seeks to register CQC for “Computer hardware for data encryption; Computer hardware for cyber-security; Computer encryption hardware” in Class 9.
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 CQC and registrants’ marks are CQC, all stylized. Thus the word portion of the 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).
Although each mark contains its own unique stylization of the letters, 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. 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)).
Therefore, 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 goods. Id.
Therefore, the marks are confusingly similar.
RELATEDNESS OF THE GOODS
The applicant identifies the following goods in International Class 9:
Computer hardware for data encryption; Computer hardware for cyber-security; Computer encryption hardware
Registration No. 3046817 identifies the following goods in International Class 9:
Integrated circuit devices and controller boards, fibre channel switches, and software and firmware therefor, for controlling and interfacing with peripheral devices and instruction manuals provided as a unit therewith
Registration No. 4212171 identifies the following goods in International Class 9:
Vehicle traffic signals; apparatus and instruments for conveying, distributing, transforming, storing, regulating or controlling electric current; electric couplings; electric connectors; electric relays; automatic switching apparatus for electricity; photovoltaic cells; integrated circuits; electric light dimmers; circuit breakers; electric light switches; electricity transformers; current rectifiers; electric contacts; electrical plugs and sockets; lighting ballasts; electrical distribution boxes; transistors; electrical fuses; lightning arresters
Generally, the greater degree of similarity between the applied-for mark and the registered mark, the lesser the degree of similarity between the goods and/or services of the parties is required to support a finding of likelihood of confusion. In re C.H. Hanson Co., 116 USPQ2d 1351, 1353 (TTAB 2015) (citing In re Opus One Inc., 60 USPQ2d 1812, 1815 (TTAB 2001)); In re Thor Tech, Inc., 90 USPQ2d 1634, 1636 (TTAB 2009). Here, as discussed above, the marks are highly similar with all the marks having identical literal elements.
In this case, although applicant limits the subject matter field, the application uses broad wording to describe the goods of computer hardware, which could be any computer hardware as long it is used in the field of encryption and security, which presumably encompasses all goods of the type described, including both registrant’s more narrow types of computer hardware (not all, but some of the goods of each registrant’s goods could be considered computer hardware. 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 goods 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 goods of the registrants 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 goods are related.
Accordingly, the goods of applicant and the registrant are considered related for purposes of the likelihood of confusion analysis.
Because the marks are confusingly similar and the goods are related, there is a likelihood of confusion to relevant consumers, and therefore registration is refused.
ADVISORY: PRIOR-FILED APPLICATION
In response to this Office action, applicant may present arguments in support of registration by addressing the issue of the potential conflict between applicant’s mark and the mark in the referenced application. Applicant’s election not to submit arguments at this time in no way limits applicant’s right to address this issue later if a refusal under Section 2(d) issues.
REQUIREMENT: IDENTIFICATION AND CLASSIFICATION OF SERVICES
CLASS 36 SERVICES
CLASS 42 SERVICES
The wording “Developing customized software solutions for others” in the identification of services in Class 42 is indefinite and must be clarified because this wording choice make it ambiguous is applicant is actually developing software or some other solution. See 37 C.F.R. §2.32(a)(6); TMEP §1402.01.
The wording “Consulting services in the fields of upgrade, enhancement, and replacement of computer software systems for others” in the identification of services in Class 36 is indefinite and must be clarified because software enhancement is an unclear service, and therefore the respective consulting service is also unclear and indefinite. See 37 C.F.R. §2.32(a)(6); TMEP §1402.01.
Finally, applicant must clarify the wording “consulting services in the field of cyber-security” in the identification of services in International Class 42 because it is indefinite and too broad. See 37 C.F.R. §2.32(a)(6); TMEP §§1402.01, 1402.03. This wording is indefinite because cybersecurity alone is not a sufficiently definite term to make clear what the field of the consulting services are. Further, this wording could identify services in more than one international class. For example, computer security consulting and data security consulting are both in International Class 42, but consulting in many other areas of security is in International Class 45, such as “security threat analysis for protecting personal property”.
Applicant may substitute the following wording, if accurate (additions are shown in bold):
Class 9 Computer operating software; Computer hardware for data encryption; Computer hardware for cyber-security; Computer encryption hardware
Class 35 Preparation of reports relating to finance and investments, for investors, for business or commercial purposes
Class 36 Financial data analysis; Financial analysis, namely, compiling and analyzing statistics, data and other sources of information for financial purposes; Financial services, namely, investment fund transfer and transaction services in the nature of administration of transactions involving funds drawn from securities, stocks, funds, equities, bonds, cash, or other types of financial investments; Providing information in the field of finance, financial data, and financial investments; Financial investment analysis and stock research; Financial asset management and investment brokerage services, namely, monitoring, management, and brokerage of financial assets; Securities trading and investing services for others via the internet; Financial portfolio management, namely, monitoring and managing financial, stock, and investment portfolios; Financial data analysis and research services, namely, providing information, data, and research on financial markets by using quantitative analytics and statistic models; Information, advisory, consultancy and research services relating to finance and investments; Investment fund management applying proprietary algorithms
Class 42 Computer software development, namely, developing customized software solutions for others; Consulting services in the fields of upgrading and replacement of computer software systems for others; Computer security and data security consulting, namely, consulting services in the field of cyber-security; Providing temporary use of non-downloadable software for use as an advanced compiler and computer operating system for quantum computers; Providing a website featuring technology for use as an advanced compiler and computer operating system for quantum computers
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.
ADVISORY: 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 fees already paid (view the USPTO’s current fee schedule). The application identifies goods and/or services that are classified in at least 4 classes; however, applicant submitted fees sufficient for only 3 classes. 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.
ASSISTANCE
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.
/benjaminrosen/
Benjamin Rosen
Examining Attorney
Law Office 120
(571) 272-8425
benjamin.rosen@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.