UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE (USPTO)

OFFICE ACTION (OFFICIAL LETTER) ABOUT APPLICANT’S TRADEMARK APPLICATION

 

 

 

OFFICE 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: 6/28/2019

 

The referenced application has been reviewed by the assigned trademark examining attorney.  Applicant must respond timely and completely to the issue(s) below.  15 U.S.C. §1062(b); 37 C.F.R. §§2.62(a), 2.65(a); TMEP §§711, 718.03.

 

SUMMARY OF ISSUES:

• Section 2(d) Refusal – Likelihood of Confusion
• Classification and Identification of Goods
• Multiple-Class Application Requirements

 

SECTION 2(d) REFUSAL – LIKELIHOOD OF CONFUSION

Applicant has applied to register ADVANCE in standard characters for “Taping Knives; Offset Knives; Wipe-down Knives; Drywall Knives; Curved Blade; Knives; Knockdown Knives; Universal Sander; Mud Pans; Hand Sanders; Pole Sanders; Roll Lifters; Mini Lifters; Corner Trowels; Drywall Mud Mixers; Pail Scoop; Scarifies; Circle Cutter; Tape Holder; Drywall Hammer; Mortar Scraper; Mud Jam; Drywall Banjo; Floor Scrapers; Spray Shields; All-purpose Scrapers; Rollers Cleaner; Swivel Pot Hook; Brush and Tool Holders; Quicktruss Door Stands; Graining Tools; Paste Machines; Paste Tables; Paste Boards; Trestles; Border Pasters; Seam Rollers; Shears; Smoothing Blades” in International Class 8.

 

Registration of the applied-for mark is refused because of a likelihood of confusion with the marks ADVANCE in U.S. Registration No. 3168848, HYBRID ADVANCE in U.S. Registration No. 3908723, and ADVANCE BRUSH in U.S. Registration No. 5522714.  Trademark Act Section 2(d), 15 U.S.C. §1052(d); see TMEP §§1207.01 et seq.  See the attached registration.

 

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.

 

Similarity of the Marks

 

The applicant has applied for the mark ADVANCE. The cited mark are ADVANCE and HYBRID ADVANCE owned by Societe BIC société anonyme, and ADVANCE BRUSH owned by August Rüggeberg GmbH & Co.

 

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., __ F.3d __, 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).

 

            In re Registration No. 3168848

 

In the present case, applicant’s mark is ADVANCE and registrant’s mark is ADVANCE.  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.

 

Therefore, the marks are confusingly similar. 

 

            In re Registration Nos. 3908723 and 5522714

 

Here, applicant’s mark, ADVANCE, is partially identical to registrants’ marks, HYBRID ADVANCE and ADVANCE BRUSH. Although applicant’s mark does not contain the entirety of the registered marks, applicant’s mark is likely to appear to prospective purchasers as a shortened form of registrants’ marks.  See In re Mighty Leaf Tea, 601 F.3d 1342, 1348, 94 USPQ2d 1257, 1260 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (quoting United States Shoe Corp., 229 USPQ 707, 709 (TTAB 1985)).  Thus, merely omitting some of the wording from a registered mark may not overcome a likelihood of confusion.  See In re Mighty Leaf Tea, 601 F.3d 1342, 94 USPQ2d 1257; In re Optica Int’l, 196 USPQ 775, 778 (TTAB 1977); TMEP §1207.01(b)(ii)-(iii).  In this case, applicant’s mark does not create a distinct commercial impression from the registered marks because it contains some of the wording in the registered marks and does not add any wording that would distinguish it from those marks.

 

Additionally, marks may be confusingly similar in appearance where similar terms or phrases or similar parts of terms or phrases 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). Here, the applicant’s mark and the registered marks share the term “ADVANCE”.

 

Further, the term “BRUSH” in ADVANCE BRUSH is disclaimed. 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 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).

 

Finally, the design in ADVANCE BRUSH does not sufficiently differentiate the mark from applicant’s mark. 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/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)).

 

Because the marks share the term “ADVANCE”, and therefore look and sound similar, the marks are considered similar for likelihood of confusion purposes.

 

Relatedness of the Goods

 

The applicant’s goods at issue are “Taping Knives; Offset Knives; Wipe-down Knives; Drywall Knives; Curved Blade; Knives; Knockdown Knives; Universal Sander; Mud Pans; Hand Sanders; Pole Sanders; Roll Lifters; Mini Lifters; Corner Trowels; Drywall Mud Mixers; Pail Scoop; Scarifies; Circle Cutter; Tape Holder; Drywall Hammer; Mortar Scraper; Mud Jam; Drywall Banjo; Floor Scrapers; Spray Shields; All-purpose Scrapers; Rollers Cleaner; Swivel Pot Hook; Brush and Tool Holders; Quicktruss Door Stands; Graining Tools; Paste Machines; Paste Tables; Paste Boards; Trestles; Border Pasters; Seam Rollers; Shears; Smoothing Blades”.

 

The registrant’s relevant goods are:

 

·       ADVANCE: “Razors and razor blades” in Class 8;

·       HYBRID ADVANCE: “shavers, namely, razors and razor blades” in Class 8;

·       ADVANCE BRUSH: “brush holders for use in rotating electrical machinery” in Class 7, and “Brushes, namely scraping brushes, utility brushes” in Class 21.

 

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).

 

The compared goods need not be identical or even competitive to find a likelihood of confusion.  See On-line Careline Inc. v. Am. Online Inc., 229 F.3d 1080, 1086, 56 USPQ2d 1471, 1475 (Fed. Cir. 2000); Recot, Inc. v. Becton, 214 F.3d 1322, 1329, 54 USPQ2d 1894, 1898 (Fed. Cir. 2000); TMEP §1207.01(a)(i).  They need only be “related in some manner and/or if the circumstances surrounding their marketing are such that they could give rise to the mistaken belief that [the goods and/or services] emanate from the same source.”  Coach Servs., Inc. v. Triumph Learning LLC, 668 F.3d 1356, 1369, 101 USPQ2d 1713, 1722 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (quoting 7-Eleven Inc. v. Wechsler, 83 USPQ2d 1715, 1724 (TTAB 2007)); TMEP §1207.01(a)(i).

 

The overriding concern is not only to prevent buyer confusion as to the source of the goods, but to protect the registrant from adverse commercial impact due to use of a similar mark by a newcomer.  See In re Shell Oil Co., 992 F.2d 1204, 1208, 26 USPQ2d 1687, 1690 (Fed. Cir. 1993).  Therefore, any doubt regarding a likelihood of confusion determination is resolved in favor of the registrant.  TMEP §1207.01(d)(i); see Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Packard Press, Inc., 281 F.3d 1261, 1265, 62 USPQ2d 1001, 1003 (Fed. Cir. 2002); In re Hyper Shoppes (Ohio), Inc., 837 F.2d 463, 464-65, 6 USPQ2d 1025, 1026 (Fed. Cir. 1988).

 

In re Registration Nos. 3168848 and 3908723

 

Applicant’s goods at issue are “Curved Blade; Knives; Shears” in Class 8.

 

The registrant’s relevant goods are:

 

·       ADVANCE: “Razors and razor blades” in Class 8;

·       HYBRID ADVANCE: “shavers, namely, razors and razor blades” in Class 8.

 

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)).  

 

In this case, the application use broad wording to describe “curved blade; knives; shears” which presumably encompasses all goods of the type described, including registrant’s more narrow razors, razor blades, and shavers.  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 are highly related.  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 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 are related.

 

            In re Registration No. 5522714

 

The applicant’s goods at issue are “Taping Knives; Offset Knives; Wipe-down Knives; Drywall Knives; Curved Blade; Knives; Knockdown Knives; Universal Sander; Mud Pans; Hand Sanders; Pole Sanders; Roll Lifters; Mini Lifters; Corner Trowels; Drywall Mud Mixers; Pail Scoop; Scarifies; Circle Cutter; Tape Holder; Drywall Hammer; Mortar Scraper; Mud Jam; Drywall Banjo; Floor Scrapers; Spray Shields; All-purpose Scrapers; Rollers Cleaner; Swivel Pot Hook; Brush and Tool Holders; Quicktruss Door Stands; Graining Tools; Paste Machines; Paste Tables; Paste Boards; Trestles; Border Pasters; Seam Rollers; Shears; Smoothing Blades”.

 

The registrant’s relevant goods are: “brush holders for use in rotating electrical machinery” in Class 7, and “Brushes, namely scraping brushes, utility brushes” in Class 21.

 

In this case, the application uses broad wording to describe brush holders, which presumably encompasses all goods of the type described, including registrant’s more narrow “brush holders for use in rotating electrical machinery”. 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 are highly related.  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)).

 

Further, the remainder of applicant’s goods and registrant’s goods, namely, “Brushes, namely scraping brushes, utility brushes”, are related. The attached Internet evidence from applicant’s website and All-Wall establishes that the same entity commonly manufactures, produces, or provides the relevant goods and markets the goods under the same mar, and the relevant goods are sold or provided through the same trade channels and used by the same classes of consumers in the same fields of use. For example:

 

•        Applicant provides brushes as well as the applied-for goods:

o   http://advance-equipment.com/product/smoothing-brush/

•        Marshalltown provides brushes as well as the applied-for goods:

o   http://marshalltown.com/search?q=brush

o   http://marshalltown.com/drywallplastering

•        All-Wall sells brushes as well as the applied-for goods:

o   http://www.all-wall.com/SSearch.html?query=brush&go=

o   http://www.all-wall.com/New-Drywall-Tools/

 

The trademark examining attorney has attached evidence from the USPTO’s X-Search database consisting of a number of third-party marks registered for use in connection with the same or similar goods as those of both applicant and registrant in this case.  This evidence shows that the goods listed therein, namely brushes and applicant’s applied-for goods, are of a kind that may emanate from a single source under a single mark.  See In re I-Coat Co., 126 USPQ2d 1730, 1737 (TTAB 2018) (citing In re Infinity Broad. Corp., 60 USPQ2d 1214, 1217-18 (TTAB 2001); In re Albert Trostel & Sons Co.,29 USPQ2d 1783, 1785-86 (TTAB 1993); In re Mucky Duck Mustard Co., 6 USPQ2d 1467, 1470 n.6 (TTAB 1988)); TMEP §1207.01(d)(iii). See Reg. Nos. 5732233, 4702190, and 4791008.

 

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).

 

Accordingly, because the marks are significantly similar and the goods are highly related, purchasers are likely to be confused as to the source of the goods.  Thus, registration is refused pursuant to Section 2(d) of the Trademark Act.

 

Although applicant’s mark has been refused registration, applicant may respond to the refusal(s) by submitting evidence and arguments in support of registration. Applicant must address the following requirements.

 

CLASSIFICATION AND IDENTIFICATION OF GOODS

 

The identification of goods in the application is indefinite and/or overbroad and must be clarified and properly classified to ensure proper analysis.

 

The wording “Universal Sander”, “Pole Sanders”, “Roll Lifters”, “Mini Lifters”, “Drywall Mud Mixers”, “Circle Cutter”, “Drywall Hammer”, “Mortar Scraper”, “Mud Jam”, “Drywall Banjo”, “Floor Scrapers”, and “All-purpose Scrapers” in the identification of goods is indefinite and overbroad and must be clarified to specify whether the tools are electric or operated by hand.  See 37 C.F.R. §2.32(a)(6); TMEP §1402.01.  For example, electric sanders are in Class 7, while hand-operated sanders are in Class 8.

 

The wording “Curved Blade” in the identification of goods is indefinite and overbroad must be clarified because it does not specify the purpose of the curved blade.  See 37 C.F.R. §2.32(a)(6); TMEP §1402.01. For example, curved blade knives are in Class 8, while power saw blades are in Class 7.

 

The wording “Knives” in the identification of goods is indefinite and must be clarified because it does not specify the types of knives.  See 37 C.F.R. §2.32(a)(6); TMEP §1402.01.  For example, electric knives are in Class 7, while putty knives are in Class 8.

 

The wording “Mud Pans” in the identification of goods is indefinite and must be clarified to specify the purpose of the mud pans (e.g., drywall mud pans).  See 37 C.F.R. §2.32(a)(6); TMEP §1402.01. 

 

The wording “Pail Scoop” in the identification of goods is indefinite and overbroad must be clarified to specify the purpose of the pail scoop.  See 37 C.F.R. §2.32(a)(6); TMEP §1402.01.  For example, drywall pail scoops are in Class 8, while scoops for household purposes are in Class 21.

 

The wording “Scarifies” in the identification of goods appears to be misspelled and is thus indefinite; the spelling must be corrected or the wording further clarified (e.g., scarifier machines).  See 37 C.F.R. §2.32(a)(6); TMEP §1402.01(a).

 

The wording “Tape Holder” in the identification of goods is indefinite and must be clarified to specify the type of tape being held (e.g., adhesive tape holders).  See 37 C.F.R. §2.32(a)(6); TMEP §1402.01. 

 

The wording “Spray Shields” in the identification of goods is indefinite and overbroad must be clarified to specify the purpose of the spray shields.  See 37 C.F.R. §2.32(a)(6); TMEP §1402.01.  For example, drywall spray shields are in Class 8, while face-protection spray shields are in Class 9.

 

The wording “Rollers Cleaner” in the identification of goods is indefinite and overbroad and must be clarified. See 37 C.F.R. §2.32(a)(6); TMEP §1402.01.  For example, cleaner for paint rollers is in Class 3, while hand-operated roller cleaner tools are in Class 8, and electric roller cleaner tools are in Class 7.

 

 

The wording “Swivel Pot Hooks” in the identification of goods is indefinite and must be clarified to specify the material composition (e.g., swivel pot hooks of metal).  See 37 C.F.R. §2.32(a)(6); TMEP §1402.01. 

 

The wording “Brush Holders” in the identification of goods is indefinite and overbroad and must be clarified. See 37 C.F.R. §2.32(a)(6); TMEP §1402.01.  For example, paint brush holders are in Class 16, while toothbrush holders are in Class 21.

 

The wording “Quicktruss” in the identification of goods is a registered mark not owned by applicant; accordingly, applicant must amend the identification to delete this wording and, if not already included in the identification, provide the common commercial or generic name of the goods.  TMEP §1402.09; see 37 C.F.R. §2.32(a)(6); Camloc Fastener Corp. v. Grant, 119 USPQ 264, 264 n.1 (TTAB 1958).  See the attached U.S. Registration No. 2487670. 

 

Identifications of goods should generally be comprised of generic everyday wording for the goods, and exclude proprietary or potentially-proprietary wording.  See TMEP §§1402.01, 1402.09.  A registered mark indicates origin in one particular party and so may not be used to identify goods that originate in a party other than that registrant.  TMEP §1402.09 (citing Camloc Fastener Corp. v. Grant, 119 USPQ at 264 n.1). 

 

Additionally, the wording “Door Stands” in the identification of goods is indefinite and must be clarified to specify the purpose and material composition of the door stands (e.g., door painting stands of metal). See 37 C.F.R. §2.32(a)(6); TMEP §1402.01. 

 

The wording “Graining Tools” in the identification of goods is indefinite and overbroad must be clarified to specify the purpose of the tools and whether the tools are electric or hand-operated. See 37 C.F.R. §2.32(a)(6); TMEP §1402.01.  For example, electric wood graining tools are in Class 7, while hand-operated wood graining tools are in Class 8.

 

The wording “Paste Machines” in the identification of goods is indefinite and must be clarified to specify the purpose of the paste machines (e.g., wallpaper pasting machines).  See 37 C.F.R. §2.32(a)(6); TMEP §1402.01. 

 

The wording “Paste Tables” in the identification of goods is indefinite and must be clarified to specify the purpose of the paste tables (e.g., wallpaper paste tables). See 37 C.F.R. §2.32(a)(6); TMEP §1402.01. 

 

The wording “Trestles” in the identification of goods is indefinite and overbroad and must be clarified to specify the purpose and material composition of the trestles.  See 37 C.F.R. §2.32(a)(6); TMEP §1402.01.  For example, metal trestles for use as table supports are in Class 6, trestles for use in construction are in Class 19, and non-metal trestles for supporting tables are in Class 20.

 

The wording “Border Pasters” in the identification of goods is indefinite and must be clarified to specify the purpose and nature of the border pasters (e.g., wallpaper border pasting machines). See 37 C.F.R. §2.32(a)(6); TMEP §1402.01. 

 

The wording “Seam Rollers” in the identification of goods is indefinite and must be clarified o specify the purpose of the seam rollers (e.g., wallpaper seam rollers).  See 37 C.F.R. §2.32(a)(6); TMEP §1402.01. 

 

The wording “Smoothing Blades” in the identification of goods is indefinite and overbroad and must be clarified to specify the nature and purpose of the smoothing blades.  See 37 C.F.R. §2.32(a)(6); TMEP §1402.01.  For example, electric smoothing blade tools for vinyl are in Class 7, while hand-operated smoothing blade tools for vinyl are in Class 8.

 

Applicant may adopt the following suggestions, if accurate:

 

003: Cleaner for paint rollers

 

006: Swivel pot hooks of metal; door painting stands of metal; metal trestles for use as table supports

 

007: Electric knives; power saw blades; universal electric sanders; electric pole sanders; power-operated roll lifters; power-operated mini lifters; electric drywall mud mixers; scarifier machines; electric circle cutters; electric drywall hammers; electric mortar scrapers; electric mud jam tools; electric drywall banjos; electric floor scrapers; electric all-purpose scrapers; electric roller cleaner tools; electric wood graining tools; wallpaper pasting machines; wallpaper border pasting machines; electric smoothing blade tools for vinyl

 

008: Taping knives; offset knives; wipe-down knives; drywall knives; curved blade knives; knives, namely, {specify type of knives}; knockdown knives; universal hand-operated sanders; drywall mud pans; hand sanders; hand-operated pole sanders; hand-operated roll lifters; hand-operated mini lifters; corner trowels; hand-operated drywall mud mixers; drywall pail scoops; hand-operated circle cutters; hand-operated drywall hammers; hand-operated mortar scrapers; hand-operated mud jam tools; hand-operated drywall banjos; hand-operated floor scrapers; drywall spray shields; hand-operated all-purpose scrapers; hand-operated roller cleaner tools; tool holders; hand-operated wood graining tools; shears; hand-operated smoothing blade tools for vinyl

 

016: Adhesive tape holders; paint brush holders; paste boards

 

019: Trestles for use in construction

 

020: Wallpaper paste tables; non-metal trestles for supporting tables

 

Applicant may amend the identification to clarify or limit the goods, but not to broaden or expand the goods beyond those in the original application or as acceptably amended.  See 37 C.F.R. §2.71(a); TMEP §1402.06.  Generally, any deleted goods may not later be reinserted.  See TMEP §1402.07(e).

 

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.

 

Applicant must also address the following additional requirement.

 

MULTIPLE-CLASS APPLICATION REQUIREMENTS

 

The application identifies goods that are classified in at least seven classes; however, applicant submitted a fee sufficient for only one class.  In a multiple-class application, a fee for each class is required.  37 C.F.R. §2.86(a)(2), (b)(2); TMEP §§810.01, 1403.01.

 

Therefore, applicant must either (1) restrict the application to the number of classes covered by the fees already paid, or (2) submit the fees for each additional class and satisfy all the requirements below for each international class:

 

(1)       List the goods and/or services by their international class number in consecutive numerical order, starting with the lowest numbered class (for example, International Class 3: perfume; International Class 18: cosmetic bags sold empty).

 

 (2)      Submit verified dates of first use of the mark anywhere and in commerce for each international class.  See more information about verified dates of use.

 

(3)       Submit a specimen for each international class.  The current specimen is acceptable for Class 8, but is not acceptable for Classes 3, 6, 7, 16, 19, and 20.  See more information about specimens.

 

            Examples of specimens for goods include tags, labels, instruction manuals, containers, and photographs that show the mark on the actual goods or packaging, or displays associated with the actual goods at their point of sale.  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.

 

(4)       Submit a verified statement that “The specimen was in use in commerce on or in connection with the goods and/or services listed in the application at least as early as the filing date of the application.”  See more information about verification.

 

See 15 U.S.C. §§1051(a), 1112; 37 C.F.R. §§2.32(a)(6)-(7), 2.34(a)(1), 2.86(a); TMEP §§904, 1403.01, 1403.02(c).

 

See an overview of the requirements for a Section 1(a) multiple-class application and how to satisfy the requirements online using the Trademark Electronic Application System (TEAS) form.

 

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)(iii), 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.

 

RESPONSE GUIDELINES

 

Please call or email the assigned trademark examining attorney with questions about this Office action.  Although the trademark examining attorney cannot provide legal advice or statements about applicant’s rights, the trademark examining attorney can provide applicant with additional explanation about the refusal(s) and/or requirement(s) in this Office action.  See TMEP §§705.02, 709.06.  Although the USPTO does not accept emails as responses to Office actions, emails can be used for informal communications and will be included in the application record.  See 37 C.F.R. §§2.62(c), 2.191; TMEP §§304.01-.02, 709.04-.05. 

 

 

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.  

 

 

 

/Nathaniel Pettican/

Nathaniel Pettican

Examining Attorney

Law Office 108

(571) 272-1087

nathaniel.pettican@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.

 

 

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE (USPTO)

 

 

IMPORTANT NOTICE REGARDING YOUR

U.S. TRADEMARK APPLICATION

 

USPTO OFFICE ACTION (OFFICIAL LETTER) HAS ISSUED

ON 6/28/2019 FOR U.S. APPLICATION SERIAL NO. 88356538

 

Please follow the instructions below:

 

(1)  TO READ THE LETTER:  Click on this link or go to http://tsdr.uspto.gov,enter the U.S. application serial number, and click on “Documents.”

 

The Office action may not be immediately viewable, to allow for necessary system updates of the application, but will be available within 24 hours of this e-mail notification.

 

(2)  TIMELY RESPONSE IS REQUIRED:  Please carefully review the Office action to determine (1) how to respond, and (2) the applicable response time period.  Your response deadline will be calculated from 6/28/2019 (or sooner if specified in the Office action).  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.  For information regarding response time periods, see http://www.gov.uspto.report/trademarks/process/status/responsetime.jsp.

 

Do NOT hit “Reply” to this e-mail notification, or otherwise e-mail your response because the USPTO does NOT accept e-mails as responses to Office actions.  Instead, the USPTO recommends that you respond online using the TEAS response form located at http://www.gov.uspto.report/trademarks/teas/response_forms.jsp.

 

(3)  QUESTIONS:  For questions about the contents of the Office action itself, please contact the assigned trademark examining attorney.  For technical assistance in accessing or viewing the Office action in the Trademark Status and Document Retrieval (TSDR) system, please e-mail TSDR@uspto.gov.

 

WARNING

 

Failure to file the required response by the applicable response deadline will result in the ABANDONMENT of your application.  For more information regarding abandonment, see http://www.gov.uspto.report/trademarks/basics/abandon.jsp.

 

PRIVATE COMPANY SOLICITATIONS REGARDING YOUR APPLICATION:  Private companies not associated with the USPTO are using information provided in trademark applications to mail or e-mail trademark-related solicitations.  These companies often use names that closely resemble the USPTO and their solicitations may look like an official government document.  Many solicitations require that you pay “fees.” 

 

Please carefully review all correspondence you receive regarding this application to make sure that you are responding to an official document from the USPTO rather than a private company solicitation.  All official USPTO correspondence will be mailed only from the “United States Patent and Trademark Office” in Alexandria, VA; or sent by e-mail from the domain “@uspto.gov.”  For more information on how to handle private company solicitations, see http://www.gov.uspto.report/trademarks/solicitation_warnings.jsp.