| To: | AZ Consultancy Inc (gcarter@kppblaw.com) |
| Subject: | U.S. Trademark Application Serial No. 88378262 - AZ - N/A |
| Sent: | January 22, 2020 12:47:33 PM |
| Sent As: | ecom107@uspto.gov |
| Attachments: |
United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO)
Office Action (Official Letter) About Applicant’s Trademark Application
|
U.S. Application Serial No. 88378262
Mark: AZ
|
|
|
Correspondence Address:
|
|
|
Applicant: AZ Consultancy Inc
|
|
|
Reference/Docket No. N/A
Correspondence Email Address: |
|
FINAL OFFICE ACTION
The USPTO must receive applicant’s response to this letter within six months of the issue date below or the application will be abandoned. Respond using the Trademark Electronic Application System (TEAS) and/or Electronic System for Trademark Trials and Appeals (ESTTA). A link to the appropriate TEAS response form and/or to ESTTA for an appeal appears at the end of this Office action.
Issue date: January 22, 2020
This Office action is in response to applicant’s communication filed on December 9, 2019.
In a previous Office action dated June 7, 2019, the trademark examining attorney refused registration of the applied-for mark based on the following: Trademark Act Section 2(d) for a likelihood of confusion with registered marks. In addition, applicant was required to satisfy the following requirements: amend the identification of services and clarify the classification of the services, provide information on the potential significance of the letters “AZ,” and provide an acceptable specimen of use for the identified services.
Based on applicant’s response, the trademark examining attorney notes that the following requirement has been satisfied: information on the lack of descriptive significance of the letters “AZ” is noted. See TMEP §§713.02, 714.04.
The trademark examining attorney maintains and now makes FINAL the refusal and requirements in the summary of issues below. See 37 C.F.R. §2.63(b); TMEP §714.04.
SUMMARY OF ISSUES MADE FINAL that applicant must address:
SECTION 2(d) REFUSAL – LIKELIHOOD OF CONFUSION
Trademark Act Section 2(d) bars registration of an applied-for mark that is so similar to a registered mark that it is likely consumers would be confused, mistaken, or deceived as to the commercial source of the goods and/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.
Comparison of Marks
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).
Applicant’s mark is AZ in standard character form.
Registrant’s marks are AZ and triangle design (RN 4266234), AZ in standard character form (RN 5404067), and AZ DISPLAYS in standard character form (RN 5700047).
Applicant’s and registrants’ marks share the distinctive letters “AZ.”
Although marks are compared in their entireties, one feature of a mark may be more significant or dominant in creating a commercial impression. See In re Detroit Athletic Co., 903 F.3d 1297, 1305, 128 USPQ2d 1047, 1050 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (citing In re Dixie Rests., 105 F.3d 1405, 1407, 41 USPQ2d 1531, 1533-34 (Fed. Cir. 1997)); TMEP §1207.01(b)(viii), (c)(ii). Greater weight is often given to this dominant feature when determining whether marks are confusingly similar. See In re Detroit Athletic Co., 903 F.3d at 1305, 128 USPQ2d at 1050 (citing In re Dixie Rests., 105 F.3d at 1407, 41 USPQ2d at 1533-34).
The presentation of one of the cited registered marks in design form is not sufficient to distinguish it from applicant’s standard character form mark. 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). Thus, 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’s and registrants’ marks create similar commercial impressions despite their differences.
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).
Comparison of Goods and Services
Applicant’s services are technical consultancy in relation to hygiene environment in residential and light industrial properties including lighting and cleaning products to create and maintain a hygienic environment.
Registrant’s relevant goods include cleaning preparations (RNs 4266234 and 5404067), and Computer monitor frames; Computer monitors; Digital signage monitors; Electronic LED signs; LED circuit boards; Light emitting diode (LED) displays; Light emitting diodes (LEDs); Televisions and monitors; Touch pads; Touch panels; Touch screens; Touchscreen monitors (RN 5700047).
Based on applicant’s amended identification of services referencing “cleaning products” and applicant’s specimen displaying different cleaning preparations, cleaning preparations have a close link with applicant’s technical consultancy services. The close relationship between applicant’s services and cleaning preparations is also demonstrated by applicant’s filing of co-pending applications (SN 88/357642 for AZ ALL, SNs 88/357649 and 88/374298 for AZ ALL THE MAGIC CLEANER in design and standard character form, and 88/374302 for AZ TOGETHER BETTER THAN ALONE) for closely related marks for cleaning products, cleaning preparations and agents in International Class 3. In addition, attached the previous Office action were copies of registrations found in the Office’s X-search database, showing use of the same mark for both cleaning products and advice or consulting services related in some way to those products: RNs 4005126, 4264968, 4388830, and 4149033.
Applicant’s services also appear to have a close relationship with the LED displays and LEDs featured in Registration No. 5700047. Applicant is providing technical consultancy services “in relation to hygiene environment in residential and light industrial properties including lighting…to create and maintain a hygienic environment” (these services were originally identified as “regarding energy care area involving reducing the use of power i.e. LED lights”). The subject matter of applicant’s amended services is not entirely clear, but does potentially involve use of LED lights, potentially even registrant’s LED lights or lights of the same kind. It would not be unusual for the source of LED goods to also provide advice on their best use (see copies of registrations found in the Office’s X-search database and attached to the previous Office action, showing use of the same mark for both LED products and advice or consulting services related in some way to those products: RNs 4776502, 5254098, 5463213, 5487465 and 5566249). Based on the present information of record regarding applicant’s services, applicant’s services and registrant’s goods are potentially closely related.
Applicant argues that the customers and channels of trade for the services and goods differ. However, the formal identifications of services and goods for applicant and registrant contain no qualifiers as to the channels of trade for the goods. When the services and/or goods of the parties have no restrictions as to nature, type, channels of trade, or classes of purchasers, they 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 cannot restrict the channels of trade based on website evidence. 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)).
REQUIREMENTS
The following requirements are made final.
Applicant has amended the identification of services to:
Technical consultancy in relation to hygiene environment in residential and light industrial properties including lighting and cleaning products to create and maintain a hygienic environment; in International Class 42.
The amended identification of services is indefinite and must be clarified. See 37 C.F.R. §2.32(a)(6); TMEP §1402.01. As indicated previously, the appropriate classification of technical consultancy services depends on the field and nature of the technical matters being consulted about. Stating that the consulting is “in relation to hygiene environment in residential and light industrial properties including lighting and cleaning products to create and maintain a hygienic environment” is simply not clear enough to indicate what technical matters applicant is providing advice about, other than that it has something to do with hygiene, lighting, and cleaning products. By “hygiene environment” and “cleaning products” does applicant mean some type of cleaning service, such as “cleaning of commercial premises, cleaning of industrial premises, cleaning of residential houses” (all in International Class 37)? What does applicant mean by the inclusion of “lighting…products” in the amended identification language? How are lighting products a part of the originally specified “hygiene care”? Is applicant referring to cleaning lighting products?
Applicant must amend the identification to specify the common commercial or generic name of the services. See TMEP §1402.01. If the services have no common commercial or generic name, applicant must describe or explain the nature of the services using clear and succinct language. See id.
Applicant’s goods and/or services may be clarified or limited, but may not be expanded beyond those originally itemized in the application or as acceptably amended. See 37 C.F.R. §2.71(a); TMEP §1402.06. Applicant may clarify or limit the identification by inserting qualifying language or deleting items to result in a more specific identification; however, applicant may not substitute different goods and/or services or add goods and/or services not found or encompassed by those in the original application or as acceptably amended. See TMEP §1402.06(a)-(b). The scope of the goods and/or services sets the outer limit for any changes to the identification and is generally determined by the ordinary meaning of the wording in the identification. TMEP §§1402.06(b), 1402.07(a)-(b). Any acceptable changes to the goods and/or services will further limit scope, and once goods and/or services are deleted, they are not permitted to be reinserted. 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.
Addition of a Class to the Application
(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 a filing fee for each international class not covered by the fee already paid (view the USPTO’s current fee schedule). Specifically, the application identifies services based on use in commerce that are classified in at least two classes; however, applicant submitted a fee sufficient for only one class. Applicant must either (a) submit the filing fees for the classes not covered by the submitted fees or (b) restrict the application to the number of classes covered by the fees already paid.
(3) 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.
(4) Submit a specimen for each international class. The current specimen is not acceptable for any international class. See more information about specimens.
Examples of specimens for services include advertising and marketing materials, brochures, photographs of business signage and billboards, and website printouts that show the mark used in the actual sale, rendering, or advertising of the services.
(5) 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.
Registration is refused because the specimen does not show the applied-for mark in use in commerce in connection with any of the services specified in 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, the specimen (which applicant describes as a “handout for instructions to the customers”) lists various cleaning products and the heading “HYGIENE CARE” and references applicant’s mark at the top of the right and bottom left of the page alongside other trademarks (“CKLIN MAGIC” and “INTERCLEAN”). While the mark appearing on the lower left appears over applicant’s tradename “AZ Consultancy INC”, the nature of the consultancy is not specified and the specimen does not appear to be advertising for consultancy services. In fact, the nature of the specimen is unclear (in what way does this brochure demonstrate technical consultation?).
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 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).
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 or prior to the filing of an amendment to allege use and (b) shows the mark in actual use in commerce for the goods and/or services identified in the application or amendment to allege use. 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 or prior to the filing of the amendment to allege use.” 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.
For an overview of both response options referenced above and instructions on how to satisfy either option online using the Trademark Electronic Application System (TEAS) form, please go to http://www.gov.uspto.report/trademarks/law/specimen.jsp.
Assistance
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.
How to respond. Click to file a request for reconsideration of this final Office action that fully resolves all outstanding requirements and refusals and/or click to file a timely appeal to the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB) with the required filing fee(s).
Jeri Fickes
/Jeri Fickes/
Trademark Examining Attorney
Law Office 107, USPTO
571/272-9157
jeri.fickes@uspto.gov
RESPONSE GUIDANCE