Offc Action Outgoing

United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO)

Office Action (Official Letter) About Applicant’s Trademark Application

 

 

 

NONFINAL 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).  A link to the appropriate TEAS response form appears at the end of this Office action. 

 

 

Issue date:  July 29, 2019

 

The referenced application has been reviewed by the assigned trademark examining attorney.  Applicant must respond timely and completely to the issues below.  15 U.S.C. §1062(b); 37 C.F.R. §§2.62(a), 2.65(a); TMEP §§711, 718.03.

 

SUMMARY OF ISSUES:

 

• Section 2(d) Refusal – Likelihood of Confusion
• Drawing of the Mark
• Identification of Goods

 

SECTION 2(d) REFUSAL – LIKELIHOOD OF CONFUSION

 

Registration of the applied-for mark is refused because of a likelihood of confusion with the marks in U.S. Registration Nos. 0725333, 2311266, & 5093348.  Trademark Act Section 2(d), 15 U.S.C. §1052(d); see TMEP §§1207.01 et seq.  See the attached registrations.

 

Applicant has applied to register the mark CME and design for “Grinding machines for sharpening tungsten carbide machine tools, tungsten carbide buttons on drill bits for percussive or rotary rock drilling, tunnel boring machine cutters and raised bore machine cutters; machine parts, namely, grinding cups for detachable connection to a grinding machine for sharpening tungsten carbide buttons on rock drill bits, tunnel boring machine cutters and raised bore machine cutters” in International Class 7.  The mark in U.S. Registration No. 0725333 is CME (in standard characters) for “Bits, Augers, Drill Heads, Shanks, Sockets, and Fishing Tools” in International Class 23.  The mark in U.S. Registration No. 2311266 is CME and design for “Universal milling machines, production milling machines, and precision milling machines with numeric control inc milling machines with mobile soleplate, and milling machines with mobile column and framework” in International Class 7.  The mark in U.S. Registration No. 5093348 is CME MACHINERY EUROPE and design for “Machines and machine tools for industrial use as well as parts and accessories thereof, namely, industrial machine presses, milling cutters, milling machines; heads being internal combustion engine parts” in International Class 7.

 

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 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.  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.

 

Similarity of the 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 has applied to register the mark CME and bar design.  The mark in U.S. Registration No. 0725333 is CME in standard characters.  The mark in U.S. Registration No. 2311266 is CME and spiral design.  The mark in U.S. Registration No. 5093348 is CME MACHINERY EUROPE and spiral design.

 

It should first be noted that 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.  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)).

 

In the present case, it is the wording in the applied-for mark and U.S. Registration Nos. 2311266 and 5093348 that is dominant over the simple design elements.  Not only is wording in general dominant over designs, but certain wording can be considered more dominant than others.  Consumers are generally more inclined to focus on the first word, prefix, or syllable in any trademark or service mark.  See Palm Bay Imps., Inc. v. Veuve Clicquot Ponsardin Maison Fondee En 1772, 396 F.3d 1369, 1372, 73 USPQ2d 1689, 1692 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (finding similarity between VEUVE ROYALE and two VEUVE CLICQUOT marks in part because “VEUVE . . . remains a ‘prominent feature’ as the first word in the mark and the first word to appear on the label”); Century 21 Real Estate Corp. v. Century Life of Am., 970 F.2d 874, 876, 23 USPQ2d 1698, 1700 (Fed Cir. 1992) (finding similarity between CENTURY 21 and CENTURY LIFE OF AMERICA in part because “consumers must first notice th[e] identical lead word”); see also In re Detroit Athletic Co., 903 F.3d 1297, 1303, 128 USPQ2d 1047, 1049 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (finding “the identity of the marks’ two initial words is particularly significant because consumers typically notice those words first”).

 

With regard to U.S. Registration No. 5093348, the letters “CME” is first in the mark, and is thus considered dominant over “MACHINERY EUROPE.”  The applied-for mark is identical in the entirety to the wording in U.S. Registration Nos. 0725333 and 2311266, and identical to the dominant portion in U.S. Registration No. 5093348.  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).

 

Therefore, the marks are all identical in part, and highly similar in terms of connotation and overall commercial impression.

 

Similarity of the Goods

 

The goods are compared to determine whether they are similar, commercially related, or travel in the same trade channels.  See Coach Servs., Inc. v. Triumph Learning LLC, 668 F.3d 1356, 1369-71, 101 USPQ2d 1713, 1722-23 (Fed. Cir. 2012); Herbko Int’l, Inc. v. Kappa Books, Inc., 308 F.3d 1156, 1165, 64 USPQ2d 1375, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2002); TMEP §§1207.01, 1207.01(a)(vi).

 

The compared goods 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).

 

Applicant has identified “Grinding machines for sharpening tungsten carbide machine tools, tungsten carbide buttons on drill bits for percussive or rotary rock drilling, tunnel boring machine cutters and raised bore machine cutters; machine parts, namely, grinding cups for detachable connection to a grinding machine for sharpening tungsten carbide buttons on rock drill bits, tunnel boring machine cutters and raised bore machine cutters” in International Class 7.  The mark in U.S. Registration No. 0725333 is for “Bits, Augers, Drill Heads, Shanks, Sockets, and Fishing Tools” in International Class 23.  The mark in U.S. Registration No. 2311266 is for “Universal milling machines, production milling machines, and precision milling machines with numeric control inc milling machines with mobile soleplate, and milling machines with mobile column and framework” in International Class 7.  The mark in U.S. Registration No. 5093348 is for “Machines and machine tools for industrial use as well as parts and accessories thereof, namely, industrial machine presses, milling cutters, milling machines; heads being internal combustion engine parts” in International Class 7.

 

Where evidence shows that the goods at issue have complementary uses, and thus are often used together or otherwise purchased by the same purchasers for the same or related purposes, such goods have generally been found to be sufficiently related such that confusion would be likely if they are marketed under the same or similar marks.  See In re Toshiba Med. Sys. Corp., 91 USPQ2d 1266, 1272 (TTAB 2009) (holding medical MRI diagnostic apparatus and medical ultrasound devices to be related, based in part on the fact that such goods have complementary purposes because they may be used by the same medical personnel on the same patients to treat the same disease); Polo Fashions, Inc. v. La Loren, Inc., 224 USPQ 509, 511 (TTAB 1984) (holding bath sponges and personal products, such as bath oil, soap, and body lotion, to be related because they are complementary goods that are likely to be purchased and used together by the same purchasers). 

 

The attached Internet evidence, consisting of website screenshot from grinding and milling machinery manufacturers, establishes that the relevant goods are sold or provided through the same trade channels and used by the same classes of consumers in the same fields of use, and thus the goods are similar or complementary in terms of purpose or function.  Thus, applicant’s and registrants’ 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).

 

Summary

 

In sum, applicant’s mark is identical in part and highly similar in connotation and overall commercial impression to each of the registered marks.  In addition, applicant’s goods are similar to the goods identified in the registrations.  Thus, it is likely consumers will mistakenly believe the goods emanate from the same source.  The overriding concern is not only to prevent buyer confusion as to the source of the goods, 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).

 

Accordingly, registration is refused pursuant to Section 2(d) of the Trademark Act.

 

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

 

If applicant responds to the refusals, applicant must also respond to the requirements set forth below.

 

DRAWING OF THE MARK

 

The drawing is not acceptable because the digitized image of the mark is unclear and does not show all aspects of the mark in sufficient detail.  See TMEP §807.04(a).  A clear drawing of the mark is an application requirement.  37 C.F.R. §2.52. 

 

Therefore, applicant must submit a new drawing showing a clear depiction of the mark.  All lines must be clean, sharp and solid, and not fine or crowded.  37 C.F.R. §§2.53(c), 2.54(e); TMEP §§807.05(c), 807.06(a).  Additionally, the USPTO will not accept a new drawing in which there are amendments or changes that would materially alter the applied-for mark.  37 C.F.R. §2.72; see TMEP §§807.13 et seq., 807.14 et seq.

 

For more information about drawings and instructions on how to submit a drawing, see the Drawing webpage.

 

IDENTIFICATION OF GOODS

 

The wording “buttons” in the identification of goods is indefinite and must be clarified because it is not clear what these goods actually are.  See 37 C.F.R. §2.32(a)(6); TMEP §1402.01. 

 

Applicant should note that any wording in bold, in italics, underlined and/or in ALL CAPS below offers guidance and/or shows the changes being proposed for the identification of goods.  If there is wording in the applicant’s version of the identification of goods which should be removed, it will be shown with a line through it such as this: strikethrough.  When making its amendments, applicant should enter them in standard font, not in bold, in italics, underlined and/or in ALL CAPS.

 

Applicant may substitute the following wording, if accurate:

 

International Class 7:  Grinding machines for sharpening tungsten carbide machine tools, tungsten carbide buttons IN THE NATURE OF _____________ {specify common commercial name} on drill bits for percussive or rotary rock drilling, tunnel boring machine cutters and raised bore machine cutters; machine parts, namely, grinding cups for detachable connection to a grinding machine for sharpening tungsten carbide buttons on rock drill bits, tunnel boring machine cutters and raised bore machine cutters

 

Applicant’s goods may be clarified or limited, but may not be expanded beyond those originally itemized in the U.S. 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 or add goods not found in or encompassed by those in the original U.S. application or as acceptably amended.  See TMEP §1402.06(a)-(b).  The scope of the goods 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 will further limit scope, and once goods are deleted, they are not permitted to be reinserted.  TMEP §1402.07(e).  Additionally, for U.S. applications filed under Trademark Act Section 44(e), the scope of the identification for purposes of permissible amendments may not exceed the scope of the goods identified in the foreign registration.  37 C.F.R. §2.32(a)(6); Marmark, Ltd. v. Nutrexpa, S.A., 12 USPQ2d 1843, 1845 (TTAB 1989) (citing In re Löwenbräu München, 175 USPQ 178, 181 (TTAB 1972)); TMEP §§1012, 1402.01(b).

 

For assistance with identifying and classifying goods in trademark applications, please see the USPTO’s online searchable U.S. Acceptable Identification of Goods and Services Manual.  See TMEP §1402.04.

 

RESPONSE GUIDELINES

 

For this application to proceed, applicant must explicitly address each refusal and 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.

 

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 refusals and requirements 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. 

 

On August 3, 2019, changes to the federal trademark regulations will become effective that require trademark applicants, registrants, and parties to Trademark Trial and Appeal Board proceedings who are foreign-domiciled (have a permanent legal residence or a principal place of business outside of the United States), including Canadian filers, to have an attorney who is licensed to practice law in the United States represent them at the USPTO. In addition, U.S.-licensed attorneys representing a trademark applicant, registrant, or party will generally be required to provide their bar membership information, a statement attesting to their good standing in that bar, and their postal/email addresses in trademark-related submissions.  All U.S.-licensed attorneys who practice before the USPTO are subject to the rules in 37 C.F.R. Part 11 governing representation of others, including the USPTO’s Rules of Professional Conduct. 

 

These changes are being made to increase customer compliance with federal trademark law, improve the accuracy of trademark submissions to the USPTO, and safeguard the integrity of the U.S. trademark register.  See the U.S. Counsel Rule change webpage 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.  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  

 

Cameron McBride

/Cameron McBride/

Examining Attorney - Trademarks

Law Office 106

(571) 272-0542

Cameron.McBride@USPTO.gov

 

RESPONSE GUIDANCE

• Missing the response deadline to this letter will cause the application to abandon.  A response or notice of appeal must be received by the USPTO before midnight Eastern Time of the last day of the response period.  TEAS and ESTTA maintenance or unforeseen circumstances could affect an applicant’s ability to timely respond.  

 

• Responses signed by an unauthorized party are not accepted and can cause the application to abandon.  If applicant does not have an attorney, the response must be signed by the individual applicant, all joint applicants, or someone with legal authority to bind a juristic applicant.  If applicant has an attorney, the response must be signed by the attorney.

 

• If needed, find contact information for the supervisor of the office or unit listed in the signature block.

 

United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO)

 

USPTO OFFICIAL NOTICE

 

Office Action (Official Letter) has issued

on July 29, 2019 for

U.S. Trademark Application Serial No. 88408671

 

Your trademark application has been reviewed by a trademark examining attorney.  As part of that review, the assigned attorney has issued an official letter that you must respond to by the specified deadline or your application will be abandoned.  Please follow the steps below.

 

(1)  Read the official letter.

 

(2)  Direct questions about the contents of the Office action to the assigned attorney below. 

 

 

Cameron McBride

/Cameron McBride/

Examining Attorney - Trademarks

Law Office 106

(571) 272-0542

Cameron.McBride@USPTO.gov

 

Direct questions about navigating USPTO electronic forms, the USPTO website, the application process, the status of your application, and/or whether there are outstanding deadlines or documents related to your file to the Trademark Assistance Center (TAC).

 

(3)  Respond within 6 months (or earlier, if required in the Office action) from July 29, 2019, using the Trademark Electronic Application System (TEAS).  The response must be received by the USPTO before midnight Eastern Time of the last day of the response period.  See the Office action for more information about how to respond.

 

 

 

GENERAL GUIDANCE

·         Check the status of your application periodically in the Trademark Status & Document Retrieval (TSDR) database to avoid missing critical deadlines.

 

·         Update your correspondence email address, if needed, to ensure you receive important USPTO notices about your application.

 

·         Beware of misleading notices sent by private companies about your application.  Private companies not associated with the USPTO use public information available in trademark registrations to mail and email trademark-related offers and notices – most of which require fees.  All official USPTO correspondence will only be emailed from the domain “@uspto.gov.”