| To: | Springfield Instruments Inc. (uspto@faysharpe.com) |
| Subject: | U.S. Trademark Application Serial No. 88291633 - ACCUTEMP - SPRG500003US |
| Sent: | November 15, 2019 02:29:48 PM |
| Sent As: | ecom111@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 Attachment - 40 Attachment - 41 Attachment - 42 Attachment - 43 Attachment - 44 Attachment - 45 Attachment - 46 Attachment - 47 |
United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO)
Office Action (Official Letter) About Applicant’s Trademark Application
|
U.S. Application Serial No. 88291633
Mark: ACCUTEMP
|
|
|
Correspondence Address: |
|
|
Applicant: Springfield Instruments Inc.
|
|
|
Reference/Docket No. SPRG500003US
Correspondence Email Address: |
|
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: November 15, 2019
This Office action is in response to applicant’s communication filed on 10/24/2019.
In a previous Office action(s) dated 4/24/2019, the trademark examining attorney refused registration of the applied-for mark based on the following: Trademark Act Section 2(d).
In addition, applicant was required to satisfy the following requirement(s): foreign registration certificate.
In addition, the following refusal(s) and/or requirement(s) have been withdrawn: foreign registration certificate. See TMEP §§713.02, 714.04.
Further, the trademark examining attorney continues and maintains the 2(d) Refusal and presents the following new issue(s) below.
SUMMARY OF ISSUES that applicant must address:
SECTION 2(d) REFUSAL – LIKELIHOOD OF CONFUSION
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.
Applicant argues that the hyphenation and the additional wording in the registration distinguishes the mark in the application. Such arguments are unpersuasive.
The wording ACCUTEMP and ACCU-TEMP are identical in sound and are very similar in appearance. Moreover, ACCU-TEMP is the first portion of the cited mark. Consumers are generally more inclined to focus on the first word, prefix, or syllable in any trademark or service mark. See Palm Bay Imps., Inc. v. Veuve Clicquot Ponsardin Maison Fondee En 1772, 396 F.3d 1369, 1372, 73 USPQ2d 1689, 1692 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (finding similarity between VEUVE ROYALE and two VEUVE CLICQUOT marks in part because “VEUVE . . . remains a ‘prominent feature’ as the first word in the mark and the first word to appear on the label”); Century 21 Real Estate Corp. v. Century Life of Am., 970 F.2d 874, 876, 23 USPQ2d 1698, 1700 (Fed Cir. 1992) (finding similarity between CENTURY 21 and CENTURY LIFE OF AMERICA in part because “consumers must first notice th[e] identical lead word”); see also In re Detroit Athletic Co., 903 F.3d 1297, 1303, 128 USPQ2d 1047, 1049 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (finding “the identity of the marks’ two initial words is particularly significant because consumers typically notice those words first”).
Applicant claims that the examining attorney has impermissibly dissected the mark. Although marks are compared in their entireties, one feature of a mark may be more significant or dominant in creating a commercial impression. See In re Viterra Inc., 671 F.3d 1358, 1362, 101 USPQ2d 1905, 1908 (Fed. Cir. 2012); In re Nat’l Data Corp., 753 F.2d 1056, 1058, 224 USPQ 749, 751 (Fed. Cir. 1985); TMEP §1207.01(b)(viii), (c)(ii). Disclaimed matter that is descriptive of or generic for a party’s goods and/or services is typically less significant or less dominant when comparing marks. In re Detroit Athletic Co., 903 F.3d 1297, 1305, 128 USPQ2d 1047, 1050 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (citing In re Dixie Rests., Inc., 105 F.3d 1405, 1407, 41 USPQ2d 1531, 1533-34 (Fed. Cir. 1997)); TMEP §1207.01(b)(viii), (c)(ii). In the cited mark, SLIDE has been disclaimed and is not the first portion of the cited mark. As such, ACCU-TEMP is the dominant portion of the cited mark. As such, ACCUTEMP and ACCU-TEMP SLIDE have the same overall commercial impression.
Applicant is reminded that 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)).
As the law requires, the previously attached evidence of record was based on the identifications in both the application and registration. This evidence showed that the temperature indicators in the registration are related to the goods in the application.
With regard to the 3M evidence, it appears that applicant is arguing since 3M is large company in many areas of industry, this evidence should be discounted. Such assertions are without basis in law, and are otherwise unpersuasive. The evidence from 3M shows that all the goods are marketed under 3M and logo and travel the same channels of trade. It does not matter that 3M chooses to use another trademark with the goods. By using the 3M logo, users will realize that 3M is the source of the goods. Applicant claims that NexCare is no longer available for sale, but has not proven this.
Again, with the DeltaTrak evidence, the evidence shows that the DeltaTrak is used to market the products. It does not matter that this is also the name of the company and this company chooses to use another trademark along with their company name. Moreover, the evidence further shows that the goods are actually labeled DeltaTrak.
To further show the relatedness of the goods, the examining attorney presents the following attached evidence.
The evidence from Sharper Image and Taylor Precision Products shows that household items such as rain gauges, and weather forecast/temperature/humidity/air pressure measurement devices and cooking thermometers are related to temperature gauges.
The attached evidence form Cole-Parmer shows that temperature indicators are related to rain gauges, weather stations, barometers, food thermometers, and humidity/temp meters.
This evidence establishes that the same entity commonly manufactures/produces/provides the relevant goods and/or services and markets the goods and/or services under the same mark and the relevant goods and/or services are sold or provided through the same trade channels and used by the same classes of consumers in the same fields of use. Thus, applicant’s and registrant’s goods and/or services 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).
To properly introduce Internet evidence into the record, an applicant must provide (1) an image file or printout of the downloaded webpage, (2) the date the evidence was downloaded or accessed, and (3) the complete URL address of the webpage. See In re I-Coat Co., LLC, 126 USPQ2d 1730, 1733 (TTAB 2018); TBMP §1208.03; TMEP §710.01(b). Accordingly, the underlying webpages associated with the web addresses and/or links will not be considered.
Although applicant’s mark has been refused registration, applicant may respond to the refusal(s) by submitting evidence and arguments in support of registration.
IDENTIFICATION OF GOODS
Based on the 2/28/2019 Voluntary Amendment, applicant relies solely on the TMA583,704 registration for all goods.
In this case, the U.S. application identifies the particular goods and/or services as follows: “Mechanical and digital weather thermometers, mechanical and digital humidity meters, mechanical and digital barometers, mechanical and digital rain gauges, and wind sensors.”
However, the foreign registration identifies the following goods and/or services: “cooking thermometers.”
These goods and/or services in the U.S. application exceed the scope of the goods and/or services in the foreign registration because they are entirely different goods and include thermometers for different uses. Thus, these goods and/or services in the U.S. application are not acceptable and may not be amended to correspond with the goods and/or services in the foreign registration.
Applicant may respond to this issue by satisfying one of the following:
(1) Amending the identification of goods and/or services in the U.S. application to correspond to the goods and/or services in the foreign registration, if possible, to ensure that all goods and/or services beyond the scope of the foreign registration are deleted from the U.S. application; or
(2) Substituting a basis under Section 1(a) or 1(b) for those goods and/or services in the U.S. application that are beyond the scope of the foreign registration. An applicant may assert more than one basis in an application (except Section 1(a) and 1(b) may not be asserted for the same goods and/or services), provided all requirements are satisfied for each claimed basis.
See 15 U.S.C. §§1051(a)-(b), 1126; 37 C.F.R. §§2.32(a)(6), 2.34(b), 2.35(b); Marmark Ltd. v. Nutrexpa S.A., 12 USPQ2d 1843, 1845 (TTAB 1989); TMEP §§806.02, 806.03(h), 1402.01(b).
Additionally, applicant may respond by arguing that these goods and/or services are within the scope of the foreign registration and should remain in the U.S. application.
SECTION 44(d)
Based on the 2/28/2019 Voluntary Amendment, applicant relies solely on the TMA583,704 registration for all goods.
For this application to proceed, applicant must explicitly address each refusal and/or requirement in this Office action. For a refusal, applicant may provide written arguments and evidence against the refusal, and may have other response options if specified above. For a requirement, applicant should set forth the changes or statements.
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.
How to respond. Click to file a response to this nonfinal Office action
/Esther Queen/
Examining Attorney
LO 111
571-272-6695
Esther.Queen@upsto.gov
RESPONSE GUIDANCE
