To: | JADE GLOBAL, INC. (flgdocketing@fountainheadlaw.com) |
Subject: | U.S. Trademark Application Serial No. 88459205 - KANVERSE - 154-900200US |
Sent: | August 24, 2019 05:01:22 PM |
Sent As: | ecom126@uspto.gov |
Attachments: | Attachment - 1 Attachment - 2 Attachment - 3 Attachment - 4 Attachment - 5 |
United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO)
Office Action (Official Letter) About Applicant’s Trademark Application
U.S. Application Serial No. 88459205
Mark: KANVERSE
|
|
Correspondence Address: |
|
Applicant: JADE GLOBAL, INC.
|
|
Reference/Docket No. 154-900200US
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: August 24, 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.
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. 5119415. Trademark Act Section 2(d), 15 U.S.C. §1052(d); see TMEP §§1207.01 et seq. See the attached registration.
Applicant’s mark is “KANVERSE”, presented in standard character form, for use in connection with the following goods and services:
International Class 9: Software programs and application software for mobile devices, computers, laptops, and tablets, namely, computer software using machine learning and artificial intelligence for use in access, integration, and analysis of enterprise data; software programs and application software for mobile devices, computers, laptops, and tablets, namely, computer software using machine learning and artificial intelligence to enable interoperation among various computing systems and data storage systems in an enterprise; software programs and application software for mobile devices, computers, laptops, and tablets, namely, computer software using machine learning and artificial intelligence to perform tasks in an enterprise
International Class 42: Software services featuring software to facilitate access to enterprise data, and integration and analysis of enterprise data; software services featuring software to enable interoperation between an autonomous program (bot) and computer systems in an enterprise; software services featuring software to facilitate performing tasks in an enterprise
Registrant’s mark is “KONVERSE”, presented in standard character form, for use in connection with the following services:
International Class 9: software for personal computers, mobile phones and other mobile devices for use in collaboration on projects, providing multi-party access to documents, emails, videos, data, files and other electronic information, for monitoring, creating and maintaining records of work performed, project management, sending and receiving electronic messages and for connecting participants with each other
International Class 42: on-line non-downloadable software for use in collaboration on projects, providing multi-party access to documents, emails, videos, data, files and other electronic information, for monitoring, creating and maintaining records of work performed, project management, sending and receiving electronic messages and for connecting participants with each other
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.
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).
In this case, the marks “KONVERSE” and “KANVERSE” are similar in appearance, sound and commercial impression. The only difference in the marks is the difference in spelling in that registrant’s mark is spelled with an “O” and applicant’s mark is spelled with an “A”, which does not obviate the similarity between the marks because the marks are essentially phonetic equivalents and thus sound similar. Similarity in sound alone may be sufficient to support a finding that the marks are confusingly similar. In re White Swan Ltd., 8 USPQ2d 1534, 1535 (TTAB 1988); see In re 1st USA Realty Prof’ls, Inc., 84 USPQ2d 1581, 1586 (TTAB 2007); TMEP §1207.01(b)(iv). Therefore, considered in their entireties, the marks convey highly similar overall commercial impressions due to their similarity in appearance and sound.
As such, the marks are confusingly similar pursuant to Section 2(d) of the Trademark Act.
Similarity of the Goods and Services
The goods and/or 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).
Determining likelihood of confusion is based on the description of the goods and/or services stated in the application and registration at issue, not on evidence of actual use. See Stone Lion Capital Partners, LP v. Lion Capital LLP, 746 F.3d 1317, 1323, 110 USPQ2d 1157, 1162 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (quoting Octocom Sys. Inc. v. Hous. Computers Servs. Inc., 918 F.2d 937, 942, 16 USPQ2d 1783, 1787 (Fed. Cir. 1990)).
In this case, applicant and registrant are both providing downloadable software goods and non-downloadable software services with functions that overlap. Specifically, applicant’s broadly worded function to “perform tasks in an enterprise” encompasses the function of registrant’s software which is to “for use in collaboration on projects, providing multi-party access to documents, emails, videos, data, files and other electronic information, for monitoring, creating and maintaining records of work performed, project management, sending and receiving electronic messages and for connecting participants with each other”. 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 and 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.
Accordingly, as currently identified, the parties’ services are either identical, overlapping or highly related, and therefore considered related for purposes of likelihood of confusion analysis. In view of the foregoing, the application must be refused registration pursuant to Section 2(d) of the Trademark Act.
The USPTO requires such specificity in order for a trademark examining attorney to examine the application properly and make appropriate decisions concerning possible conflicts between the applicant’s mark and other marks. See In re N.A.D. Inc., 57 USPQ2d 1872, 1874 (TTAB 2000); TMEP §1402.03(d).
The following are examples of acceptable identifications in International Class 9: “recorded desktop publishing software” and “downloadable mobile applications for managing bank accounts.” Additionally, the following are acceptable identifications in International Class 41: “providing online non-downloadable game software” and “providing temporary use of non-downloadable game software.” Finally, the following are acceptable identifications in International Class 42: “providing temporary use of on-line non-downloadable software development tools” and “providing temporary use of non-downloadable cloud-based software for calculating energy costs.”
Applicant may adopt the following identification, if accurate (additions are shown in bold, comments are in bold italics):
International Class 9: Downloadable software programs and application software for mobile devices, computers, laptops, and tablets, namely, downloadable computer software using machine learning and artificial intelligence for use providing access, integration, and analysis of enterprise data; Downloadable software programs and application software for mobile devices, computers, laptops, and tablets, namely, downloadable computer software using machine learning and artificial intelligence to enable interoperation among various computing systems and data storage systems in an enterprise; Downloadable software programs and application software for mobile devices, computers, laptops, and tablets, namely, downloadable computer software using machine learning and artificial intelligence to perform tasks in an enterprise.
International Class 42: Software as a service (SAAS) services featuring software to facilitate access to enterprise data, and integration and analysis of enterprise data; Software as a service (SAAS) services featuring software to enable interoperation between an autonomous program (bot) and computer systems in an enterprise; Software as a service (SAAS) services featuring software to facilitate performing tasks in an enterprise
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.
RESPONSE GUIDELINES
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
Portaro, Alexandra
/Alexandra Portaro/
Trademark Examining Attorney
Law Office 126
(571) 270-3924
Alexandra.portaro@uspto.gov
RESPONSE GUIDANCE