To: | ISHIHARA SANGYO KAISHA, LTD. (nixonptomail@nixonvan.com) |
Subject: | U.S. TRADEMARK APPLICATION NO. 88251781 - PANOVEL - 1035-1387 |
Sent: | 3/26/2019 11:20:42 AM |
Sent As: | ECOM105@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 |
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE (USPTO)
OFFICE ACTION (OFFICIAL LETTER) ABOUT APPLICANT’S TRADEMARK APPLICATION
U.S. APPLICATION SERIAL NO. 88251781
MARK: PANOVEL
|
|
CORRESPONDENT ADDRESS: |
CLICK HERE TO RESPOND TO THIS LETTER: http://www.gov.uspto.report/trademarks/teas/response_forms.jsp
|
APPLICANT: ISHIHARA SANGYO KAISHA, LTD.
|
|
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
The referenced application has been reviewed by the assigned trademark examining attorney. Applicant must respond timely and completely to the issue 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
Registration of the applied-for mark is refused because of a likelihood of confusion with the mark in U.S. Registration No. 4438655. Trademark Act Section 2(d), 15 U.S.C. §1052(d); see TMEP §§1207.01 et seq. See the attached registration.
The applied-for mark is PANOVEL for “Pharmaceutical preparations for the treatment of Anti-inflammatory, anti-shock, inflammation of digestive system, inflammation of respiratory system, anti-pancreatitis, pulmonary insufficiency, kidney disease, disseminated intravascular coagulation, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, pyometra, spondylosis deformans, systemic inflammatory response syndrome, pneumonia, infectious peritonitis, sepsis, inhibiting thrombogenesis, allergy, tumor metastasis control, infectious disease, encephalitis and surgical stress; veterinary preparations for Companion animals, farm animals, dogs, cats, horses, chickens, cattle and pigs for the treatment of Anti-inflammatory, anti-shock, inflammation of digestive system, inflammation of respiratory system, anti-pancreatitis, pulmonary insufficiency, kidney disease, disseminated intravascular coagulation, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, pyometra, spondylosis deformans, systemic inflammatory response syndrome, pneumonia, infectious peritonitis, sepsis, inhibiting thrombogenesis, allergy, tumor metastasis control, infectious disease, encephalitis and surgical stress; pharmaceutical agents affecting digestive organs; pharmaceutical preparations for skin care for animals; medicines for veterinary purposes for Companion animals, farm animals, dogs, cats, horses, chickens, cattle and pigs for the treatment of Anti-inflammatory, anti-shock, inflammation of digestive system, inflammation of respiratory system, anti-pancreatitis, pulmonary insufficiency, kidney disease, disseminated intravascular coagulation, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, pyometra, spondylosis deformans, systemic inflammatory response syndrome, pneumonia, infectious peritonitis, sepsis, inhibiting thrombogenesis, allergy, tumor metastasis control, infectious disease, encephalitis and surgical stress.”
The registered mark is SANOVEL for “pharmaceutical preparations for the treatment of cardiovascular disorders, skeleto-muscular disorders, general infections, viral infections, central nervous system disorders, gastro-intestinal disorders, fungal diseases, erectile dysfunction, respiratory diseases, allergy, ophthalmic diseases, containing one or more of the following active ingredients - cromolin sodium, amlodipin besylate, alendronate sodium, chlorazepate dipotassium, atropine sulphate, atorvastatin calcium, candesartan cilexetil, ceftriaxone sodium, ephedrine hcl, guaiphenesine, zafirlukast, donepezil hcl, diflunisal, dipyridamole, famotidine, losartan potassium, hydro-chlorothiazide, meloxicam, phenyleprine hcl, fexofenadine hcl, indapamide, sulfisoxazole, clopidogrel, lansoprazole, clarithromycin, flurbiprofen, nimesulide, pantoprazole, paracetamole, pilocarpine hcl, lisinopril, pseudoephedrine hcl, ciprofloxacin hcl, sertraline hcl, cyclopentolate hcl, dihydroergotoxine methansulfonate, terbinafine, timolol maleate, tiamphenicol, azithromycin, tenoxicam, fluconazole, digoxine, tioconazole, dimenhydrinate, quinidine arabogalactane sulphate, quinidine phenylethyl barbiturate, diltiazem hcl, buspirone hcl, amiodarone hcl, trazodone, difluprednate, enoxacin, lactulose, ketorolac, pentoxifylline, vitamin e, chlorhexidine, cetrimide, propyphenazone, caffeine, cetirizine, phenylpropanolamine, zolpidem, bacampicillin hcl, roxithromycin, sultamicillin tosilate, acetylsalicylic acid, ampicillin na, sulbactam na, sildenafil citrate, ambroxol hcl, ribavirin, loratadine, etodolac, omeprazole, oxybutynin chloride, quinidine sulphate, olanzapine, raloxifen, pioglitazone, moxifloxacin, rosiglitazone, sibutramin, carvedilol, montelukast, citalopram, gliclazide, cefaclor, ezetimibe, rofecoxib, quetiapine fumarate, metformin hcl, acarbose, chlorpheniramine maleate, nateglinide, leflunomide, valsartan, cefazolin sodium, diacerein, paroxetine, levofloxacin, levetiracetam, zolmitriptan, glibenclamide, tizanidine, perindopril erbumine, ramipril, ceftazidime, cefuroxime axetyl, thiocolchicoside, acamprosate, acetylcysteine, alpha calcidol, alpha lipoic acid, aripiprazole, atomoxetine, balsalazide disodium, butenafine hcl, calcitriol, carbonyl iron, folic acid, calcium carbonate, magnesium hydroxide, cefdinir, cefepime hcl, cefixime, cefpodoxime proxetil, cefprozil, cephalexine monohydrate, ciclesonide, cilazapril, cilostazol, cinitapride, citicoline, co-enzyme q10, darifenasin, deferiprone, dothiepin, duloxetine, eletriptan, escitalopram, esomeprazole, etoricoxib, felodipine, fenofibrate, ferrous sulphate, zinc sulphate, fluvastatin, frovatriptan, gabapentin, galantamine, gemifloxacin, ginkgo biloba, glimepride, granisetron, ibandronate, irbesartan, iron hydroxide polymaltose, lamivudine, lamotrigine, levetiracetam, letrozole, linezolide, memantine hcl, metoprolol, midodrine, mirtazapine, mizolastine, mosapride citrate dihydrate, mycophenolate mofetil, nebivolol, nefazodone, niacin, nitazoxanide, ondansetron, ornidazole, oxcarbazepine, pimecrolimus, pravastatin, pregabalin, rabeprazol, rebamipide, repaglinide, risedronate, risperidone, rivastigmine, rosuvastatin, saccharomyces boulardii, tacrolimus, tadalafil, tamsulosin hcl, tazaroten, tazobactam sodium, piperacillin sodium, tegaserod, telithromycin, terazocin, teriparatide, tolterodine tartrate, topiramate, trandolapril, trimethazidine, valacyclovir, valproate sodium, venlafaxine, voriconazole, ximelagatran, zaleplon, ziprasidone, zoledronic acid.”
Trademark Act Section 2(d) bars registration of an applied-for mark that so resembles a registered mark that it is likely a potential consumer would be confused, mistaken, or deceived as to the source of the goods and/or services of the applicant and registrant. See 15 U.S.C. §1052(d). A determination of likelihood of confusion under Section 2(d) is made on a case-by-case basis and 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) aid in this determination. Citigroup Inc. v. Capital City Bank Grp., Inc. , 637 F.3d 1344, 1349, 98 USPQ2d 1253, 1256 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (citing On-Line Careline, Inc. v. Am. Online, Inc., 229 F.3d 1080, 1085, 56 USPQ2d 1471, 1474 (Fed. Cir. 2000)). Not all the du Pont factors, however, are necessarily relevant or of equal weight, and any one of the factors may control in a given case, depending upon the evidence of record. Citigroup Inc. v. Capital City Bank Grp., Inc. , 637 F.3d at 1355, 98 USPQ2d at 1260; In re Majestic Distilling Co. , 315 F.3d 1311, 1315, 65 USPQ2d 1201, 1204 (Fed. Cir. 2003); see In re E. I. du Pont de Nemours & Co. , 476 F.2d at 1361-62, 177 USPQ at 567.
In this case, the following factors are the most relevant: similarity of the marks, similarity and nature of the goods and/or services, and similarity of the trade channels of the goods and/or services. See In re Viterra Inc., 671 F.3d 1358, 1361-62, 101 USPQ2d 1905, 1908 (Fed. Cir. 2012); In re Dakin’s Miniatures Inc., 59 USPQ2d 1593, 1595-96 (TTAB 1999); TMEP §§1207.01 et seq.
Similarity of the Marks
Applicant’s mark is PANOVEL and registrant’s mark is SANOVEL. The marks are highly similar because they only differ by one letter. Marks may be confusingly similar in appearance where similar terms or phrases or similar parts of terms or phrases appear in the compared marks and create a similar overall commercial impression. See Crocker Nat’l Bank v. Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce, 228 USPQ 689, 690-91 (TTAB 1986), aff’d sub nom. Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce v. Wells Fargo Bank, Nat’l Ass’n, 811 F.2d 1490, 1495, 1 USPQ2d 1813, 1817 (Fed. Cir. 1987) (finding COMMCASH and COMMUNICASH confusingly similar); In re Corning Glass Works, 229 USPQ 65, 66 (TTAB 1985) (finding CONFIRM and CONFIRMCELLS confusingly similar); In re Pellerin Milnor Corp., 221 USPQ 558, 560 (TTAB 1983) (finding MILTRON and MILLTRONICS confusingly similar); TMEP §1207.01(b)(ii)-(iii).
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.” In re U.S. Warriors Ice Hockey Program, Inc., 122 USPQ2d 1790, 1795 (TTAB 2017) (citing Coach Servs., Inc. v. Triumph Learning LLC, 668 F.3d 1356, 1368, 101 USPQ2d 1713, 1721 (Fed. Cir. 2012)); TMEP §1207.01(b). The proper focus is on the recollection of the average purchaser, who retains a general rather than specific impression of trademarks. In re Bay State Brewing Co., 117 USPQ2d 1958, 1960 (TTAB 2016) (citing Spoons Rests. Inc. v. Morrison Inc., 23 USPQ2d 1735, 1741 (TTAB 1991), aff’d per curiam, 972 F.2d 1353 (Fed. Cir. 1992)); TMEP §1207.01(b).
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 Davia, 110 USPQ2d 1810, 1812 (TTAB 2014) (citing In re 1st USA Realty Prof’ls, Inc., 84 USPQ2d 1581, 1586 (TTAB 2007)); In re White Swan Ltd., 8 USPQ2d 1534, 1535 (TTAB 1988)); TMEP §1207.01(b).
Relatedness of the Goods
Applicant’s goods are closely related to registrant’s goods because they are pharmaceutical preparations that treat the same or similar conditions. The attached Internet evidence establishes that the same entity commonly manufactures the relevant goods and markets the goods under the same mark, 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).
The goods and/or services of the parties need not be identical or even competitive to find a likelihood of confusion. See On-line Careline Inc. v. Am. Online Inc., 229 F.3d 1080, 1086, 56 USPQ2d 1471, 1475 (Fed. Cir. 2000); Recot, Inc. v. Becton, 214 F.3d 1322, 1329, 54 USPQ2d 1894, 1898 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (“[E]ven if the goods in question are different from, and thus not related to, one another in kind, the same goods can be related in the mind of the consuming public as to the origin of the goods.”); TMEP §1207.01(a)(i).
The respective goods and/or services need only be “related in some manner and/or if the circumstances surrounding their marketing [be] such that they could give rise to the mistaken belief that [the goods and/or services] emanate from the same source.” Coach Servs., Inc. v. Triumph Learning LLC, 668 F.3d 1356, 1369, 101 USPQ2d 1713, 1722 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (quoting 7-Eleven Inc. v. Wechsler, 83 USPQ2d 1715, 1724 (TTAB 2007)); TMEP §1207.01(a)(i).
Accordingly, registration is refused under Section 2(d) for a likelihood of confusion.
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.
/Kristin Williams/
Kristin Williams
Examining Attorney
Law Office 105
(571) 270-1942
kristin.williams@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.