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: 6/26/2019

 

 

 

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

 

Registration is refused on the following grounds:

 

• A likelihood of confusion refusal
• A requirement to amend the mark description

 

 

 

• A likelihood of confusion refusal

 

Registration of the applied-for mark is refused because of a likelihood of confusion with the following marks:

 

U.S. Registration No. 4906811

Apparatus for wireless transmission of acoustic information, including wireless indoor and outdoor speakers, amplifiers for wireless communication; loudspeakers with built-in amplifiers; amplifiers for sound signals; audio earphones and headphones, including attached cable; stands specially adapted for stereos and audio speakers; loudspeaker and audio signal cables; motor systems comprising hard magnetic materials and soft magnetic materials for loudspeaker drive units; computer software applications and software for sound reproduction

 

U.S. Registration No. 4115249

Loudspeakers and related articles, namely, loudspeaker crossovers, loudspeaker drive units, loudspeaker enclosures, connectors, terminals, bass reflex ports, subwoofers, mounting brackets and spikes

 

U.S. Registration No. 2357877

loudspeakers

 

Trademark Act Section 2(d), 15 U.S.C. §1052(d); see TMEP §§1207.01 et seq.  See the 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 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.

 

The Marks Are Confusingly Similar

 

The proposed mark is DALI and design, while the registrations are for DALI in stylized lettering.  The marks share the literal element in common. 

 

The marks share the term DALI in common, which is identical. 

 

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).

 

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).

 

Here, the literal portion of the marks, the term DALI, is the dominant element of both marks.  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)).

 

The word portions of the marks are nearly identical in appearance, sound, connotation, and commercial impression; therefore, the addition of a design element does not obviate the similarity of the marks in this case.  See In re Shell Oil Co., 992 F.2d 1204, 1206, 26 USPQ2d 1687, 1688 (Fed. Cir. 1993); TMEP §1207.01(c)(ii).

 

In this case, consumers will focus on the term DALI as the dominant feature in both marks and be confused into believing the goods come from the same source.  Likelihood of confusion is not necessarily avoided between otherwise confusingly similar marks merely by adding or deleting matter, or a term that is descriptive or suggestive of the named goods or services; if the dominant portion of both marks is the same, then the marks may be confusingly similar notwithstanding peripheral differences

 

The Parties’ Goods are Closely Related

 

The goods in the application are “Media players; Downloadable computer application software for mobile phones, portable media players, handheld computers, namely, software for use in database management, use in electronic storage of data; Thermal imaging cameras; Thermal imaging systems, not for medical use; Remote controlled thermal imaging systems, not for medical use; Medical laboratory research instruments for detecting pathogens, DNA analysis, thermal imaging; Infrared cameras; Optical apparatus and instruments, namely, optical ports for underwater photography, dome ports for underwater photography, wet diopters, adapter lenses for underwater photography; Radar detectors; Radiation detectors; Integrated circuits; Ultrasonic sensors; Optical sensors; Infrared sensors; Camcorders; Digital video recorders; Digital audio tape recorders; Blank record disks; Blank recordable optical disc; Car video recorders; Video monitors; Voice display monitors; Infrared detection apparatus; Distance measuring apparatus; Measuring apparatus, namely, laser distance meters; Infrared detectors.”

 

The goods in the registrations:

 

U.S. Registration No. 4906811

Apparatus for wireless transmission of acoustic information, including wireless indoor and outdoor speakers, amplifiers for wireless communication; loudspeakers with built-in amplifiers; amplifiers for sound signals; audio earphones and headphones, including attached cable; stands specially adapted for stereos and audio speakers; loudspeaker and audio signal cables; motor systems comprising hard magnetic materials and soft magnetic materials for loudspeaker drive units; computer software applications and software for sound reproduction

 

U.S. Registration No. 4115249

Loudspeakers and related articles, namely, loudspeaker crossovers, loudspeaker drive units, loudspeaker enclosures, connectors, terminals, bass reflex ports, subwoofers, mounting brackets and spikes

 

U.S. Registration No. 2357877

loudspeakers

 

The compared goods and/or services 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).

 

Here, the goods all consist of electronic goods.   There is evidence that the parties’ goods come from a common source so that when identified by such similar trademarks, consumers would be likely confused as to the source of the goods.

 

Different goods in the electrical, electronic, and/or electromechanical fields have been found to be related where the evidence shows that the goods would be marketed through the same channels of trade and/or sold to the same classes of purchasers.  See, e.g., Alliance Mfg. Co. v. ABH Diversified Prods., Inc., 226 USPQ 348 (TTAB 1985) (finding cycling-type furnace controllers and various home products, including garage door openers and remote controls for operating lights and appliances, to be related, where both parties’ goods were electrically powered/electronically operated, had similar energy conserving characteristics, and were sold for residential use); In re Globe-Union Inc., 189 USPQ 158, 159 (TTAB 1975) (finding resistor-capacitor components and ceramic condensers to be related, where such goods “would be sold in the same trade channels to the same classes of purchasers such as original equipment manufacture[r]s for incorporation in the same piece of electronic equipment or apparatus”); In re Dynaco, Inc., 189 USPQ 104, 105 (TTAB 1975) (finding two-channel stereophonic amplifiers, loudspeakers, and non-electronic devices for connecting amplifiers and speakers, on the one hand, and switching transistors, on the other, to be related because the goods would be “invariably sold to the same class of purchasers in such circumstances and conditions that if persons were to encounter them under the same or similar marks, they might well be induced to believe that they originate from a common source”); Nat'l Steel Constr. Co. v. Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co., 158 USPQ 464 (TTAB 1968) (finding electric washing machines and electric water heaters to be related, where such goods were sold through the same channels of trade to the same class of purchaser, where the purchase of one of the party’s goods could lead to the purchase of the other party’s goods, and where the evidence of record indicated that a single manufacturer might produce both electric washing machines and electric water heaters).

 

The attached Internet evidence, consisting of Internet screenshots, establishes that the same entity commonly manufactures the relevant goods and markets them under the same mark.  (See attachments showing Toshiba is a brand that manufactures anything from loudspeakers and amplifiers to camcorders, media players, and other goods, illustrating that the parties’ goods can come from the same source.}  Thus, applicant 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).

 

In addition, 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. (See attached third-party registrations).  This evidence shows that the goods listed in the registrations, namely loudspeakers, amplifiers, headphones, among others, as well as goods in the application, such as media players, camcorders, infrared cameras, radar detectors, integrated circuits, optical sensors and video monitors, among others, 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).

 

In the eyes of the purchasing public, the trademarks will be confusingly similar since it can appear that the proposed mark identifies a line of electronic goods in registrant’s already existing line of such products, already identified by the term DALI.

 

Thus, upon encountering DALI and design and DALI in stylized form in commerce for closely related goods, consumers are likely to be confused and mistakenly believe that the respective goods come from a common source, or that there is some sort of affiliation, association or sponsorship between the parties.

 

Conclusion

 

Consumers may be confused into believing that the products come from the same source, or that the parties are affiliated.  The issue is not likelihood of confusion between particular goods, but likelihood of confusion as to the source or sponsorship of those goods.  In re Majestic Distilling Co., 315 F.3d 1311, 1316, 65 USPQ2d 1201, 1205 (Fed. Cir. 2003); In re Shell Oil Co., 992 F.2d 1204, 1208, 26 USPQ2d 1687, 1689 (Fed. Cir. 1993); TMEP §1207.01.

 

The overriding concern is not only to prevent buyer confusion as to the source of the goods and/or services, 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).

 

Having conformed to both steps in the Section 2(d) analysis, the examining attorney herein makes the refusal to register because Applicant’s mark so resembles the marks in U.S. Registration Nos. 4906811, 4115249, 2357877, as to be likely to cause confusion when used on or in connection with the goods identified in the application.

 

Although applicant’s mark has been refused registration, applicant may respond to the refusal by submitting evidence and arguments in support of registration.

 

 

 

• A requirement to amend the mark description

 

 

Although applicant submitted a drawing showing the mark in color with a color claim, applicant did not provide the required description that specifies where each color appears in the literal and design elements in the mark.  See 37 C.F.R. §§2.37, 2.52(b)(1); TMEP §807.07(a)-(a)(ii).  Therefore, applicant must provide this description.  See TMEP §807.07(a)(ii). 

 

Generic color names must be used to describe the colors in the mark, e.g., red, yellow, blue.  TMEP §807.07(a)(i)-(ii).  If black, white, and/or gray represent background, outlining, shading, and/or transparent areas and are not part of the mark, applicant must so specify in the description.  See TMEP §807.07(d).

 

The following description is suggested, if accurate:  “The mark consists of the stylized wording “DALI” in black appearing below a blue circular design with white diagonal stripes.”

 

 

RESPONSE GUIDELINES

 

Response guidelines.  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.

 

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.  

 

 

 

/Giselle Agosto-Hincapie/

Examining Attorney Advisor

Trademarks Law Office 102

giselle.agosto@uspto.gov (Informal inquires only)

571-272-5868

 

 

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 6/26/2019 FOR U.S. APPLICATION SERIAL NO. 88385241

 

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 6/26/2019 (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.