| To: | Westcott Plasma Inc. (apharar@gmail.com) |
| Subject: | U.S. TRADEMARK APPLICATION NO. 88305470 - PRO SERIES - N/A |
| Sent: | 5/24/2019 2:18:55 PM |
| Sent As: | ECOM123@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 Attachment - 48 Attachment - 49 Attachment - 50 Attachment - 51 |
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE (USPTO)
OFFICE ACTION (OFFICIAL LETTER) ABOUT APPLICANT’S TRADEMARK APPLICATION
|
U.S. APPLICATION SERIAL NO. 88305470
MARK: PRO SERIES
|
|
|
CORRESPONDENT ADDRESS: |
CLICK HERE TO RESPOND TO THIS LETTER: http://www.gov.uspto.report/trademarks/teas/response_forms.jsp
|
|
APPLICANT: Westcott Plasma 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: 5/24/2019
This Office action is supplemental to and supersedes the previous Office action issued on May 13, 2019 in connection with this application.
The assigned trademark examining attorney inadvertently failed to include an additional cite relevant for the Trademark Act Section 2(d) refusal. See below.
Applicant must respond to all issues raised in this Office action, within six (6) months of the date of issuance of this Office action. 37 C.F.R. §2.62(a); see TMEP §711.02. If applicant does not respond within this time limit, the application will be abandoned. 37 C.F.R. §2.65(a).
TRADEMARK ACT SECTION 2(d) REFUSAL – LIKELIHOOD OF CONFUSION WITH REGISTERED MARKS
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 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. 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 and differences in the marks.”); TMEP §1207.01.
Comparison of the Marks
Applicant’s mark is PRO SERIES in standard character form.
Registrant’s marks are PRO SERIES in typed form.
In the present case, applicant’s mark is PRO SERIES and registrant’s mark is PRO SERIES. 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. Id.
Thus, the marks are confusingly similar.
Comparison of Goods
The goods are related.
Applicant's goods are as follows:
INTERNATIONAL CLASS 007: Cutting machines; Cutting machines for metalworking; Plasma etching machines; Electric plasma cutters; Plasma cutting machines
Registrant's goods are as follows:
Registration No. 1983017 – INTERNATIONAL CLASS 008: gas welding and cutting torches, and gas-air torches for low temperature brazing, annealing and for welding and parts thereof, namely welding tips, cutting tips, mixtures for welding torches, cutting attachments for welding torches, tip wrenches and flame arresters for gas regulators and torches
Registration No. 2126963 - INTERNATIONAL CLASS 007: hand tools, namely, gas welding and cutting torches, and gas-air torches for low temperature brazing, annealing and for welding and parts thereof, namely, welding tips, mixers for welding torches, cutting attachments for welding torches, tip wrenches, gas regulators and flame arrestors for gas regulators and torches
In this case, applicant's and registrant's goods are related because welding equipment manufacturers make both welding accessories, cutting machines, and plasma cutting machines. The attached Internet evidence, consisting of screen shots from welding equipment manufacturers, establishes that the same entity commonly manufactures the relevant goods and markets the goods under the same mark. 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).
Please see the following attached evidence:
To the extent the evidence may not address all of the goods in applicant’s identification, relatedness does not have to be established for every good in an identification. It is sufficient for a finding of likelihood of confusion if relatedness is established for any or some goods encompassed by the identification within a particular class in an application. Tuxedo Monopoly, Inc. v. General Mills Fun Group, 648 F.2d 1335, 209 USPQ 986, 988 (CCPA 1981). In this case, relatedness has been established for many of the identified goods, which is enough to show a likelihood of confusion.
Conclusion
Thus, upon encountering the marks PRO SERIES and PRO SERIES as used on the identified goods, consumers are likely to be confused and mistakenly believe that the respective goods emanate from a common source. Therefore, applicant’s mark is not entitled to registration because of a likelihood of confusion with the marks owned by the same registrant in U.S. Registration Nos. 1983017 (PRO SERIES) and 2126963 (PRO SERIES). Trademark Act Section 2(d), 15 U.S.C. §1052(d); see TMEP §§1207.01 et seq.
Applicant should note the following additional ground for refusal.
TRADEMARK ACT SECTION 2(e)(1) REFUSAL – APPLIED-FOR MARK IS MERELY DESCRIPTIVE
Applicant has applied to register the mark PRO SERIES for use in connection with the following goods:
INTERNATIONAL CLASS 007: Cutting machines; Cutting machines for metalworking; Plasma etching machines; Electric plasma cutters; Plasma cutting machines
According to the American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, the term PRO is defined as "[a]n expert in a field of endeavor." See http://www.ahdictionary.com/word/search.html?q=PRO. Furthermore, SERIES is defined as "[a] number of objects or events arranged or coming one after the other in succession". See http://www.ahdictionary.com/word/search.html?q=series. Therefore, when used in relation to applicant's goods, the terms are merely descriptive of a characteristic, namely, the tools consist of a group that come one after another and are intended for experts in a specific field.
Only where the combination of descriptive terms creates a unitary mark with a unique, incongruous, or otherwise nondescriptive meaning in relation to the goods is the combined mark registrable. See In re Colonial Stores, Inc., 394 F.2d 549, 551, 157 USPQ 382, 384 (C.C.P.A. 1968); In re Positec Grp. Ltd., 108 USPQ2d 1161, 1162-63 (TTAB 2013).
In this case, both the individual components and the composite result are descriptive of applicant’s goods and do not create a unique, incongruous, or nondescriptive meaning in relation to the goods. Specifically, the combination of the terms PRO SERIES does not create a nondescriptive meaning that would obviate this refusal because the combined wording creates the same impression as the individual terms, namely, tools used by experts which come in a group.
Thus, the mark PRO SERIES, as applied to the identified goods, is merely descriptive. Accordingly, registration of the applied-for mark is refused on the Principal Register under Section 2(e)(1).
Applicant should note the following additional ground for refusal.
ADVISORY: AMENDMENT TO SECTION 2(f) AND/OR SUPPLEMENTAL REGISTER CANNOT BE RECOMMENDED BECAUSE MARK IS POSSIBLY GENERIC
REFUSAL OF REGISTRATION – SPECIMEN DOES NOT SHOW THE APPLIED-FOR MARK IN USE IN COMMERCE
I. Webpage is insufficient display of goods
To be acceptable, a specimen of a webpage display must include (1) a picture or sufficient textual description of applicant’s goods that (2) shows the mark associated with the goods, and (3) a way of ordering the goods (e.g., a “shop online” or “shopping cart” button or link, an order form, or a telephone number for placing orders). TMEP §904.03(i); see In re Sones, 590 F.3d 1282, 1286-89, 93 USPQ2d 1118, 1122-24 (Fed. Cir. 2009); In re Azteca Sys., Inc., 102 USPQ2d 1955, 1957-58 (TTAB 2012). If applicant’s specimen includes a telephone number, internet address, and/or mailing address that appears only with corporate contact information, the specimen may not show sufficient means for ordering the goods. See In re Genitope Corp., 78 USPQ2d 1819, 1822 (TTAB 2006); TMEP §904.03(i)(C)(2). In that circumstance, the specimen may also need to include instructions on how to place an order or an offer to accept orders. See In re Quantum Foods, Inc., 94 USPQ2d 1375, 1379 (TTAB 2010); TMEP §904.03(i)(C)(2).
In this case, the specimen does not include a way of ordering the goods in that the specimen shows the applied-for mark and a description of the goods but does not have an "add to cart" or shopping cart feature or any other way to order the goods. See In re Sones, 590 F.3d at 1286-89, 93 USPQ2d at 1122-24; In re Azteca Sys., Inc., 102 USPQ2d at 1957; TMEP §§904.03(i) et seq. Without this feature, the specimen is mere advertising material, which is generally not acceptable as a specimen for showing use in commerce for goods. See In re Kohr Bros., 121 USPQ2d 1793, 1794 (TTAB 2017) (quoting In re Quantum Foods, Inc., 94 USPQ2d at 1379); In re Genitope Corp., 78 USPQ2d at 1822; TMEP §904.04(b).
II. Mark on specimen does not match mark in drawing
Registration is refused because the specimen does not show the mark in the drawing in use in commerce in International Class 7, which is required in the application or amendment to allege use. Trademark Act Sections 1 and 45, 15 U.S.C. §§1051, 1127; 37 C.F.R. §§2.34(a)(1)(iv), 2.56(a); TMEP §§904, 904.07(a), 1301.04(g)(i). The mark appearing on the specimen and in the drawing must match; that is, the mark in the drawing “must be a substantially exact representation of the mark” on the specimen. See 37 C.F.R. §2.51(a)-(b); TMEP §807.12(a).
In this case, the specimen displays the mark as PRO SERIES TABLES. However, the drawing displays the mark as PRO SERIES. The mark on the specimen does not match the mark in the drawing because the specimen contains the additional wording "TABLES". Applicant has thus failed to provide the required evidence of use of the mark in commerce. See TMEP §807.12(a).
The USPTO will not accept an amended drawing submitted in response to this refusal because the changes would materially alter the drawing of the mark in the original application or as previously acceptably amended. See 37 C.F.R. §2.72(a)-(b); TMEP §807.14. Specifically, amending the mark on the drawing to agree with the mark on the specimen would be a material alteration because adding the term TABLES changes the essence of the mark and does not create the impression that the mark is essentially the same.
ACCEPTABLE SPECIMENS
An application based on Trademark Act Section 1(a) must include a specimen showing the applied-for mark in use in commerce for each international class of goods identified in the application or amendment to allege use. 15 U.S.C. §1051(a)(1); 37 C.F.R. §2.56(a).
Examples of specimens for goods include tags, labels, instruction manuals, containers, photographs that show the mark on the actual goods or packaging, and displays associated with the actual goods at their point of sale. See TMEP §§904.03 et seq. As stated above, webpage displays may also be specimens for goods when they include a picture or textual description of the goods associated with the mark and the means to order the goods. TMEP §904.03(i).
RESPONSE OPTIONS
Applicant may respond to this refusal by satisfying one of the following:
(1) Submit a different specimen (a verified “substitute” specimen) for each applicable international class that (a) shows the mark in the drawing in actual use in commerce for the goods in the application or amendment to allege use, and (b) was in actual use in commerce at least as early as the filing date of the application or prior to the filing of an amendment to allege use.
Examples of specimens for goods include tags, labels, instruction manuals, containers, photographs that show the mark on the actual goods or packaging, and displays associated with the actual goods at their point of sale. See TMEP §§904.03 et seq. Webpages may also be specimens for goods when they include a picture or textual description of the goods associated with the mark and the means to order the goods. TMEP §904.03(i).
(2) Submit a request to amend the filing basis to intent to use under Section 1(b), for which no specimen is required. This option will later necessitate additional fee(s) and filing requirements such as providing a specimen.
For an overview of both response options referenced above and instructions on how to satisfy either option online using the Trademark Electronic Application System (TEAS) form, please go to the Specimen webpage.
HOW TO SUBMIT A VERIFIED SUBSTITUTE SPECIMEN
To submit a verified substitute specimen online using the Trademark Electronic Application System (TEAS) response form, (1) answer “Yes” to form wizard question #2; and then, continuing on to the next portion of the form, under the heading “Classification and Listing of Goods/Services/Collective Membership Organization,” do the following for each relevant class for which a specimen is being submitted: (2) check the box next to the following statement: “Check here to modify the current classification number; listing of goods/services/the nature of the collective membership organization; dates of use; and/or filing basis; or to submit a substitute specimen, a foreign registration certificate, or proof of renewal of a foreign registration. If not checked, the changes will be ignored.”; (3) under “Specimen File,” attach a specimen (attachment may not exceed 5 megabytes); (4) describe in the box below where you attached the file what the specimen consists of; and (5) check the box next to the following statement below the specimen description (to ensure that the declaration language is inserted into the form): “The substitute (or new, or originally submitted, if appropriate) specimen(s) was/were in use in commerce at least as early as the filing date of the application” [for an application based on Section 1(a), Use in Commerce] OR “The substitute (or new, or originally submitted, if appropriate) specimen(s) was/were in use in commerce prior either to the filing of the Amendment to Allege Use or expiration of the filing deadline for filing a Statement of Use” [for an application based on Section 1(b) Intent-to-Use]. Additionally, when submitting a verified specimen, the TEAS online form requires two signatures: one in the “Declaration Signature” section and one in the “Response Signature” section.
RESPONSE GUIDELINES
ASSISTANCE
/Aubrey Biache/
Examining Attorney
Trademark Law Office 123
(571) 270-0120
aubrey.biache@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.
