UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE (USPTO)
OFFICE ACTION (OFFICIAL LETTER) ABOUT APPLICANT’S TRADEMARK APPLICATION
|
U.S. APPLICATION SERIAL NO. 88307782
MARK: SOLVE
|
|
|
CORRESPONDENT ADDRESS: |
CLICK HERE TO RESPOND TO THIS LETTER: http://www.gov.uspto.report/trademarks/teas/response_forms.jsp
|
|
APPLICANT: Solve HQ, 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: 5/3/2019
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.
SUMMARY OF ISSUES:
I. PRIOR-FILED APPLICATIONS
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.
II. SECTION 2(d) REFUSAL – LIKELIHOOD OF CONFUSION – CERTAIN GOODS IN INTERNATIONAL CLASS 9
The Marks
The applied-for mark is SOLVE, in standard characters, for in relevant part “Downloadable computer software applications via a global computer network and wireless devices featuring videos and films in the fields of drama, live action, and comedy entertainment” in International Class 9.
The registered marks are as follows:
SOLV, in standard characters, for in relevant part “Computer software for managing and scheduling appointments; computer software for providing users with reminders about appointments; computer software for allowing users to check in for appointments; computer software for verifying insurance eligibility status; computer software for allowing users to create, view and update medical profiles; computer software for allowing users to communicate regarding medical care and medical advice” in International Class 9.
ISOLVE, in stylized characters and with design, for “computer software for use in connection with the management and monitoring of the operations of business in the produce industry relating to inventories, sales, grower accounting, quality control, crop costs, traceability of orders and shipments, general accounting, receivables, payables, relationships with banks and lenders and the production of financial reports” in International Class 9.
ISOLVE, in standard characters, for “computer software for use in connection with the management and monitoring of the operations of business in the produce industry relating to inventories, sales, grower accounting, quality control, crop costs, traceability of orders and shipments, general accounting, receivables, payables, relationships with banks and lenders and the production of financial reports” in International Class 9.
ESOLVE, in standard characters, for “Computer software for a web-based crisis investigation, major case, and serious crime management software program” in International Class 9.
Likelihood of Confusion Analysis
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. Each of these factors is addressed in the sections below.
Similarity of the Marks
The applied-for mark SOLVE is confusingly similar to the registered SOLV, ISOLVE, and ESOLVE marks, which weighs in favor of a likelihood of confusion. The similarity of the applied-for mark to each of the registered marks is addressed in the subsections below.
SOLV – U.S. Trademark Reg. No. 5710645
The applied-for mark SOLVE is confusingly similar to the registered mark SOLV, which weighs in favor of a likelihood of confusion
Marks are compared in their entireties for similarities in appearance, sound, connotation, and commercial impression. 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)); TMEP §1207.01(b)-(b)(v). “Similarity in any one of these elements may be sufficient to find the marks confusingly similar.” In re Inn at St. John’s, LLC, 126 USPQ2d 1742, 1746 (TTAB 2018) (citing In re Davia, 110 USPQ2d 1810, 1812 (TTAB 2014)); TMEP §1207.01(b).
When comparing marks, “[t]he proper test is not a side-by-side comparison of the marks, but instead whether the marks are sufficiently similar in terms of their commercial impression such that [consumers] who encounter the marks would be likely to assume a connection between the parties.” Cai v. Diamond Hong, Inc., 901 F.3d 1367, 1373, 127 USPQ2d 1797, 1801 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (quoting Coach Servs., Inc. v. Triumph Learning LLC, 668 F.3d 1356, 1368, 101 USPQ2d 1713, 1721 (Fed. Cir. 2012)); TMEP §1207.01(b). The proper focus is on the recollection of the average purchaser, who retains a general rather than specific impression of trademarks. In re Inn at St. John’s, LLC, 126 USPQ2d 1742, 1746 (TTAB 2018) (citing In re St. Helena Hosp., 774 F.3d 747, 750-51, 113 USPQ2d 1082, 1085 (Fed. Cir. 2014); Geigy Chem. Corp. v. Atlas Chem. Indus., Inc., 438 F.2d 1005, 1007, 169 USPQ 39, 40 (CCPA 1971)); TMEP §1207.01(b).
The applied-for mark SOLVE is virtually identical to the registered mark SOLV, and differs only in that it adds the letter “e” to the end of the registered mark. The additional letter “e” in the applied-for mark, however, fails to significantly distinguish it from the registered mark. The marks SOLVE and SOLV are similarly spelled, and thus similar in appearance. Marks may also be confusingly similar in appearance where similar terms or parts of terms appear in the compared marks and create a similar overall commercial impression. See Crocker Nat’l Bank v. Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce, 228 USPQ 689, 690-91 (TTAB 1986), aff’d sub nom. Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce v. Wells Fargo Bank, Nat’l Ass’n, 811 F.2d 1490, 1495, 1 USPQ2d 1813, 1817 (Fed. Cir. 1987) (finding COMMCASH and COMMUNICASH confusingly similar); In re Corning Glass Works, 229 USPQ 65, 66 (TTAB 1985) (finding CONFIRM and CONFIRMCELLS confusingly similar); In re Pellerin Milnor Corp., 221 USPQ 558, 560 (TTAB 1983) (finding MILTRON and MILLTRONICS confusingly similar); TMEP §1207.01(b)(ii)-(iii).
The marks SOLVE and SOLV are also identical in sound. The attached evidence from the American Heritage dictionary shows that the letter “e” in “solve” is silent. The marks SOLVE and SOLV are therefore phonetic equivalents, and similarity in sound alone may be sufficient to support a finding that the marks are confusingly similar. In re White Swan Ltd., 8 USPQ2d 1534, 1535 (TTAB 1988); see In re 1st USA Realty Prof’ls, Inc., 84 USPQ2d 1581, 1586 (TTAB 2007); TMEP §1207.01(b)(iv).
The marks SOLVE and SOLV are similar, and consumers who encounter the marks used in connection with similar or related goods are likely to be confused as to the source of those goods. The greater degree of similarity between the applied-for mark and the registered mark, moreover, the lesser the degree of similarity between the goods of the parties is required to support a finding of likelihood of confusion. In re C.H. Hanson Co., 116 USPQ2d 1351, 1353 (TTAB 2015) (citing In re Opus One Inc., 60 USPQ2d 1812, 1815 (TTAB 2001)); In re Thor Tech, Inc., 90 USPQ2d 1634, 1636 (TTAB 2009).
ISOLVE – U.S. Trademark Reg. Nos. 4722879 & 4722881
The applied-for mark SOLVE is confusingly similar to the registered mark ISOLVE, which weighs in favor of a likelihood of confusion
Marks are compared in their entireties for similarities in appearance, sound, connotation, and commercial impression. 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)); TMEP §1207.01(b)-(b)(v). “Similarity in any one of these elements may be sufficient to find the marks confusingly similar.” In re Inn at St. John’s, LLC, 126 USPQ2d 1742, 1746 (TTAB 2018) (citing In re Davia, 110 USPQ2d 1810, 1812 (TTAB 2014)); TMEP §1207.01(b).
When comparing marks, “[t]he proper test is not a side-by-side comparison of the marks, but instead whether the marks are sufficiently similar in terms of their commercial impression such that [consumers] who encounter the marks would be likely to assume a connection between the parties.” Cai v. Diamond Hong, Inc., 901 F.3d 1367, 1373, 127 USPQ2d 1797, 1801 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (quoting Coach Servs., Inc. v. Triumph Learning LLC, 668 F.3d 1356, 1368, 101 USPQ2d 1713, 1721 (Fed. Cir. 2012)); TMEP §1207.01(b). The proper focus is on the recollection of the average purchaser, who retains a general rather than specific impression of trademarks. In re Inn at St. John’s, LLC, 126 USPQ2d 1742, 1746 (TTAB 2018) (citing In re St. Helena Hosp., 774 F.3d 747, 750-51, 113 USPQ2d 1082, 1085 (Fed. Cir. 2014); Geigy Chem. Corp. v. Atlas Chem. Indus., Inc., 438 F.2d 1005, 1007, 169 USPQ 39, 40 (CCPA 1971)); TMEP §1207.01(b).
The applied-for mark SOLVE is similar to the registered ISOLVE marks, because they all contain the identical term SOLVE. The applied-for mark differs from the registered marks in that it omits the initial letter “I”, however this omission fails to significantly distinguish it from the registered marks. The marks SOLVE and ISOLVE are similarly spelled, and thus similar in appearance. Marks may also be confusingly similar in appearance where similar terms or parts of terms appear in the compared marks and create a similar overall commercial impression. See Crocker Nat’l Bank v. Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce, 228 USPQ 689, 690-91 (TTAB 1986), aff’d sub nom. Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce v. Wells Fargo Bank, Nat’l Ass’n, 811 F.2d 1490, 1495, 1 USPQ2d 1813, 1817 (Fed. Cir. 1987) (finding COMMCASH and COMMUNICASH confusingly similar); In re Corning Glass Works, 229 USPQ 65, 66 (TTAB 1985) (finding CONFIRM and CONFIRMCELLS confusingly similar); In re Pellerin Milnor Corp., 221 USPQ 558, 560 (TTAB 1983) (finding MILTRON and MILLTRONICS confusingly similar); TMEP §1207.01(b)(ii)-(iii).
The letter “I” in the registered mark also fails to significantly distinguish the marks in this case, because the shared term SOLVE is the dominant portion of the registered mark. The shared term SOLVE is the dominant portion of the registered mark, because the letter “I” describes registrant’s goods. Marks are compared in their entireties, however 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). Matter that is descriptive of or generic for a party’s goods is typically less significant or less dominant in relation to other wording in a mark. See Anheuser-Busch, LLC v. Innvopak Sys. Pty Ltd., 115 USPQ2d 1816, 1824-25 (TTAB 2015) (citing In re Chatam Int’l Inc., 380 F.3d 1340, 1342-43, 71 USPQ2d 1944, 1946 (Fed. Cir. 2004)).
The attached evidence from AcronymFinder.com, Apple.com, and Wikipedia.com shows that the letter “I” is commonly used as a prefix to denote Internet-related goods. Cf. RxD Media, LLC v. IP Application Dev. LLC, 125 USPQ2d 1801, 1810-14 (TTAB 2018) (holding IPAD merely descriptive of web-based software for mobile-access database management in which users can store and access their personal information); In re Zanova, Inc., 59 USPQ2d 1300, 1304 (TTAB 2000) (holding ITOOL merely descriptive of computer software for use in creating web pages, and custom designing websites for others); TMEP §1209.03(d). Registrant’s goods identified in International Class 9 are “computer software”, which the attached evidence from registrant’s website, SolveProduce.com, shows to include computer software with “built-in web access.” The letter “I” in the registered mark therefore describes registrant’s goods, and is less significant to the mark’s overall commercial impression than the shared term SOLVE.
Design elements in one of the registered ISOLVE marks, namely the yellow “rectangular design”, also fails to significantly distinguish it from the applied-for mark in this case, because the wording ISOLVE predominates over the design. The word portion of a composite mark is normally accorded greater weight than the design 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/or 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)).
Characters stylization in one of the registered ISOLVE marks also fails to distinguish it from the applied-for mark, because the applied-for mark is in standard characters. A mark in typed or standard characters may be displayed in any lettering style; the rights reside in the wording or other literal element and not in any particular display or rendition. See In re Viterra Inc., 671 F.3d 1358, 1363, 101 USPQ2d 1905, 1909 (Fed. Cir. 2012); In re Mighty Leaf Tea, 601 F.3d 1342, 1348, 94 USPQ2d 1257, 1260 (Fed. Cir. 2010); 37 C.F.R. §2.52(a); TMEP §1207.01(c)(iii). A mark presented in stylized characters and/or with a design element generally will not avoid likelihood of confusion with a mark in typed or standard characters because the word portion could be presented in the same manner of display. See, e.g., In re Viterra Inc., 671 F.3d at 1363, 101 USPQ2d at 1909; Squirtco v. Tomy Corp., 697 F.2d 1038, 1041, 216 USPQ 937, 939 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (stating that “the argument concerning a difference in type style is not viable where one party asserts rights in no particular display”). Applicant in this case has claimed the right to display SOLVE in any font or style it choses, including the particular font and style specified in the registration.
The applied-for mark SOLVE is similar to the registered ISOLVE marks, and consumers who encounter the marks used in connection with similar or related goods are likely to be confused as to the source of those goods. The greater degree of similarity between the applied-for mark and the registered mark, moreover, the lesser the degree of similarity between the goods of the parties is required to support a finding of likelihood of confusion. In re C.H. Hanson Co., 116 USPQ2d 1351, 1353 (TTAB 2015) (citing In re Opus One Inc., 60 USPQ2d 1812, 1815 (TTAB 2001)); In re Thor Tech, Inc., 90 USPQ2d 1634, 1636 (TTAB 2009).
ESOLVE – U.S. Trademark Reg. No. 3513787
The applied-for mark SOLVE is confusingly similar to the registered mark ESOLVE, which weighs in favor of a likelihood of confusion
Marks are compared in their entireties for similarities in appearance, sound, connotation, and commercial impression. 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)); TMEP §1207.01(b)-(b)(v). “Similarity in any one of these elements may be sufficient to find the marks confusingly similar.” In re Inn at St. John’s, LLC, 126 USPQ2d 1742, 1746 (TTAB 2018) (citing In re Davia, 110 USPQ2d 1810, 1812 (TTAB 2014)); TMEP §1207.01(b).
When comparing marks, “[t]he proper test is not a side-by-side comparison of the marks, but instead whether the marks are sufficiently similar in terms of their commercial impression such that [consumers] who encounter the marks would be likely to assume a connection between the parties.” Cai v. Diamond Hong, Inc., 901 F.3d 1367, 1373, 127 USPQ2d 1797, 1801 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (quoting Coach Servs., Inc. v. Triumph Learning LLC, 668 F.3d 1356, 1368, 101 USPQ2d 1713, 1721 (Fed. Cir. 2012)); TMEP §1207.01(b). The proper focus is on the recollection of the average purchaser, who retains a general rather than specific impression of trademarks. In re Inn at St. John’s, LLC, 126 USPQ2d 1742, 1746 (TTAB 2018) (citing In re St. Helena Hosp., 774 F.3d 747, 750-51, 113 USPQ2d 1082, 1085 (Fed. Cir. 2014); Geigy Chem. Corp. v. Atlas Chem. Indus., Inc., 438 F.2d 1005, 1007, 169 USPQ 39, 40 (CCPA 1971)); TMEP §1207.01(b).
The applied-for mark SOLVE is similar to the registered mark ESOLVE, because they both contain the identical term SOLVE. The applied-for mark differs from the registered mark in that it omits the initial letter “E”, however this omission fails to significantly distinguish it from the registered mark. The marks SOLVE and ESOLVE are similarly spelled, and thus similar in appearance. Marks may also be confusingly similar in appearance where similar terms or parts of terms appear in the compared marks and create a similar overall commercial impression. See Crocker Nat’l Bank v. Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce, 228 USPQ 689, 690-91 (TTAB 1986), aff’d sub nom. Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce v. Wells Fargo Bank, Nat’l Ass’n, 811 F.2d 1490, 1495, 1 USPQ2d 1813, 1817 (Fed. Cir. 1987) (finding COMMCASH and COMMUNICASH confusingly similar); In re Corning Glass Works, 229 USPQ 65, 66 (TTAB 1985) (finding CONFIRM and CONFIRMCELLS confusingly similar); In re Pellerin Milnor Corp., 221 USPQ 558, 560 (TTAB 1983) (finding MILTRON and MILLTRONICS confusingly similar); TMEP §1207.01(b)(ii)-(iii).
The letter “E” in the registered mark also fails to significantly distinguish the marks in this case, because the shared term SOLVE is the dominant portion of the registered mark. The shared term SOLVE is the dominant portion of the registered mark, because the letter “E” describes registrant’s goods. Marks are compared in their entireties, however 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). Matter that is descriptive of or generic for a party’s goods is typically less significant or less dominant in relation to other wording in a mark. See Anheuser-Busch, LLC v. Innvopak Sys. Pty Ltd., 115 USPQ2d 1816, 1824-25 (TTAB 2015) (citing In re Chatam Int’l Inc., 380 F.3d 1340, 1342-43, 71 USPQ2d 1944, 1946 (Fed. Cir. 2004)).
The attached evidence from the American Heritage dictionary, Esurance.com, and Wikipedia.com shows that the letter “E” is commonly used as a prefix to denote electronic goods and services. Cf. In re SPX Corp., 63 USPQ2d 1592 (TTAB 2002) (holding E-AUTODIAGNOSTICS merely descriptive of an electronic engine analysis system comprised of a hand-held computer and related computer software); In re Styleclick.com Inc., 57 USPQ2d 1445 (TTAB 2000) (holding E FASHION merely descriptive of software for consumer use in shopping via a global computer network and of electronic retailing services); TMEP §1209.03(d). The attached evidence from the American Heritage dictionary shows that a computer is “a device that computes, especially a programmable electronic machine.” Registrant’s goods identified in International Class 9 are “computer software”, which is inherently electronic. The letter “E” in the registered mark therefore describes registrant’s goods, and is less significant to the mark’s overall commercial impression than the shared term SOLVE.
The marks SOLVE and ESOLVE are similar, and consumers who encounter the marks used in connection with similar or related goods are likely to be confused as to the source of those goods. The greater degree of similarity between the applied-for mark and the registered mark, moreover, the lesser the degree of similarity between the goods of the parties is required to support a finding of likelihood of confusion. In re C.H. Hanson Co., 116 USPQ2d 1351, 1353 (TTAB 2015) (citing In re Opus One Inc., 60 USPQ2d 1812, 1815 (TTAB 2001)); In re Thor Tech, Inc., 90 USPQ2d 1634, 1636 (TTAB 2009).
Relatedness of the Goods
Applicant’s “downloadable computer software applications via a global computer network and wireless devices featuring videos and films in the fields of drama, live action, and comedy entertainment” to registrants’ computer software goods, which weighs in favor of a likelihood of confusion. The relatedness of applicant’s goods to the goods identified in each of the registrations is address in the subsections below.
SOLV – U.S. Trademark Reg. No. 5710645
Applicant’s “downloadable computer software applications via a global computer network and wireless devices featuring videos and films in the fields of drama, live action, and comedy entertainment” to registrant’s computer software goods, which weighs in favor of a likelihood of confusion.
The goods are compared to determine whether they are similar, commercially related, or travel in the same trade channels. See Coach Servs., Inc. v. Triumph Learning LLC, 668 F.3d 1356, 1369-71, 101 USPQ2d 1713, 1722-23 (Fed. Cir. 2012); Herbko Int’l, Inc. v. Kappa Books, Inc., 308 F.3d 1156, 1165, 64 USPQ2d 1375, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2002); TMEP §§1207.01, 1207.01(a)(vi). Determining likelihood of confusion is based on the description of the goods 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)).
The application in this case uses broad wording to describe “downloadable computer software applications via a global computer network and wireless devices featuring videos and films in the fields of drama, live action, and comedy entertainment”, which does not specify the function of the software. Applicant’s goods therefore presumably encompasses all software of this type, irrespective of its claimed function, including registrant’s narrower “computer software for managing and scheduling appointments; computer software for providing users with reminders about appointments; computer software for allowing users to check in for appointments; computer software for verifying insurance eligibility status; computer software for allowing users to create, view and update medical profiles; computer software for allowing users to communicate regarding medical care and medical advice.” 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). Applicant’s and registrant’s goods 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)). The parties’ goods have, moreover, 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)). Applicant’s and registrant’s goods are thus related.
Applicant’s “downloadable computer software applications via a global computer network and wireless devices featuring videos and films in the fields of drama, live action, and comedy entertainment” are, in light of the foregoing, related to registrant’s computer software goods for likelihood of confusion purposes.
ISOLVE – U.S. Trademark Reg. Nos. 4722879 & 4722881
Applicant’s “downloadable computer software applications via a global computer network and wireless devices featuring videos and films in the fields of drama, live action, and comedy entertainment” to registrant’s computer software goods, which weighs in favor of a likelihood of confusion.
The goods are compared to determine whether they are similar, commercially related, or travel in the same trade channels. See Coach Servs., Inc. v. Triumph Learning LLC, 668 F.3d 1356, 1369-71, 101 USPQ2d 1713, 1722-23 (Fed. Cir. 2012); Herbko Int’l, Inc. v. Kappa Books, Inc., 308 F.3d 1156, 1165, 64 USPQ2d 1375, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2002); TMEP §§1207.01, 1207.01(a)(vi). Determining likelihood of confusion is based on the description of the goods 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)).
The application in this case uses broad wording to describe “downloadable computer software applications via a global computer network and wireless devices featuring videos and films in the fields of drama, live action, and comedy entertainment”, which does not specify the function of the software. Applicant’s goods therefore presumably encompasses all software of this type, irrespective of its claimed function, including registrant’s narrower “computer software for use in connection with the management and monitoring of the operations of business in the produce industry relating to inventories, sales, grower accounting, quality control, crop costs, traceability of orders and shipments, general accounting, receivables, payables, relationships with banks and lenders and the production of financial reports.” 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). Applicant’s and registrant’s goods 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)). The parties’ goods have, moreover, 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)). Applicant’s and registrant’s goods are thus related.
Applicant’s “downloadable computer software applications via a global computer network and wireless devices featuring videos and films in the fields of drama, live action, and comedy entertainment” are, in light of the foregoing, related to registrant’s computer software goods for likelihood of confusion purposes.
ESOLVE – U.S. Trademark Reg. No. 3513787
Applicant’s “downloadable computer software applications via a global computer network and wireless devices featuring videos and films in the fields of drama, live action, and comedy entertainment” to registrant’s computer software goods, which weighs in favor of a likelihood of confusion.
The goods are compared to determine whether they are similar, commercially related, or travel in the same trade channels. See Coach Servs., Inc. v. Triumph Learning LLC, 668 F.3d 1356, 1369-71, 101 USPQ2d 1713, 1722-23 (Fed. Cir. 2012); Herbko Int’l, Inc. v. Kappa Books, Inc., 308 F.3d 1156, 1165, 64 USPQ2d 1375, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2002); TMEP §§1207.01, 1207.01(a)(vi). Determining likelihood of confusion is based on the description of the goods 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)).
The application in this case uses broad wording to describe “downloadable computer software applications via a global computer network and wireless devices featuring videos and films in the fields of drama, live action, and comedy entertainment”, which does not specify the function of the software. Applicant’s goods therefore presumably encompasses all software of this type, irrespective of its claimed function, including registrant’s narrower “computer software for a web-based crisis investigation, major case, and serious crime management software program.” 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). Applicant’s and registrant’s goods 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)). The parties’ goods have, moreover, 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)). Applicant’s and registrant’s goods are thus related.
Applicant’s “downloadable computer software applications via a global computer network and wireless devices featuring videos and films in the fields of drama, live action, and comedy entertainment” are, in light of the foregoing, related to registrant’s computer software goods for likelihood of confusion purposes.
Conclusion
The applied-for mark SOLVE is confusingly similar to the registered SOLV, ISOLVE, and ESOLVE marks, when those marks are considered in their entireties, despite slight spelling differences, additional prefixes in some of the registered marks, and designs and character stylization in one of the registered marks. Applicant’s goods are also related to the goods identified in the registrations. Registration for the applied-for mark is therefore refused under Section 2(d) of the Trademark Act because of a likelihood of confusion with the marks in U.S. Registration Nos. 3513787, 4722879, 4722881, and 5710645.
III. AMENDMENT REQUIRED – IDENTIFICATION OF GOODS
Indefinite and Overbroad Wording in Identification
The wording “Downloadable computer game software via a global computer network and wireless devices” in the identification of goods is indefinite and must be clarified because the phrase “via…wireless devices” is unclear. See 37 C.F.R. §2.32(a)(6); TMEP §1402.01.
The wording “Downloadable computer software applications via a global computer network and wireless devices featuring videos and films in the fields of drama, live action, and comedy entertainment” in the identification of goods is indefinite and must be clarified because it does not specify the function of the software, e.g. “transmitting videos and films in the fields of drama, live action, and comedy entertainment”. See 37 C.F.R. §2.32(a)(6); TMEP §1402.01.
Applicant must clarify the wording “Computer software, namely, computer software for streaming audio-visual media content via the Internet to mobile digital electronic devices and to downloadable players for viewing audio-visual media content in the fields of drama, live action, and comedy entertainment” in the identification of goods in International Class 9 because it is indefinite and too broad. See 37 C.F.R. §2.32(a)(6); TMEP §§1402.01, 1402.03. This wording is indefinite because it does not specify that the software is either downloadable or recorded, and because the nature of the “downloadable players” is unclear. Further, this wording could identify goods and/or services in more than one international class. For example, ‘downloadable computer software for streaming audio-visual media content via the Internet to mobile digital electronic devices” would be classified in International Class 9, while services for “Providing temporary use of non-downloadable computer software for streaming audio-visual media content via the Internet to mobile digital electronic devices” would be classified in International Class 42.
Suggested Wording for Identification
Applicant may substitute the following wording, if accurate (note that added text is indicated with bold type, deleted text is indicated with a strike through, and suggested text is indicated with braces):
“Downloadable Computer game software downloadable via from a global computer network and to wireless devices; Downloadable computer software applications for {specify function of software, e.g.,
“transmitting videos and films in the fields of drama, live action, and comedy entertainment”} to wireless devices via a global computer network and wireless devices
featuring videos and films in the fields of drama, live action, and comedy entertainment; Computer software, namely, downloadable computer software for streaming audio-visual
media content via the Internet to mobile digital electronic devices and to downloadable media players for viewing audio-visual media content in the fields of drama, live action,
and comedy entertainment” in International Class 9.
“Providing temporary use of non-downloadable computer software for streaming audio-visual media content via the Internet to mobile digital electronic devices and to downloadable media players for viewing audio-visual media content in the fields of drama, live action, and comedy entertainment” in International Class 42.
Applicant will be required to add International Class 42 should it choose to adopt the above suggested wording. The fee for adding classes to a TEAS Reduced Fee (RF) application is $275 per class. See 37 C.F.R. §§2.6(a)(1) et seq., 2.23(a). See more information regarding the requirements for maintaining the lower TEAS RF fee and, if these requirements are not satisfied, for adding classes at a higher fee using regular TEAS.
Advisories – ID Manual and Scope of Amendments
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.
IV. MULTIPLE-CLASS APPLICATION REQUIREMENTS
(1) List the goods and services by their international class number in consecutive numerical order, starting with the lowest numbered class.
(2) Submit a filing fee for each international class not covered by the fee already paid (view the USPTO’s current fee schedule). The application identifies goods and services that are classified in at least two classes, however applicant submitted a fee sufficient for only one class. Applicant must either submit the filing fees for the classes not covered by the submitted fees or restrict the application to the number of classes covered by the fees already paid.
See 15 U.S.C. §§1051(b), 1112, 1126(e); 37 C.F.R. §§2.32(a)(6)-(7), 2.34(a)(2)-(3), 2.86(a); TMEP §§1403.01, 1403.02(c).
See an overview of the requirements for a Section 1(b) multiple-class application and how to satisfy the requirements online using the Trademark Electronic Application System (TEAS) form.
RESPONSE GUIDELINES
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. Please see “Responding to Office Actions” and the informational video “Response to Office Action” for more information and tips on responding.
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.
/Carl A. Konschak/
Carl A. Konschak, Esq.
Examining Attorney
Law Office 126
(571) 270-3878
carl.konschak@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.
