To: | WatchGuard Technologies, Inc. (pctrademarks@perkinscoie.com) |
Subject: | U.S. TRADEMARK APPLICATION NO. 88302324 - PASSPORT - 131603.4000 |
Sent: | 4/10/2019 5:51:01 PM |
Sent As: | ECOM122@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 |
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE (USPTO)
OFFICE ACTION (OFFICIAL LETTER) ABOUT APPLICANT’S TRADEMARK APPLICATION
U.S. APPLICATION SERIAL NO. 88302324
MARK: PASSPORT
|
|
CORRESPONDENT ADDRESS: |
CLICK HERE TO RESPOND TO THIS LETTER: http://www.gov.uspto.report/trademarks/teas/response_forms.jsp
|
APPLICANT: WatchGuard Technologies, Inc.
|
|
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: 4/10/2019
The referenced application has been reviewed by the assigned trademark examining attorney. Applicant must respond timely and completely to the issues 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
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 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 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
The applied-for mark is: PASSPORT
The registered marks are: PASSPORT, CSP PASSPORT, MOBILE PASSPORT, and UNIVERSAL PASSPORT
With regards to Registration No. 2158308, the marks are identical.
With regards to the other cited registrations, applicant’s mark and registrants’ marks share the similar wording PASSPORT in each of their respective marks. 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 Detroit Athletic Co., 903 F.3d 1297, 1305, 128 USPQ2d 1047, 1050 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (citing In re Dixie Rests., 105 F.3d 1405, 1407, 41 USPQ2d 1531, 1533-34 (Fed. Cir. 1997)); TMEP §1207.01(b)(viii), (c)(ii). Greater weight is often given to this dominant feature when determining whether marks are confusingly similar. See In re Detroit Athletic Co., 903 F.3d at 1305, 128 USPQ2d at 1050 (citing In re Dixie Rests., 105 F.3d at 1407, 41 USPQ2d at 1533-34).
The applicant may argue that the term PASSPORT is weak given the number of marks that use the term. However, these marks coexist based on differences in the identification of goods and services and while potentially weak each mark adds wording that differentiate it from the other PASSPORT marks, applicant adds nothing to the word PASSPORT to differentiate it from others. Further, marks that contain the word PASSPORT with goods and services not related to the applicant’s goods and services are not relevant to support that the term PASSPORT is weak for these specific goods and services.
Additionally, when evaluating a composite mark consisting of words and a design, the word portion is normally accorded greater weight because it is likely to make a greater impression upon purchasers, be remembered by them, and be used by them to refer to or request the goods and services. In re Aquitaine Wine USA, LLC, 126 USPQ2d 1181, 1184 (TTAB 2018) (citing In re Viterra Inc., 671 F.3d 1358, 1362, 101 USPQ2d 1905, 1908 (Fed. Cir. 2012)); TMEP §1207.01(c)(ii). Thus, although marks must be compared in their entireties, the word portion is often considered the dominant feature and is accorded greater weight in determining whether marks are confusingly similar, even where the word portion has been disclaimed. In re Viterra Inc., 671 F.3d at 1366-67, 101 USPQ2d at 1911 (citing Giant Food, Inc. v. Nation’s Foodservice, Inc., 710 F.2d 1565, 1570-71, 218 USPQ2d 390, 395 (Fed. Cir. 1983)). In the present case, with respect to the design elements of the registered mark, Registration no. 4660269, they do not change the commercial impression of the mark because the design elements do not change the meaning or the way the mark is interpreted thus the PASSPORT wording remains the dominant element in the marks.
In sum, for the foregoing reasons, the marks are confusingly similar.
Comparison of the Goods and Services
The applicant’s identified goods and services are: “Computer software for computer security and authentication in the fields of security monitoring, access control, information flow control, and facilitating computer connections for wide area and global computer networks; computer software for use in the field of computer security and authentication; computer software for use with multi-factor authentication”
The registrant’s identified goods and services are, in relevant part: “computer software used in connection with a central station alarm monitoring system to permit customers with real time remote dial up access for viewing alarm signal activity, generating reports, and viewing information concerning system activity”, “computer security software for controlling and limiting access to computer systems”, “Computer software for application and database integration; computer programs for the regulation of network access and control”, “Computer services, namely, integration of private and public cloud computing environments; technical consulting and support services in the fields of datacenter architecture, public and private cloud computing solutions, and evaluation and implementation of Internet technology and services; remote and on-site infrastructure management services for monitoring, administration and management of public and private cloud computing IT and application systems for wireless delivery of content to handheld computers, laptops and mobile electronic devices; design, deployment and management of wireless networks for others”, “Software that simplifies user's life for ease of communications namely, for providing information for payments to payment systems, verify user identity, password storage, for providing access to databases and the Internet, to gain access to data systems and services with ease, obtaining, displaying and monitor medical records, biometric and health data and analyzing data to track behaviors; Software for recording, storing and analyzing, monitoring personal identifiable information, identity information, passwords, medical records, biometric, health data and behaviors, key systems access, monitoring health and payment systems, internet connectivity, downloading computer games, online banking and payment systems, password replacement and accessing databases”
In this case, the application uses broad wording to describe “Computer software for computer security and authentication in the fields of security monitoring, access control, information flow control, and facilitating computer connections for wide area and global computer networks; computer software for use in the field of computer security and authentication; computer software for use with multi-factor authentication”, which presumably encompasses all goods and services of the type described, including registrants’ more narrow software goods and services as they are software used in the field of computer security and authentication. 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 and services are legally identical. 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 and services 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 and services are related.
The foregoing demonstrates that a consumer familiar with registrant’s mark used on registrant’s goods and services, upon encountering applicant’s mark used on applicant’s goods and services would likely be confused and mistakenly believe that the goods and services emanate from a common source. Therefore, registration is refused under Section 2(d) of the Lanham Act.
In response to this Office action, applicant may present arguments in support of registration by addressing the issue of the potential conflict between applicant’s mark and the marks in the referenced applications. Applicant’s election not to submit arguments at this time in no way limits applicant’s right to address this issue later if a refusal under Section 2(d) issues.
Particular wording in the identification of goods is indefinite/too broad or misclassified and must be clarified for reasons explained below. See 37 C.F.R. §2.32(a)(6); TMEP §§1402.01, 1402.03. Please see specific requirements explained below in italicized lettering and suggested wording below in bold lettering.
The following substitute wording is suggested, if accurate:
Class 009: {This entry is indefinite, applicant must specify the nature of the software and the function of the software because “computer security and authentication” is unclear, e.g.} Downloadable computer software for securing computer systems and networks from unauthorized access and malware attacks, computer and network user authentication, security monitoring, access control, information flow control, and facilitating computer connections for wide area and global computer networks; {This entry is indefinite, applicant must specify the nature of the software and the function of the software because “computer security and authentication” is unclear, e.g.} Downloadable computer software for securing computer systems and networks from unauthorized access and malware attacks, computer and network user authentication; {This entry is indefinite, applicant must specify the nature of the software and the function of the software because “for use with multi-factor authentication” is unclear, e.g.} computer software for enabling and allowing users to use multi-factor authentication to access websites, computer systems, and networks
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.
RESPONSE GUIDELINES
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 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.
/John Salcido/
Examining Attorney
Law Office 122
571-272-7549
John.Salcido@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.