To: | Motor Consultants of America, Inc. (avanwagner@mca.net) |
Subject: | U.S. Trademark Application Serial No. 88380173 - PPI CONSTRUCTION - N/A |
Sent: | September 23, 2019 06:45:45 PM |
Sent As: | ecom121@uspto.gov |
Attachments: | Attachment - 1 Attachment - 2 Attachment - 3 Attachment - 4 Attachment - 5 Attachment - 6 Attachment - 7 Attachment - 8 Attachment - 9 Attachment - 10 Attachment - 11 Attachment - 12 Attachment - 13 |
United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO)
Office Action (Official Letter) About Applicant’s Trademark Application
U.S. Application Serial No. 88380173
Mark: PPI CONSTRUCTION
|
|
Correspondence Address: MOTOR CONSULTANTS OF AMERICA, INC. MOTOR CONSULTANTS OF AMERICA, INC.
|
|
Applicant: Motor Consultants of America, Inc.
|
|
Reference/Docket No. N/A
Correspondence Email Address: |
|
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). A link to the appropriate TEAS response form appears at the end of this Office action.
Issue date: September 23, 2019
INTRODUCTION
This Office action is in response to applicant’s communication filed on August 27, 2019.
In a previous Office action dated May 9, 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 a registered mark and Specimen Refusal. In addition, applicant was required to satisfy the following requirements: identification amendment requirement.
Based on applicant’s response, the trademark examining attorney notes that the following requirement(s) have been satisfied: identification amendment requirement. See TMEP §§713.02, 714.04.
The following refusals are continued and maintained: Trademark Act Section 2(d) Refusal and Specimen Refusal. See TMEP §§713.02, 714.04.
In addition, based on applicant’s response, the following new requirements are warranted: new mark drawing not acceptable.
SUMMARY OF ISSUES that applicant must address:
I. SECTION 2(d) REFUSAL – LIKELIHOOD OF CONFUSION
Applicant has not made any arguments against this refusal; accordingly, it is continued and maintained below.
Registration of the applied-for mark, PPI, in standard characters, for “Conducting educational courses and workshops in the field of the construction industry, namely, to help contractors identify what work can be completed prior to jobsite installation, which can benefit the construction company by increasing productivity, reducing cost and making a profit” is refused because of a likelihood of confusion with the following marks:
· U.S. Registration No. 4625733, PPI, stylized with design, for “Business knowledge management services relating to production management knowledge in connection with civil, energy, and industrial projects” and “Educational services in the nature of dissemination of production management knowledge, namely, conducting in-person and online workshops, classes, seminars, presentations and courses relating to production management knowledge in connection with civil, energy, and industrial projects.”
· U.S. Registration No. 4625733, PPI PROJECT PRODUCTION INSTITUTE, stylized with design for “Business knowledge management services relating to production management knowledge in connection with civil, energy, and industrial projects” and “Educational services in the nature of dissemination of production management knowledge, namely, conducting in-person and online workshops, classes, seminars, presentations and courses relating to production management knowledge in connection with civil, energy, and industrial projects.”
Trademark Act Section 2(d), 15 U.S.C. §1052(d); see TMEP §§1207.01 et seq. See the previously attached registrations.
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 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 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.
A. Comparison of the Marks
In the present case, the wording PROJECT PRODUCTION INSTITUTE in the registered mark has been disclaimed as being merely descriptive of or generic for the registrant’s services. Thus, this wording is less significant in terms of affecting the mark’s commercial impression, and renders the wording PPI the more dominant element of the mark.
In addition, although the registered marks contain a design element, this is not sufficient to obviate confusion as applicant has applied for a standard character 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”).
As such, applicant’s mark PPI is identical to the wording in one of registrant’s marks and identical to the dominant portion of the wording in the other registration in terms of appearance and sound. Indeed, although applicant’s mark does not contain the entirety of the registered mark, applicant’s mark is likely to appear to prospective purchasers as a shortened form of registrant’s mark. 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 mark because it contains some of the wording in the registered mark and does not add any wording that would distinguish it from that mark.
Therefore, the marks are confusingly similar.
B. Comparison of the Services
Applicant’s services are for: “Conducting educational courses and workshops in the field of the construction industry, namely, to help contractors identify what work can be completed prior to jobsite installation, which can benefit the construction company by increasing productivity, reducing cost and making a profit.”
Registrant’s services are for: “Business knowledge management services relating to production management knowledge in connection with civil, energy, and industrial projects” and “Educational services in the nature of dissemination of production management knowledge, namely, conducting in-person and online workshops, classes, seminars, presentations and courses relating to production management knowledge in connection with civil, energy, and industrial projects.”
In this case, the registration uses broad wording to describe registrant’s services, which presumably encompasses all services of the type described, including applicant’s more narrow services. 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). Specifically, registrant’s services included educational workshops and classes relating to production management in connection with civil, energy, and industrial projects. This encompasses applicant’s more narrow educational workshops and courses in the construction industry pertaining to helping contractors identify what work can be completed prior to jobsite installation to increase productivity and reduce cost, which would be a type of production management. Further, the attached evidence from registrant’s website clearly indicates that registrant’s services and applicant’s services are both in the construction industry and are marketed to the same professionals in the construction industry. Thus, applicant’s and registrant’s services 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)).
In sum, consumers are likely to encounter the parties’ services in the same commercial contexts. Given the similarity of the marks overall and the related nature of the services, consumers encountering the marks are likely to mistake the underlying sources of the services.
Although applicant’s mark has been refused registration, applicant may respond to the refusal by submitting evidence and arguments in support of registration.
Applicant should note the additional grounds for refusal.
II. SPECIMEN REFUSAL
Registration is refused because the specimen does not show the mark in the drawing in use in commerce, which is required in the application or amendment to allege use. Trademark Act Sections 1 and 45, 15 U.S.C. §§1051, 1127; 37 C.F.R. §§2.34(a)(1)(iv), 2.56(a); TMEP §§904, 904.07(a), 1301.04(g)(i). The mark appearing on the specimen and in the drawing must match; that is, the mark in the drawing “must be a substantially exact representation of the mark” on the specimen. See 37 C.F.R. §2.51(a)-(b); TMEP §807.12(a).
In this case, the specimen displays the mark as PPI CONSTRUCTION. However, the drawing displays the mark as PPI. The mark on the specimen does not match the mark in the drawing because the mark in the specimen contains additional terms. Applicant has thus failed to provide the required evidence of use of the mark in commerce. See TMEP §807.12(a).
Applicant may respond to this refusal by satisfying one of the following:
(1) Submit a different specimen (a verified “substitute” specimen) for each applicable international class that (a) shows the mark in the drawing in actual use in commerce for the goods and/or services in the application or amendment to allege use, and (b) was in actual use in commerce at least as early as the filing date of the application or prior to the filing of an amendment to allege use.
Examples of specimens for goods include tags, labels, instruction manuals, containers, photographs that show the mark on the actual goods or packaging, and displays associated with the actual goods at their point of sale. See TMEP §§904.03 et seq. Webpages may also be specimens for goods when they include a picture or textual description of the goods associated with the mark and the means to order the goods. TMEP §904.03(i). 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).
(2) Submit a request to amend the filing basis to intent to use under Section 1(b), for which no specimen is required. This option will later necessitate additional fee(s) and filing requirements such as providing a specimen.
The USPTO will not accept an amended drawing submitted in response to this refusal because the changes would materially alter the drawing of the mark in the original application or as previously acceptably amended. See 37 C.F.R. §2.72(a)-(b); TMEP §807.14. Specifically, the additional wording fundamentally changes the overall commercial impression of the mark.
For more information about drawings and instructions on how to satisfy these response options online using the Trademark Electronic Application System (TEAS) form, see the Drawing webpage.
If applicant responds to these refusals, applicant must also respond to the following requirement.
III. DRAWING AMENDMENT NOT ACCEPTABLE
The original drawing shows the mark as PPI. The proposed amended drawing shows the mark as PPI CONSTRUCTION.
The USPTO cannot accept an amendment to a mark if it will materially alter the mark in the drawing filed with the original application, or in a previously accepted amended drawing. 37 C.F.R. §2.72(a)(2), (b)(2); TMEP §807.14. An amendment to the mark is material when the USPTO would need to republish the mark with the change in the USPTO Trademark Official Gazette to fairly present the mark to the public. In re Thrifty, Inc., 274 F.3d 1349, 1352, 61 USPQ2d 1121, 1123-24 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (citing In re Hacot-Columbier, 105 F.3d 616, 620, 41 USPQ2d 1523, 1526 (Fed. Cir. 1997)); TMEP §807.14.
That is, an amendment is material if the altered mark does not retain “the essence of the original mark” or if the new and old forms do not “create the impression of being essentially the same mark.” In re Hacot-Columbier, 105 F.3d at 620, 41 USPQ2d at 1526 (quoting Visa Int’l Serv. Ass’n v. Life-Code Sys., Inc., 220 USPQ 740, 743-44 (TTAB 1983)); see, e.g., In re Who? Vision Sys., Inc., 57 USPQ2d 1211, 1218 (TTAB 2000) (amendment from “TACILESENSE” to “TACTILESENSE” a material alteration); In re CTB Inc., 52 USPQ2d 1471, 1475 (TTAB 1999) (amendment of TURBO with a design to just the typed word TURBO without design a material alteration).
When determining materiality, the addition of any element that would require a further search of the USPTO database for conflicting marks is also relevant. In re Guitar Straps Online LLC, 103 USPQ2d 1745, 1747 (TTAB 2012) (citing In re Pierce Foods Corp., 230 USPQ 307, 308-09 (TTAB 1986)); In re Who? Vision Sys. Inc., 57 USPQ2d at 1218-19; TMEP §807.14.
In the present case, applicant’s proposed amendment would materially alter the mark in the drawing filed with the original application or as previously amended because the additional wording fundamentally changes the overall commercial impression of the mark.
To avoid the application from abandoning, applicant must respond to this issue. TMEP §807.17. Applicant may respond by (1) withdrawing the request to amend the drawing, or (2) arguing that the proposed amendment is not a material alteration of the mark.
For more information about changes to the mark in the drawing after the application filing date, please go to the Drawing webpage.
ASSISTANCE
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.
Because of the legal technicalities and strict deadlines of the trademark application process, applicant may wish to hire a private attorney who specializes in trademark matters to assist in the process. The assigned trademark examining attorney can provide only limited assistance explaining the content of an Office action and the application process. USPTO staff cannot provide legal advice or statements about an applicant’s legal rights. TMEP §§705.02, 709.06. See Hiring a U.S.-licensed trademark attorney for more information.
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 response to this nonfinal Office action
/Elle Marino/
Trademark Examining Attorney
Law Office 121
Phone: (571) 270-3699
E-mail: elle.marino@uspto
RESPONSE GUIDANCE