To: | Deal.com, Inc. (angela@chongiplaw.com) |
Subject: | U.S. TRADEMARK APPLICATION NO. 88374520 - C - N/A |
Sent: | 6/20/2019 1:29:05 PM |
Sent As: | ECOM105@USPTO.GOV |
Attachments: | Attachment - 1 Attachment - 2 Attachment - 3 Attachment - 4 |
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE (USPTO)
OFFICE ACTION (OFFICIAL LETTER) ABOUT APPLICANT’S TRADEMARK APPLICATION
U.S. APPLICATION SERIAL NO. 88374520
MARK: C
|
|
CORRESPONDENT ADDRESS: |
CLICK HERE TO RESPOND TO THIS LETTER: http://www.gov.uspto.report/trademarks/teas/response_forms.jsp
|
APPLICANT: Deal.com, 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: 6/20/2019
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.
Search Advisory
The trademark examining attorney has conducted an initial search of the Office’s database of registered and pending marks to determine if there any conflicting marks. Please note that an additional search will be conducted upon receipt of a more definite identification of goods and services.
1) Likelihood of Confusion
Trademark Act Section 2(d) bars registration of an applied-for mark that is so similar to a registered mark that it is likely consumers would be confused, mistaken, or deceived as to the commercial source of the goods and/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
Applicant’s mark is “C” in a box/square design. Registrant’s mark is “C” in a box/square design with an extra small circle. The marks are essentially identical, except for the small circle.
Significantly, as a result of the shared letter “C” and box design, the marks, as a whole, appear similar. They also are phonetic equivalents. 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).
In light of the foregoing, the overall impressions of the mark are remarkably similar. Thus, it is likely that consumers would be confused as to the origin of applicant’s goods and/or services.
The Goods and/or Services are Related
In this case, applicant’s goods and services are as follows:
Providing an online marketplace connecting experts, consumers, and sellers; provision of an online marketplace for buyers of goods and services.
Software as a service (SAAS) services featuring software for e-commerce.
Registrant’s goods and services include the following:
Operating online marketplaces for buyers and sellers of goods and services.
Software as a service (SaaS) featuring software for automating business processes; computer services, namely, designing, developing, customizing and maintaining computer software applications for others and consulting services related thereto.
Enterprise computer software for automating business processes; software for automating business processes; software for storing, managing, tracking, analyzing, and reporting data relating to the automation of business processes; software for enabling synchronization and communications and collaborations involving data relating to the automation of business processes;
Software for submitting and receiving data identifying the location of individual end users; software for enabling transmission of communications through various modalities such as text, voice, email or other electronic messages, and social media channels; software for use in merchandising or to develop or manage advertising, promotional, and marketing content, strategies, and campaigns; software for use in providing targeted offers, coupons, rebates, discounts, advertisements, special offerings or promotional information to end users; software for automating business processes relating to employee spending.
Determining likelihood of confusion is based on the description of the goods and/or services 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)). When an application or registration broadly identifies goods or services, the goods or services are presumed to encompass all goods or services of the type described. 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).
In this case, registrant’s “operating online marketplaces for buyers and sellers of goods and services” and applicant’s marketplace services are broad. It is, therefore, presumed that registrant’s service encompass each of applicant’s marketplace services.
Similarly, applicant’s “software as a service (SAAS) services featuring software for e-commerce” are very broad. Thus, it is presumed that applicant’s services encompass providing software that performs all kinds of functions that are related to e-commerce including software/software services that are identical to and highly related to those provided by registrant. Thus, applicant’s and registrant’s goods/services are legally identical, at least in part. 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)).
It also is noted that registrant is presumed to be developing and designing software that the software provided by applicant and that registrant is providing related consulting services. Thus, the services are highly related.
Additionally, the goods and/or services of the parties have no restrictions as to nature, type, channels of trade, or classes of purchasers and are “presumed to travel in the same channels of trade to the same class of purchasers.” In re Viterra Inc., 671 F.3d 1358, 1362, 101 USPQ2d 1905, 1908 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (quoting Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Packard Press, Inc., 281 F.3d 1261, 1268, 62 USPQ2d 1001, 1005 (Fed. Cir. 2002)).
Doubt is Resolved in Favor of Registrant
In light of the foregoing, registration is refused under Trademark Act Section 2(d), 15 U.S.C. §1052(d).
2) Identification of Goods/Services
Some of the wording in the identification of goods/services is indefinite and must be clarified. See 37 C.F.R. §2.32(a)(6); TMEP §1402.01. Applicant also must adopt the appropriate international classification number for the goods and/or services identified in the application. The USPTO follows the International Classification of Goods and Services for the Purposes of the Registration of Marks (Nice Classification), established by the World Intellectual Property Organization, to classify goods and services. See 37 C.F.R. §2.85(a); TMEP §§1401.02, 1401.02(a).
Each class is addressed separately below.
Class 9
“Software as a service (SAAS) services” are services that must be properly classified in Class 42. Software that is properly classified in Class 9 comprises either software recorded on tangible computer media like CD-ROMs or downloadable software. Services featuring online non-downloadable software are properly classified in Class 42, except that such services featuring game software or software for playing online games is properly classified in Class 41.
Here, applicant kindly indicated that the software featured is in the field of “e-commerce.” However, the identification must be amended to specify the purpose or function of the software within the e-commerce field. See 37 C.F.R. §2.32(a)(6); TMEP §1402.03(d). The USPTO requires such specificity in identifying computer software in order for a trademark examining attorney to examine the application properly and make appropriate decisions concerning possible conflicts between the applicant’s mark and other marks. See In re N.A.D. Inc., 57 USPQ2d 1872, 1874 (TTAB 2000); TMEP §1402.03(d).
Applicant may substitute the following identification and classification for the goods/services presently listed in Class 9, if accurate.
Software as a service (SAAS) services featuring software for e-commerce, namely, software for use in ___________ [specify function of the software, e.g., for use in database management in the e-commerce field], in Class 42.
Class 35
The wording “providing an online marketplace connecting experts, consumers, and sellers” is indefinite and requires clarification. It must clear what the consumers and sellers consume/sell, e.g., “goods and services,” “furniture,” “computers.”
In addition, “connecting experts” is indefinite. Online marketplaces are generally websites where third-parties provide a place where sellers offer items for sale and users/consumers have the opportunity to purchase them or they exchange items. Here, it is not clear what the services involving “connecting experts” refers to. Thus, clarification is required.
“Provision of an online marketplace for buyers of goods and services” is indefinite. An online marketplace generally refers to a website that enables third party sellers and buyers to exchange items. Because the identification mentions only “buyers” (and based on a review of the specimen), it appears that the services may be more in the nature of an online retail store service or similar type of online retail services. If that is the case, then applicant must clarify the nature of the “marketplace”/retail type service and specify the field of the goods featured by such services. Please also note that, where identifying retail store, wholesale store, online ordering services, etc., it is necessary to indicate the field of goods featured by such services.
Applicant may substitute the following identification for the services presently listed in Class 35, if accurate.
Providing an online marketplace for consumers and sellers of goods and services, which also connects consumers to the websites of experts that provide commercial information to consumers about the choice of products and services; provision of an online marketplace for buyers in the nature of an online retail store featuring ___________ [specify field of goods provided, e.g., sporting goods, clothing], in Class 35.
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.
3) 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 and/or services identified in the application or amendment to allege use. 15 U.S.C. §1051(a)(1); 37 C.F.R. §§2.34(a)(1)(iv), 2.56(a); TMEP §§904, 904.07(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. 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). Examples of specimens for services include advertising and marketing materials, brochures, photographs of business signage and billboards, and webpages that show the mark used in the actual sale, rendering, or advertising of the services. See TMEP §1301.04(a), (h)(iv)(C). Specimens comprising advertising and promotional materials must show a direct association between the mark and the services. TMEP §1301.04(f)(ii).
For computer software services such as the providing of online nondownloadable software, an acceptable specimen may include an advertisement or website screen shot showing the mark used in the advertising of the services. See TMEP §1301.04(a).
B. Refusal – Specimens Show Use of Mark With Online Retail Store Services Rather Than The Goods/Services Listed In The Application
Registration is refused because the specimen does not show the applied-for mark in use in commerce in connection with any of the goods and/or services in the application. Trademark Act Sections 1 and 45, 15 U.S.C. §§1051, 1127; 37 C.F.R. §§2.34(a)(1)(iv), 2.56(a); In re Keep A Breast Found., 123 USPQ2d 1869, 1876-79 (TTAB 2017); In re Graystone Consulting Assocs., Inc., 115 USPQ2d 2035, 2037-38 (TTAB 2015); TMEP §§904, 904.07(a), 1301.04(d), (g)(i). Specifically, applicant’s good/services are as follows:
Providing an online marketplace connecting experts, consumers, and sellers; provision of an online marketplace for buyers of goods and services, in Class 35.
Software as a service (SAAS) services featuring software for e-commerce (listed in Class 9, but the proper class is Class 42).
With respect to the services presently in Class 35. The providing of an online “marketplace” generally involves a service provided to buyers and sellers of goods and services where they may engage in exchanging goods and services with other users. Here, the specimens (which are the same for both classes) show the mark used in connection with the providing of a traditional online retail store where the retail store offers the goods of others for purchase. The specimens do not show a typical “marketplace” service.
It is noted, however, that the wording “provision of an online marketplace for buyers of goods and services” has been deemed unacceptable and that applicant has been advised that such services appear to encompass online retail store services. If applicant clarified that the services are online retail store services featuring sporting goods or goods for skiing, then the specimen will be deemed acceptable for Class 35.
With respect to applicant’s software services, the specimen in no way advertises software for use by third parties. Thus, the specimen simply fails to show the mark used in any way with software services (or with software goods).
C. Responding
Applicant may respond to this refusal by satisfying one of the following for each applicable international class:
(1) Submit a different specimen (a verified “substitute” specimen) that (a) was in actual use in commerce at least as early as the filing date of the application and (b) shows the mark in actual use in commerce for the goods and/or services identified in the application. A “verified substitute specimen” is a specimen that is accompanied by the following statement made in a signed affidavit or supported by a declaration under 37 C.F.R. §2.20: “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.” The substitute specimen cannot be accepted without this statement.
(2) 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.
(3) As discussed above, for Class 35, applicant may amend the services for the “provision of an online marketplace for buyers of goods and services” to clarify that they are online retail store services featuring sporting goods. In that case, the specimen will be deemed acceptable for Class 35.
For an overview of response options 1 and 2 referenced above and instructions on how to satisfy either option online using the Trademark Electronic Application System (TEAS) form, please go to http://www.gov.uspto.report/trademarks/law/specimen.jsp.
Advisory
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.
Please do not hesitate to contact the undersigned with any questions.
/MaureenDallLott/
Maureen Dall Lott
Trademark Examining Attorney, Law Office 105
United States Patent and Trademark Office
571-272-9714
maureen.lott@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.