UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE (USPTO)
OFFICE ACTION (OFFICIAL LETTER) ABOUT APPLICANT’S TRADEMARK APPLICATION
|
U.S. APPLICATION SERIAL NO. 88297943
MARK: ZCHAT
|
|
|
CORRESPONDENT ADDRESS: |
CLICK HERE TO RESPOND TO THIS LETTER: http://www.gov.uspto.report/trademarks/teas/response_forms.jsp
|
|
APPLICANT: Zanbato, Inc.
|
|
|
CORRESPONDENT’S REFERENCE/DOCKET NO: CORRESPONDENT E-MAIL ADDRESS: |
|
EXAMINER’S AMENDMENT/PRIORITY ACTION
STRICT DEADLINE TO RESPOND TO THIS LETTER
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: 4/30/2019
The referenced application has been reviewed by the assigned trademark examining attorney.
ISSUES APPLICANT MUST ADDRESS: On April 30, 2019, the trademark examining attorney and Attorney Paul C. Llewellyn discussed the issues below. Applicant must timely respond to these issues. See 15 U.S.C. §1062(b); 37 C.F.R. §2.62(a), 2.65(a); TMEP §§708, 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. 5265939. Trademark Act Section 2(d), 15 U.S.C. §1052(d); see TMEP §§1207.01 et seq. See the attached registration.
Applicant’s applied-for mark is ZCHAT in standard characters for “Financial services, namely, assisting others with the completion of financial transactions for equities, securities and investments; Financial services, namely, providing information in the fields of equities, securities and investments via the internet; Financial services, namely, providing for the exchange of equities, securities and investments via the internet and intranet systems; Providing a website and online exchange for the purchase, sale and management of equities, securities and investments; Financial securities exchange services; Securities trading and investing services for others via the internet.”
Registrant’s mark is ZCHAT in standard characters for services including “transmission of data… over a global computer network.”
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.
Comparison of the Marks
In a likelihood of confusion determination, the marks in their entireties are compared for similarities in appearance, sound, connotation, and commercial impression. In re i.am.symbolic, llc, 866 F.3d 1315, 1323, 123 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2017); 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)); In re E. I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., 476 F.2d 1357, 1361, 177 USPQ 563, 567 (C.C.P.A. 1973); TMEP §1207.01(b)-(b)(v).
In the present case, applicant’s mark is ZCHAT in standard characters and registrant’s mark is ZCHAT in standard characters. 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 Services
Here, applicant’s “Financial services, namely, assisting others with the completion of financial transactions for equities, securities and investments; Financial services, namely, providing information in the fields of equities, securities and investments via the internet; Financial services, namely, providing for the exchange of equities, securities and investments via the internet and intranet systems; Providing a website and online exchange for the purchase, sale and management of equities, securities and investments; Financial securities exchange services; Securities trading and investing services for others via the internet” are related to registrant’s “transmission of data… over a global computer network” because it is common for the same entity to provide applicant’s services as well as registrant’s services. Therefore, consumers encountering applicant’s applied-for mark and registrant’s mark used in connection with the respective services are likely to believe that the services emanate from the same source.
The attached Internet evidence consists of web pages from the websites of Vanguard, Charles Schwab, and Fidelity, showing that these entities provide services of assisting others with the completion of financial transactions for equities, securities and investments, providing information in the fields of equities, securities and investments via the internet, providing for the exchange of equities, securities and investments via the internet and intranet systems, providing a website and online exchange for the purchase, sale and management of equities, securities and investments, and securities trading and investing services for others via the internet, as well as transmission of data over a global computer network. This evidence establishes that the same entity commonly provides the relevant services and markets the services under the same mark, and that the relevant services are 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 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).
In conclusion, applicant should note that where the marks of the respective parties are identical or virtually identical, as in this case, the degree of similarity or relatedness between the goods and/or services needed to support a finding of likelihood of confusion declines. See In re i.am.symbolic, llc, 116 USPQ2d 1406, 1411 (TTAB 2015) (citing In re Shell Oil Co., 992 F.2d 1204, 1207, 26 USPQ2d 1687, 1689 (Fed. Cir. 1993)), aff’d, 866 F.3d 1315, 123 USPQ2d 1744 (Fed. Cir. 2017); TMEP §1207.01(a). Here, the evidence of record also establishes the relatedness of the compared services.
Because applicant’s and registrant’s marks are similar and the services are related, there is a likelihood of confusion and applicant’s applied-for mark must be refused under Section 2(d) of the Trademark Act.
APPLICATION HAS BEEN AMENDED: In accordance with the authorization granted by the individual identified in the Priority Action section above, the trademark examining attorney has amended the application as indicated below. Please advise the undersigned immediately of any objections. TMEP §707. Any amendments to the identification of goods and/or services may clarify or limit the goods and/or services, but may not add to or broaden the scope of the goods and/or services. 37 C.F.R. §2.71(a); see TMEP §§1402.06 et seq.
The identification of services is amended to read as follows:
Class 036: Financial services, namely, assisting others with the completion of financial transactions for equities, securities and investments; Financial services, namely, providing information in the fields of equities, securities and investments via the internet; Financial services, namely, providing for the exchange of equities, securities and investments via the internet and intranet systems; Providing a website and online exchange for the purchase, sale and management of equities, securities and investments; Financial securities exchange services; Securities trading and investing services for others via the internet
See TMEP §§1402.01, 1402.01(e).
RESPONSE GUIDELINES FOR PRIORITY ACTION
If applicant has questions regarding this Office action, please telephone or e-mail the assigned trademark examining attorney. All relevant e-mail communications will be placed in the official application record; however, an e-mail communication will not be accepted as a response to this Office action and will not extend the deadline for filing a proper response. See 37 C.F.R. §§2.62(c), 2.191; TMEP §§304.01-.02, 709.04-.05. Further, although the trademark examining attorney may provide additional explanation pertaining to the refusal(s) and/or requirement(s) in this Office action, the trademark examining attorney may not provide legal advice or statements about applicant’s rights. See TMEP §§705.02, 709.06.
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.
/Leslie Ann Thomas-Riggs/
Leslie Ann Thomas-Riggs
Trademark Examining Attorney
USPTO, Law Office 125
(571) 272-5469
leslie.thomas-riggs@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.
