To: | Parker Davis HVAC International, Inc. (baran.gokce@gmail.com) |
Subject: | U.S. Trademark Application Serial No. 88267631 - SCHNEIDER KRUPPS - N/A |
Sent: | April 16, 2020 04:56:49 PM |
Sent As: | ecom115@uspto.gov |
Attachments: | Attachment - 1 Attachment - 2 Attachment - 3 Attachment - 4 Attachment - 5 Attachment - 6 Attachment - 7 Attachment - 8 |
United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO)
Office Action (Official Letter) About Applicant’s Trademark Application
U.S. Application Serial No. 88267631
Mark: SCHNEIDER KRUPPS
|
|
Correspondence Address: PARKER DAVIS HVAC INTERNATIONAL, INC. PARKER DAVIS HVAC INTERNATIONAL, INC.
|
|
Applicant: Parker Davis HVAC International, Inc.
|
|
Reference/Docket No. N/A
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: April 16, 2020
This application has been removed from suspension based upon the maturation of the prior pending applications. The applicant is advised that U.S. Serial No. 87645344 has abandoned. Because U.S. Serial No. 79234300 has matured into registration, the following refusal applies.
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.
Applicant seeks registration of the proposed mark SCHNEIDER KRUPPS for use connection with “Air conditioners; Air conditioners for vehicles; Heat pumps; Heat recovery ventilators; Solar heat collection panels; Evaporators for air conditioners.” Registrant owns the mark KRUPP for, in most relevant part, “ Steam generating installations and replacement parts therefor; distillation apparatus not for scientific purposes and replacement parts therefor; warming installations, apparatus and machines, namely, battery warmers, car interior warmers, coolers, namely, evaporative air coolers, engine heaters, engine warming units, fuel warmers, heat exchangers not being parts of machines, heaters for engine oil, radiator hose heaters, vehicle oil pan heaters, vehicle tank heaters, ventilators for stoves, all for commercial, domestic and industrial use, heating and refrigerating installations, apparatus and machines and replacement parts therefor; drying installations and apparatus, namely, industrial dryers for dehumidifying, dryers for use in heating, dryers for ventilation systems, dryers for air conditioning and refrigeration systems, drying apparatus for chemical processing; machines for thermal treatment of residues and waste materials being heating apparatus in the nature of furnaces for refuse and sludge incineration and replacement parts therefor; synthetic gas producers, other than gas producers for motor vehicles, namely, electrochemical gas generators and gas production plants being gas generating furnaces for industrial purposes; furnaces for industrial purposes and replacement parts therefor; solar collectors for heating and replacement parts therefor.”
Moreover, the applicant’s goods and the registrant’s goods, are related and identical, in part: both have solar collectors, and both have parts used in vehicle heating and cooling including “evaporators for air conditioners” (applicant) and “evaporative air coolers” (registrant).
Because the applicant has sought registration of a proposed mark that is identical, in part, to the registrant’s mark and because the goods for which applicant has sought registration are identical, in part, to the registrant’s goods, purchasers encountering these marks in commerce would likely mistakenly believe that all of the goods emanate from one source. Because source confusion is likely, registration must be refused under Trademark Act Section 2(d)..
How to respond. Click to file a response to this nonfinal Office action.
If the applicant has any questions, please contact the undersigned.
/Janice L. McMorrow/
Janice L. McMorrow
Trademark Examining Attorney
Law Office 115
571-272-9194
janice.mcmorrow@uspto.gov (informal)
RESPONSE GUIDANCE