| To: | Oak Intranet Limited (trademarks@alprinlaw.com) |
| Subject: | U.S. Trademark Application Serial No. 88404897 - OAK - 0253005 |
| Sent: | July 11, 2019 11:52:42 AM |
| Sent As: | ecom115@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 Attachment - 14 Attachment - 15 Attachment - 16 Attachment - 17 Attachment - 18 Attachment - 19 Attachment - 20 Attachment - 21 |
United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO)
Office Action (Official Letter) About Applicant’s Trademark Application
|
U.S. Application Serial No. 88404897
Mark: OAK
|
|
|
Correspondence Address:
|
|
|
Applicant: Oak Intranet Limited
|
|
|
Reference/Docket No. 0253005
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: July 11, 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 that Applicant Must Address
Refusal under Section 2(d) – 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.
Applicant seeks to register the proposed mark OAK. The cited registrations are for the marks OAK, GIANT OAK, OAK ADAPTIVE, and LIVE OAK. These marks are quite similar because they share the term OAK and they create confusingly similar commercial impressions.
Applicant seeks to register its mark for “Intranet software; intranet portal software; intranet servers; computer software for application integration relating to intranets; software for file sharing via an intranet; software for intranet customisation; software for sharing content between users via intranet facilities; software for use in intranet-related cloud computing services; software for use in providing temporary use of non-downloadable software for accessing and using a cloud computing intranet network,” and “Intranet software design, development, installation, repair and maintenance services; intranet software customisation services; design, development, installation, repair and maintenance of intranet portals and intranet servers; technical support, assistance and consultancy services relating to intranet software; intranet computer software programming; intranet software and application integration services; services relating to software for file sharing via an intranet; hosting online intranet facilities for others for sharing content between users; intranet-related cloud computing services; technical support, assistance and consultancy relating to intranet-related cloud computing services; providing temporary use of non-downloadable software for accessing and using a cloud computing intranet network; information, advisory and consultancy services all relating to the aforesaid services.” Registrants’ goods and services are “Computer application software for mobile phones and handheld computers, namely, software for providing alerts and alarms for use in guided mediation, meditation training, meditation, walking meditation, guided breaks, guided exercises, breathing exercises, time tracking mediation, and providing classes, training, instruction and coaching in the field of guided mediation, meditation training, meditation, walking meditation, guided breaks, guided exercises, breathing exercises, time tracking mediation,” “Application service provider featuring application programming interface (API) software for allowing data retrieval, upload, access and management in the field of finance; Application service provider (ASP) featuring software for use in connection with financial transactions, financial information and analysis; Application service provider featuring application programming interface (API) software for allowing online payments, loan and credit management, personal financial management, financial analysis, and other online financial functions; Application service provider featuring application programming interface (API) software for customer service; Providing a website featuring non-downloadable software for originating and continuous real-time monitoring of commercial loan transactions accessible via electronic and wireless devices; providing temporary use of online non-downloadable software for web-based audio and video chat and shared web browsing for the purpose of providing channels of real-time communications between computer users; Providing non-downloadable computer software that provides web-based access to applications and services through a web operating system or portal interface,” “computer software for the collection, editing, organizing, modifying, book marking, transmission, storage and sharing of data and information; computer software for accounting, financing and purchasing applications for tracking accounts receivable and accounts payable, for credit checking, approval and limit management, for financing, for generating statements and for transaction tracking; computer software for parts inventory control, parts order processing, warehouse management, service and repair management, invoicing, SIMS reporting, generating service and repair reports, equipment rental management, sales and inventory in the field of dealership operations and warehouse management; marketing software for use in customer relationship management (CRM), for providing customer access to account information and for organizing and enabling access to information about customers, targets, operations and equipment assets; enterprise resource planning (ERP) computer software for dealer management,” “computer software design for others; computer software development,” “Computer software for use in analyzing large bodies of data for purposes of identifying and investigating criminal, insurgency, terrorist, and illicit activities,” and “Providing on-line non-downloadable software for use in analyzing large bodies of data for purposes of identifying and investigating criminal, insurgency, terrorist, and illicit activities; computer software consulting services, namely, installation and customization of computer software for use in analyzing large bodies of data for purposes of identifying and investigating criminal, insurgency, terrorist, and illicit activities; providing computer modeling services for purposes of identifying and investigating criminal, insurgency, terrorist, and illicit activities; providing computer simulation services for purposes of identifying and investigating criminal, insurgency, terrorist, and illicit activities.” These goods and services are closely related because some of the applicant’s software functions are not defined and may include the same functions provided by the registrants’ programs, and some of the registrants also provide design of computer software services.
In this case, the application uses broad wording to describe software and software services, which presumably encompasses all goods and/or services of the type described, including registrants’ more narrow list of software and software 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). Thus, applicant’s and registrant’s goods/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)).
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)). Thus, applicant’s and registrant’s goods and/or services are related.
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).
Prior Pending Applications
In response to this Office action, applicant may present arguments in support of registration by addressing the issue of the potential conflict between applicant’s mark and the marks in the referenced applications. Applicant’s election not to submit arguments at this time in no way limits applicant’s right to address this issue later if a refusal under Section 2(d) issues.
Identification of Goods
The identification of goods is indefinite and must be clarified because the applicant must specify the function of the various software goods and specify that the software is recorded or downloadable. See 37 C.F.R. §2.32(a)(6); TMEP §1402.01. Applicant must amend the identification to specify the common commercial or generic name of the goods. See TMEP §1402.01. If the goods have no common commercial or generic name, applicant must describe the product, its main purpose, and its intended uses. See id.
The following substitute wording is suggested, if appropriate: (Note that proposed changes have been placed in bold type. Some items require applicant to include more complete information. These have been designated with braces{ } and/or bold type. The information in the braces is suggested as an example for applicant to follow and should not be merely “cut and pasted.”):
· Downloadable communication software for providing access to the Internet; intranet servers; Downloadable computer software for application integration relating to intranets; Downloadable software for file sharing via an intranet; Downloadable software for intranet customisation; Downloadable software for sharing content between users via intranet facilities; Downloadable software for use in intranet-related cloud computing services, in INT. CLASS 9.
Applicant may amend the identification to clarify or limit the goods and/or services, but not to broaden or expand the goods and/or services beyond those in the original application or as acceptably amended. See 37 C.F.R. §2.71(a); TMEP §1402.06. Generally, any deleted goods and/or services may not later be reinserted. See 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.
Identification of Services
The following substitute wording is suggested, if appropriate: (Note that proposed changes have been placed in bold type. Some items require applicant to include more complete information. These have been designated with braces{ } and/or bold type. The information in the braces is suggested as an example for applicant to follow and should not be merely “cut and pasted.”):
· Providing temporary use of non-downloadable software for accessing and using a cloud computing intranet network; Intranet software design, development, installation, repair and maintenance services; intranet software customization services; design of intranet servers; technical support services, namely, troubleshooting of interent computer software problems; intranet computer software programming; intranet software and application integration services; File sharing services, namely, providing a website featuring technology enabling users to upload and download electronic files; Providing virtual computer systems and virtual computer environments through cloud computing; information, advisory and consultancy services all relating to the aforesaid services, in INT. CLASS 42;
· Installation, repair and maintenance of intranet servers, in INT. CLASS 37.
Applicant may amend the identification to clarify or limit the goods and/or services, but not to broaden or expand the goods and/or services beyond those in the original application or as acceptably amended. See 37 C.F.R. §2.71(a); TMEP §1402.06. Generally, any deleted goods and/or services may not later be reinserted. See 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.
Requirements for a Combined Application
(1) List the goods and/or services by their international class number in consecutive numerical order, starting with the lowest numbered class.
(2) Submit a filing fee for each international class not covered by the fee(s) already paid (view the USPTO’s current fee schedule). The application identifies goods and/or services that are classified in at least 3 classes; however, applicant submitted a fee sufficient for only 2 classes. Applicant must either submit the filing fees for the classes not covered by the submitted fees or restrict the application to the number of classes covered by the fees already paid.
See 15 U.S.C. §§1051(b), 1112, 1126(e); 37 C.F.R. §§2.32(a)(6)-(7), 2.34(a)(2)-(3), 2.86(a); TMEP §§1403.01, 1403.02(c).
See an overview of the requirements for a Sections 1(b) and 44 multiple-class application and how to satisfy the requirements online using the Trademark Electronic Application System (TEAS) form.
Dual Basis Application
The application specifies both an intent to use basis under Trademark Act Section 1(b) and a claim of priority under Section 44(d) based on a foreign application. See 15 U.S.C. §§1051(b), 1126(d); 37 C.F.R. §2.34(a)(2), (a)(4). However, no copy of a foreign registration has been provided even though the application indicates applicant’s intent to rely on Section 44(e) as an additional basis for registration. See 15 U.S.C. §1126(e).
An application with a Section 44(e) basis must include a true copy, photocopy, certification, or certified copy of a foreign registration from an applicant’s country of origin. 15 U.S.C. §1126(e); 37 C.F.R. §2.34(a)(3)(ii); TMEP §§1004, 1004.01, 1016. In addition, an applicant’s country of origin must be a party to a convention or treaty relating to trademarks to which the United States is also a party, or must extend reciprocal registration rights to nationals of the United States by law. 15 U.S.C. §1126(b); TMEP §§1002.01, 1004.
Therefore, applicant must provide a copy of the foreign registration from applicant’s country of origin when it becomes available. TMEP §1003.04(a). A copy of a foreign registration must consist of a document issued to an applicant by, or certified by, the intellectual property office in applicant’s country of origin. TMEP §1004.01. If applicant’s country of origin does not issue registrations or Madrid Protocol certificates of extension of protection, applicant may submit a copy of the Madrid Protocol international registration that shows that protection of the international registration has been extended to applicant’s country of origin. TMEP §1016. In addition, applicant must also provide an English translation if the foreign registration is not written in English. 37 C.F.R. §2.34(a)(3)(ii); TMEP §1004.01(a)-(b). The translation should be signed by the translator. TMEP §1004.01(b).
If the foreign registration has not yet issued, or applicant requires additional time to procure a copy of the foreign registration (and English translation, as appropriate), applicant should so inform the trademark examining attorney and request that the U.S. application be suspended until a copy of the foreign registration is available. TMEP §§716.02(b), 1003.04(b).
If applicant cannot satisfy the requirements of a Section 44(e) basis, applicant may request that the mark be approved for publication based solely on the Section 1(b) basis. See 15 U.S.C. §§1051(b), 1126(e); 37 C.F.R. §2.35(b)(1); TMEP §§806.02(f), 806.04(b), 1003.04(b). Although the mark may be approved for publication on the Section 1(b) basis, it will not register until an acceptable allegation of use has been filed. See 15 U.S.C. §1051(c)-(d); 37 C.F.R. §§2.76, 2.88; TMEP §1103. Please note that, if the U.S. application satisfied the requirements of Section 44(d) as of the U.S. application filing date, applicant may retain the priority filing date under Section 44(d) without perfecting the Section 44(e) basis, provided there is a continuing valid basis for registration. See 37 C.F.R. §2.35(b)(3)-(4); TMEP §§806.02(f), 806.04(b).
Alternatively, applicant has the option to amend the application to rely solely on the Section 44(e) basis and request deletion of the Section 1(b) basis. See 37 C.F.R. §2.35(b)(1); TMEP §806.04. The foreign registration alone may serve as the basis for obtaining a U.S. registration. See 37 C.F.R. §2.34(a)(3); TMEP §806.01(d).
Please call or email the assigned trademark examining attorney with questions about this Office action. Although the trademark examining attorney cannot provide legal advice or statements about applicant’s rights, the trademark examining attorney can provide applicant with additional explanation about the refusal(s) and/or requirement(s) in this Office action. See TMEP §§705.02, 709.06. Although the USPTO does not accept emails as responses to Office actions, emails can be used for informal communications and will be included in the application record. See 37 C.F.R. §§2.62(c), 2.191; TMEP §§304.01-.02, 709.04-.05.
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
/Curtis French/
Trademark Attorney
Law Office 115
571-272-9472
curtis.french@uspto.gov
RESPONSE GUIDANCE
