United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO)
Office Action (Official Letter) About Applicant’s Trademark Application
U.S. Application Serial No. 88381619
Mark: SOLSTICE
|
|
Correspondence Address: 8300 GREENSBORO DRIVE, SUITE 1100
|
|
Applicant: OmniMax International, Inc.
|
|
Reference/Docket No. 074598.0072
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 16, 2020
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.
This Office action is in response to applicant’s communication filed on December 20, 2019.
Upon further review, the citation of Serial No. 87542109 is hereby WITHDRAWN.
The examining attorney has carefully reviewed the applicant’s response and found the arguments unpersuasive. Thus the Section 2(d) refusal is maintained and made FINAL.
Likelihood of Confusion
Marks are compared in their entireties for similarities in appearance, sound, connotation, and commercial impression. Stone Lion Capital Partners, LP v. Lion Capital LLP, 746 F.3d 1317, 1321, 110 USPQ2d 1157, 1160 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (quoting Palm Bay Imps., Inc. v. Veuve Clicquot Ponsardin Maison Fondee En 1772, 396 F.3d 1369, 1371, 73 USPQ2d 1689, 1691 (Fed. Cir. 2005)); TMEP §1207.01(b)-(b)(v). “Similarity in any one of these elements may be sufficient to find the marks confusingly similar.” In re Inn at St. John’s, LLC, 126 USPQ2d 1742, 1746 (TTAB 2018) (citing In re Davia, 110 USPQ2d 1810, 1812 (TTAB 2014)); TMEP §1207.01(b).
Applicant seeks to register the mark SOLSTICE for “Metal roofing; metal louvered roofing; metal prefabricated roofing; metal roof flashing; metal siding”.
The registrant owns the mark SOLSTICE for use with “Solar roofing system, namely, non-metal roofing shingles, tiles, panels and membranes containing photovoltaic cells”.
In the first step of the analysis, the examining attorney finds that the applicant’s mark and the registrant’s marks are identical.
In the second step of the analysis, the examining attorney finds that the applicant’s goods and the registrant’s goods are related and can originate from the same source.
Nevertheless, the applicant contends that its goods are different because the applicant does not provide solar roofing. However, the examining attorney has attached evidence to show that the metal roofing that the applicant provides and the solar roofing that the registrant provides are related and can originate from the same source.
In fact, the attached evidence from the registrant’s website shows that Certainteed, the registrant, provides both metal roofing and solar roofing. Additional evidence from the websites of other commercial roofing contractors, GAF, Energy Advantage and Affordable Roofing all shows that metal roofing and solar roofing can originate from the same source. Finally, an attached magazine article from January 2019 shows that the world’s largest roofing company expanded to now provide solar roofing products and services too.
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).
Thus the examining attorney refuses registration of the mark under Section 2(d) of the Trademark Act. Trademark Act Section 2(d), 15 U.S.C. §1052(d); see TMEP §§1207.01 et seq.
Because the marks SOLSTICE and SOLSTICE are identical and the metal roofing and solar roofing can originate from the same source, the examining attorney refuses registration of the mark under Section 2(d) of the Trademark Act. Trademark Act Section 2(d), 15 U.S.C. §1052(d); see TMEP §§1207.01 et seq.
This refusal is FINAL.
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).
/D. Beryl Gardner/
Trademark Examining Attorney
Law Office 117
571-272-9162 (O)
571-273-9162 (F)
beryl.gardner@uspto.gov
RESPONSE GUIDANCE