To: | Energy Saving Products Ltd. (Docketclerk@bbpatlaw.com) |
Subject: | U.S. Trademark Application Serial No. 88452739 - ESP - N/A |
Sent: | March 20, 2020 01:58:08 PM |
Sent As: | ecom103@uspto.gov |
Attachments: |
United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO)
Office Action (Official Letter) About Applicant’s Trademark Application
U.S. Application Serial No. 88452739
Mark: ESP
|
|
Correspondence Address: |
|
Applicant: Energy Saving Products Ltd.
|
|
Reference/Docket No. N/A
Correspondence Email Address: |
|
SUSPENSION NOTICE
No Response Required
Issue date: March 20, 2020
The application is suspended for the reason(s) specified below. See 37 C.F.R. §2.67; TMEP §§716 et seq.
The pending application(s) below has an earlier filing date or effective filing date than applicant’s application. If the mark in the application(s) below registers, the USPTO may refuse registration of applicant’s mark under Section 2(d) because of a likelihood of confusion with the registered mark(s). 15 U.S.C. §1052(d); see 37 C.F.R. §2.83; TMEP §§1208.02(c). Action on this application is suspended until the prior-filed application(s) below either registers or abandons. 37 C.F.R. §2.83(c). Information relevant to the application(s) below was sent previously.
- U.S. Application Serial No(s). 1981981, 4200656 and 4200657
Suspension process. The USPTO will periodically check this application to determine if it should remain suspended. See TMEP §716.04. As needed, the trademark examining attorney will issue a letter to applicant to inquire about the status of the reason for the suspension. TMEP §716.05.
No response required. Applicant may file a response, but is not required to do so.
The refusal to register on the ground of likelihood of confusion is maintained and continued: the requirement for an acceptable identification of good is maintained and continued; the color claim statement is accepted.
LIKELIHOOD OF CONFUSION REFUSAL MAINTAINED AND CONTINUED
Applicant contends that the registered marks are not confusingly similar on the ground that the respective uses of ESP and E.S.P. have different meanings. However, the different meaning are not clear from the marks and therefore consumers could clearly believe that the respective uses of ESP and E.S.P. have the same meaning.
Further, 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)).
ACCEPTABLE IDENTIFICATION OF GOODS AND SERVICES
CLASS 6: Ventilating ducts of metal
CLASS 11: Heating installations, air conditioners, ventilating fans for [indicate specific use, i.e. household use, industrial purposes], air purification units, heating coils, cooling coils, inverter gas condensers for air conditioners
CLASS 19: non-metal ventilating ducts
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 MULTIPLE CLASS 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(s) sufficient for only 1 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 37 C.F.R. §2.86(a); TMEP §§1403.01, 1403.02(c).
For an overview of the requirements for a Section 44 multiple-class application and how to satisfy the requirements online using the Trademark Electronic Application System (TEAS) form, see the Multiple-class Application webpage.
/Mark Sparacino/
Trademark Attorney
US Patent and Trademark Office
Law Office 103
571-272-9708
Mark.Sparacino@uspto.gov