To: | SONOTEC Ultraschallsensorik Halle GmbH (tmdocket@olsonip.com) |
Subject: | U.S. TRADEMARK APPLICATION NO. 88200635 - SONOFLOW - MAI-219 |
Sent: | 2/28/2019 2:42:52 PM |
Sent As: | ECOM112@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. 88200635
MARK: SONOFLOW
|
|
CORRESPONDENT ADDRESS: |
CLICK HERE TO RESPOND TO THIS LETTER: http://www.gov.uspto.report/trademarks/teas/response_forms.jsp
|
APPLICANT: SONOTEC Ultraschallsensorik Halle GmbH
|
|
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: 2/28/2019
OPEN APPLICATION ISSUES THAT MUST BE ADDRESSED IN RESPONSE TO OFFICE ACTION:
The following are the open application issues that the applicant must address in order to have a complete response to this Office action:
-Refusal to Register Under Trademark Application Section 2(d) –Likelihood of Confusion
-Requirement for Clarification of Identification Language
REFUSAL to Register Under Section 2(d) of the Trademark Act –Likelihood of Confusion Exists for Class 010 Goods
The mark for cited Registration Number 4828083 is the wording SONOFLOW in standard characters for: “Medical device used to evaluate the uterine cavity and patency of fallopian tubes” in Class 010.
The mark sought in this application is the wording SONOFLOW in standard characters for [in relevant part]: “Surgical, medical, dental and veterinary ultrasound apparatus and instruments in Class 10.”
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 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. 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 and differences in the marks.”); TMEP §1207.01.
COMPARISON OF THE MARKS
In the present case, applicant’s mark is SONOFLOW and registrant’s mark is SONOFLOW. 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 registrant’s respective goods and/or services. Id.
Therefore, the marks are confusingly similar.
COMPARISON OF THE GOODS
Determining likelihood of confusion is based on the description of the goods and/or services stated in the application and registration at issue, not on extrinsic evidence of actual use. See In re Detroit Athletic Co., 903 F.3d 1297, 1307, 128 USPQ2d 1047, 1052 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (citing In re i.am.symbolic, llc, 866 F.3d 1315, 1325, 123 USPQ2d 1744, 1749 (Fed. Cir. 2017)).
The goods in the registration are listed as: “Medical device used to evaluate the uterine cavity and patency of fallopian tubes”, there is no limitation on method of evaluation used by the device, thus the identification language is broad enough to encompass medical ultrasound devices –making the goods related here.
In this case, the registration uses wording to broadly describe its goods in a manner which presumably encompasses all goods of the type described, including applicant’s more narrowly listed relevant Class 010 goods. 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 in this case. 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 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 goods are sufficiently related to support a refusal in this case.
A likelihood of confusion results when the confusingly similar marks are used in the market for the closely related goods. Accordingly, registration of the marks sought in this application is hereby refused under Section 2(d) of the Trademark Act in this case. Although applicant’s mark has been refused registration, applicant may respond to the refusal by submitting evidence and arguments in support of registration.
If applicant responds to the refusal, applicant must also respond to the requirements set forth below.
REQUIREMENT for Clarification of Identification Language
The identification of goods in the application includes unacceptably broad wording from the class heading of one or more international classes that must be clarified. See 37 C.F.R. §2.32(a)(6); TMEP §§1401.02(a), 1401.08. The USPTO considers class headings, whose sole purpose is to indicate the subject matter and general scope of each international class of goods, to be too broadly worded to identify goods in a U.S. application. See In re Societe Generale des Eaux Minerales de Vittel S.A., 1 USPQ2d 1296, 1298-99 (TTAB 1986), rev’d on other grounds, 824 F.2d 957, 3 USPQ2d 1450 (Fed. Cir. 1987); TMEP §§1401.02(a), 1401.08, 1402.01 et seq., 1402.07(a). In this case, the wording could identify goods in multiple classes.
For amendments to identifications consisting of class headings, the scope of the identification is limited to the ordinary meaning of the words in the heading. See In re Fiat Grp. Mktg. & Corp. Commc’ns S.p.A, 109 USPQ2d 1593, 1598 (TTAB 2014); TMEP §§1402.06(a), (b), 1402.07(a). Accordingly, applicant must amend the class heading(s) to identify specific goods and/or services that fall within the ordinary meaning of the words specified in the class heading(s). See 37 C.F.R. §2.32(a)(6); TMEP §§1402.06(a), (b), 1402.07(a).
Additionally, use of the wording “including”, “and accessories,” “and/or” and “included in Class 9” in the identification of goods is indefinite and must be clarified by (1) specifying the common commercial or generic name for these goods, or (2) deleting this wording. See 37 C.F.R. §2.32(a)(6); TMEP §§1402.01, 1402.03(a). This wording is an open-ended “catch-all” word or phrase (e.g., “etc.,” “and other similar goods,” “and related goods”) that is not acceptable because it fails to identify specific goods. See TMEP §1402.03(a).
In an identification, an applicant must use the common commercial or generic name for the goods, be specific and all-inclusive, and avoid using indefinite words or phrases. TMEP§§1402.01, 1402.03(a). Further, applicant may amend the identification to list only those items that are within the scope of the goods set forth in the initial application or as acceptably amended. See 37 C.F.R. §2.71(a); TMEP §§1402.06 et seq., 1402.07. Scope is generally determined by the ordinary meaning of the wording in the identification. TMEP §1402.07(a).
The applicant may address these issues by amending to some or all of the following suggested amended identification language:
INTERNATIONAL CLASS 009
Scientific, nautical, surveying, photographic, cinematographic, optical, acoustic, weighing, measuring, signalling, checking (supervision), life-saving and teaching apparatus, instruments, installations and systems, namely, ultrasonic {specify goods by common commercial/generic name, e.g., sensors, flaw detectors, thickness gauges, testers and computer hardware and programs in support thereof}, ultrasonic probes and sensors, and ultrasonic sensor accessories, namely, {specify by generic name} all for use in ultrasonic engineering, and in distance, movement, quality and material registering, measuring and testing; Apparatus, instruments, installations and systems for use in generating, conducting, distributing, transforming, detecting, accumulating, regulating, controlling or analyzing of electrical current or sound waves, namely, ultrasound inspection devices for non-medical, non-destructive testing; Apparatus, instruments, installations and systems, namely, {specify by generic name, e.g., ultrasound probes, not for medical use} for use in ultrasound-based filling condition and level registering, air, gas, suspension, solid recognition and measuring in liquids and solid bodies, movement detection and measuring, distance recognition and measuring in gases, liquids and solid bodies, and quality and material examining and testing, including in the fields of ultrasound, hardness and eddy currents; Apparatus, instruments, installations and systems for recording, transmission or reproduction of sound, in particular ultrasound, and images in the nature of sound and video recording and playback machines; Blank optical data carriers and blank magnetic data carriers for use in recording data, sound, in particular ultrasound, and images; Data processing equipment, namely, couplers, computers and computer peripheral devices.
INTERNATIONAL CLASS 010
Surgical, medical, dental and veterinary ultrasound apparatus and instruments, namely, ultrasound {specify, e.g., probe for medical use, apparatus for dental imaging, appliances for dental and medical use, high intensity focused ultrasound (HIFU) apparatus for surgical use, medical ultrasound imaging apparatus, scanners and needle guides and parts and fittings therefore}.
Please note that parentheses are not acceptable in the identification. See TMEP Section 1402.12. Where the wording “{specify …}” appears in this Office Action, the examining attorney has merely suggested ways to cure the indefiniteness of the identification. The applicant must list the goods without parentheses.
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 –Response Guidelines for TEAS-Plus Applications
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.
If applicant has any questions about its application or needs assistance in responding to this Office Action please telephone the assigned trademark examining attorney directly at the number listed below.
/Amy Kean/
Trademark Attorney, Law Office 112
Phone: 571-272-8854
Amy.Kean@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.