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:  August 27, 2019

 

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

 

• Prior-Filed Application
• Section 2(d) Refusal – Likelihood of Confusion
• Amendment Required – Identification of Services
• Multiple-Class Application Requirement

 

 

I.                PRIOR-FILED APPLICATION

 

The filing date of pending U.S. Application Serial No. 88428822 precedes applicant’s filing date.  See attached referenced application.  If the mark in the referenced application registers, applicant’s mark may be refused registration under Trademark Act Section 2(d) because of a likelihood of confusion between the two marks.  See 15 U.S.C. §1052(d); 37 C.F.R. §2.83; TMEP §§1208 et seq.  Therefore, upon receipt of applicant’s response to this Office action, action on this application may be suspended pending final disposition of the earlier-filed referenced application.

 

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 mark in the referenced application.  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.

 

 

II.              SECTION 2(d) REFUSAL – LIKELIHOOD OF CONFUSION

 

Registration of the applied-for mark is refused because of a likelihood of confusion with the mark in U.S. Registration No. 2149441.  Trademark Act Section 2(d), 15 U.S.C. §1052(d); see TMEP §§1207.01 et seq.  See the attached registration.

 

The Marks

 

The applied-for mark is TILL, in standard characters, for “financial services; financial services, namely, payment collection, payment transactions and information processing, electronic transfer of funds; electronic payment services; processing electronic payments made through prepaid cards; bill payment services provided through a website; providing an online portal featuring payment collection, payment transactions and information processing, financial remittance, transfer of funds to make payments, providing electronic processing of electronic funds transfer, ACH, credit card, debit card, electronic check and electronic, mobile and online payments” in International Class 36.

 

The registered mark is TIL 24, in standard characters, for “telephone banking services” in International Class 36.

 

Likelihood of Confusion Analysis

 

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.  Each of these factors is addressed in the sections below.

 

Similarity of the Marks

 

The applied-for mark TILL is confusingly similar to the registered mark TIL 24, which weighs in favor of a 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).

 

When comparing marks, “[t]he proper test is not a side-by-side comparison of the marks, but instead whether the marks are sufficiently similar in terms of their commercial impression such that [consumers] who encounter the marks would be likely to assume a connection between the parties.”  Cai v. Diamond Hong, Inc., 901 F.3d 1367, 1373, 127 USPQ2d 1797, 1801 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (quoting Coach Servs., Inc. v. Triumph Learning LLC, 668 F.3d 1356, 1368, 101 USPQ2d 1713, 1721 (Fed. Cir. 2012)); TMEP §1207.01(b).  The proper focus is on the recollection of the average purchaser, who retains a general rather than specific impression of trademarks.  In re Inn at St. John’s, LLC, 126 USPQ2d 1742, 1746 (TTAB 2018) (citing In re St. Helena Hosp., 774 F.3d 747, 750-51, 113 USPQ2d 1082, 1085 (Fed. Cir. 2014); Geigy Chem. Corp. v. Atlas Chem. Indus., Inc., 438 F.2d 1005, 1007, 169 USPQ 39, 40 (CCPA 1971)); TMEP §1207.01(b).

 

The applied-for mark TILL is similar to the registered mark TIL 24 because they both begin with phonetically equivalent variations of the word “till”.  The applied-for mark differs from the registered mark in that it omits the numeral 24, however this omission fails to significantly distinguish the marks in this case.  The attached evidence from the American Heritage dictionary shows that the terms TILL and TIL may be pronounced identically.  Any difference in sound created by omitting the numeral 24 from the applied for mark would therefore be only slight, and slight differences in the sound of similar marks will not avoid a likelihood of confusion.  In re Energy Telecomm. & Elec. Ass’n, 222 USPQ 350, 351 (TTAB 1983); see In re Viterra Inc., 671 F.3d 1358, 1367, 101 USPQ2d 1905, 1912 (Fed. Cir. 2012). 

 

The marks TILL and TIL 24 are also similar in appearance, because they both contain a variation on the term “till”.  Marks may be confusingly similar in appearance where similar terms or parts of terms 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).

 

The numeral 24 in the registered mark also fails to significantly distinguish it from the applied-for mark in this case, because the term TIL is the dominant portion of the registered mark.  The term TIL is the dominant portion of the registered mark because it is the first term in the mark.  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”).

 

The marks TILL and TIL 24 are similar, and consumers who encounter the marks used in connection with similar or related services are likely to be confused as to the source of those services.  The amount of mark similarity required to support a likelihood of confusion determination is also lower when the parties’ services are “similar in kind and/or closely related” than when they are diverse.  In re J.M. Originals Inc., 6 USPQ2d 1393, 1394 (TTAB 1987); see Shen Mfg. Co. v. Ritz Hotel Ltd., 393 F.3d 1238, 1242, 73 USPQ2d 1350, 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2004); TMEP §1207.01(b).

 

Relatedness of the Services

 

Applicant’s services are related to registrant’s “telephone banking services”, which weighs in favor of a likelihood of confusion.

 

The services 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).  Likelihood of confusion is based on the description of the services stated in the application and registration at issue, not on extrinsic evidence of actual use.  See In re Detroit Athletic Co., 903 F.3d 1297, 1307, 128 USPQ2d 1047, 1052 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (citing In re i.am.symbolic, llc, 866 F.3d 1315, 1325, 123 USPQ2d 1744, 1749 (Fed. Cir. 2017)).  

 

The application uses broad wording to describe “financial services”, which presumably encompasses all services of the type described, including registrant’s more narrow “telephone banking 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).  The registration uses similarly broad language to describe “telephone banking services”, which presumably include all services of that type, including “financial services, namely, payment collection, payment transactions and information processing, electronic transfer of funds; electronic payment services; processing electronic payments made through prepaid cards” provided by telephone.  The parties’ overlapping services are thus 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)).  The parties’ services have, moreover, 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)).  Applicant’s and registrant’s overlapping services are thus related.

 

Applicant’s services are also related to registrant’s “telephone banking services” because of the way these services are marketed and sold.  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 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).

 

The attached evidence from TD.com, BankatUnited.com, and FNB-Online.com shows that applicant’s services, namely “financial services; financial services, namely, payment collection, payment transactions and information processing, electronic transfer of funds; electronic payment services; processing electronic payments made through prepaid cards; bill payment services provided through a website; providing an online portal featuring payment collection, payment transactions and information processing, financial remittance, transfer of funds to make payments, providing electronic processing of electronic funds transfer, ACH, credit card, debit card, electronic check and electronic, mobile and online payments”, are commonly marketed and sold from the same sources, under the same brands or marks, as “telephone banking services.”  United Bank, for example, markets and sells a wide variety of financial and banking services, e.g. “bill payment services provided through a website”, as well as “telephone banking services”, all under the United Bank brand name.

 

Applicant’s services are, in light of the foregoing, related to registrant’s “telephone banking services” for likelihood of confusion purposes.

 

Conclusion

 

The marks TILL and TIL 24 are confusingly similar, when those marks are considered in their entireties, despite slight differences in spelling, and an additional numeral in the registered mark.  Applicant’s services are also related to the services identified in the registration.  Registration for the applied-for mark is therefore refused under Section 2(d) of the Trademark Act because of a likelihood of confusion with the mark in U.S. Registration No. 2149441.

 

 

III.            AMENDMENT REQUIRED – IDENTIFICATION OF SERVICES

 

Applicant must amend the identification of services in International Class 36 for the reasons stated below.

 

Indefinite and Overbroad Wording in Identification

 

The wording “financial services” in the identification of services is indefinite and must be clarified because it does not specify particular services in the class, e.g. “banking”.  See 37 C.F.R. §2.32(a)(6); TMEP §1402.01.  

 

Applicant must clarify the wording “financial services, namely…information processing” in the identification of services in International Class 36 because it is indefinite and too broad.  See 37 C.F.R. §2.32(a)(6); TMEP §§1402.01, 1402.03.  This wording is indefinite because it does not specify the particular type of information, e.g. “financial.”  Further, this wording could identify services in more than one international class.  For example, “compiling of information into computer databases” is in International Class 35, while “financial information processing” is in International Class 36.

 

The wording “providing an online portal featuring payment collection, payment transactions and information processing, financial remittance, transfer of funds to make payments, providing electronic processing of electronic funds transfer, ACH, credit card, debit card, electronic check and electronic, mobile and online payments” in the identification of services is indefinite and must be clarified because it does not make clear the informational subject matter of the “portal”, the meaning of “ACH” is unclear, and the entry “electronic check and electronic” does not clearly identify particular subject matter belonging in International Class 36, e.g. “electronic banking.”  See 37 C.F.R. §2.32(a)(6); TMEP §1402.01.  Please note that providing an online portal is an informational service classified according to the subject matter of the information, which differs from the provision of particular services provided via a website, e.g. “automated clearing house transaction processing services provided via a website.”

 

Suggested Wording for Identification

 

Applicant may substitute the following wording, if accurate (note that added text is indicated with bold type, deleted text is indicated with a strike through, and suggested text is indicated with braces):

 

“Information processing, namely, compiling of information into computer databases” in International Class 35.

 

“Financial services, namely, {specify particular services in the class, e.g. “banking”}; financial services, namely, payment collection, payment transactions processing and financial information processing, electronic transfer of funds; electronic payment services, namely, {specify particular services in the class, e.g. “involving electronic processing and subsequent transmission of bill payment data”}; processing electronic payments made through prepaid cards; bill payment services provided through a website; providing an online portal featuring information in the fields of payment collection, payment transactions processing and financial information processing, financial remittance, transfer of funds to make payments, providing electronic processing of electronic funds transfer, automated clearing houseACH, credit cards, debit cards, electronic check and electronic {clarify subject matter, e.g. “banking”}, mobile and online payments” in International Class 36.

 

Applicant will be required to add International Class 35 should it choose to adopt the above suggested wording.  The fee for adding classes to a TEAS Reduced Fee (RF) application is $275 per class.  See 37 C.F.R. §§2.6(a)(1) et seq., 2.23(a).  See more information regarding the requirements for maintaining the lower TEAS RF fee and, if these requirements are not satisfied, for adding classes at a higher fee using regular TEAS.

 

Advisories – ID Manual and Scope of Amendments

 

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.

 

Applicant may amend the identification to clarify or limit the services, but not to broaden or expand the 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 services may not later be reinserted.  See TMEP §1402.07(e).

 

 

IV.            MULTIPLE-CLASS APPLICATION REQUIREMENTS

 

The application identifies services in more than one international class; therefore, applicant must satisfy all the requirements below for each international class based on Trademark Act Section 1(b):

 

(1)       List the 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 already paid (view the USPTO’s current fee schedule).  The application identifies services that are classified in at least two classes; however, applicant submitted a fee sufficient for only one class.  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 Section 1(b) multiple-class application and how to satisfy the requirements online using the Trademark Electronic Application System (TEAS) form.

 

 

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.

 

• 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.

 

Click HERE to file a response to this non-final Office action

 

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.  

 

/Carl A. Konschak/

Carl A. Konschak, Esq.

Examining Attorney

Law Office 126

(571) 270-3878

carl.konschak@uspto.gov

 

 

 

United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO)

 

USPTO OFFICIAL NOTICE

 

Office Action (Official Letter) has issued

on August 27, 2019 for

U.S. Trademark Application Serial No. 88452658

 

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. 

 

 

/Carl A. Konschak/

Carl A. Konschak, Esq.

Examining Attorney

Law Office 126

(571) 270-3878

carl.konschak@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 August 27, 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.”