To: | Intel Corporation (RSinteldocket@reedsmith.com) |
Subject: | U.S. Trademark Application Serial No. 88462665 - EASIC - 18-20096-US |
Sent: | September 03, 2019 11:36:10 AM |
Sent As: | ecom117@uspto.gov |
Attachments: | Attachment - 1 Attachment - 2 Attachment - 3 Attachment - 4 Attachment - 5 Attachment - 6 Attachment - 7 Attachment - 8 |
United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO)
Office Action (Official Letter) About Applicant’s Trademark Application
U.S. Application Serial No. 88462665
Mark: EASIC
|
|
Correspondence Address: KATHERINE M. BASILE AND JASON E. GARCIA
|
|
Applicant: Intel Corporation
|
|
Reference/Docket No. 18-20096-US
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: September 03, 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.
SECTION 2(d) REFUSAL – LIKELIHOOD OF CONFUSION
Applicant’s mark is “EASIC” (in standard character form) for “integrated circuits and semiconductors; programmable integrated circuits; integrated circuit layouts; computer software for use in customizing integrated circuits and in manufacturing customized integrated circuits”.
Registrant’s mark is “EASIC” (also in standard character form) for “computer software for use in customizing integrated circuits and in manufacturing customized integrated circuits, integrated circuits and Integrated circuit layouts”.
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
In the present case, applicant’s mark is “EASIC” and registrant’s mark is “EASIC”. These marks are identical in appearance, sound, and meaning, “and have the potential to be used . . . in exactly the same manner.” In re i.am.symbolic, llc, 116 USPQ2d 1406, 1411 (TTAB 2015), aff’d, 866 F.3d 1315, 123 USPQ2d 1744 (Fed. Cir. 2017). Additionally, because they are identical, these marks are likely to engender the same connotation and overall commercial impression when considered in connection with applicant’s and registrant’s respective goods. Id.
Therefore, the marks are confusingly similar.
Relatedness of the Goods
A likelihood of confusion also exists because the goods of the parties are legally related. Applicant offers computer software, integrated circuits, integrated circuit layouts, and semiconductors. Registrant offers computer software.
In this case, the goods in the application and registration are identical as they relate to “computer software for use in customizing integrated circuits and in manufacturing customized integrated circuits”. Therefore, it is presumed that the channels of trade and class(es) of purchasers are the same for these goods. See Cai v. Diamond Hong, Inc., __ F.3d __, 27 USPQ2d 1797, 1801 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (quoting In re Viterra Inc., 671 F.3d 1358, 1362, 101 USPQ2d 1905, 1908 (Fed. Cir. 2012)). Thus, these goods of the applicant and registrant are related.
In the present case, the applicant’s integrated circuits and integrated circuit layouts and registrant’s computer software goods are complementary in use because registrant’s computer software goods are specifically for customizing and manufacturing integrated circuits and integrated circuit layouts. Additionally, applicant’s semiconductors include integrated circuits because an integrated circuit is a type of semiconductor. See http://whatis.techtarget.com/definition/integrated-circuit-IC (Defining an integrated circuit as a semiconductor wafer). Thus, applicant’s semiconductor goods are broad enough to include the type of goods that registrant’s computer software goods function to customize and manufacture. Therefore, registrant’s computer software goods and applicant’s semiconductor goods also have complementary uses. Accordingly, these goods of the applicant and registrant are also considered related for likelihood of confusion purposes.
Conclusion
Therefore, consumers who are familiar with the registrant’s computer software offered in connection with the mark “EASIC”, upon encountering applicant’s computer software, circuits, semiconductors and circuit layouts offered in connection with the mark “EASIC”, are likely to be confused and believe that the goods originate from the same source. As a result, registration is refused under Section 2(d) of the Trademark Act.
ADVISORY – OWNERSHIP OF CITED REGISTRATION
(1) Record the assignment with the USPTO’s Assignment Recordation Branch (ownership transfer documents such as assignments can be filed online at http://etas.uspto.gov) and promptly notify the trademark examining attorney that the assignment has been duly recorded.
(2) Submit copies of documents evidencing the chain of title.
(3) Submit the following statement, verified with an affidavit or signed declaration under 37 C.F.R. §2.20: “Applicant is the owner of U.S. Registration No. 2459384.” To provide this statement using the Trademark Electronic Application System (TEAS), use the “Response to Office Action” form; answer “yes” to wizard questions #3 and #10; then, continuing on to the next portion of the form, in the “Additional Statement(s)” section, find “Active Prior Registration(s)” and insert the U.S. registration numbers in the data fields; and follow the instructions within the form for signing. The form must be signed twice; a signature is required both in the “Declaration Signature” section and in the “Response Signature” section.
TMEP §812.01; see 15 U.S.C. §1060; 37 C.F.R. §§2.193(e)(1), 3.25, 3.73(a)-(b); TMEP §502.02(a).
Recording a document with the Assignment Recordation Branch does not constitute a response to an Office action. TMEP §503.01(d).
Although applicant’s mark has been refused registration, applicant may respond to the refusal(s) by submitting evidence and arguments in support of registration. However, if applicant responds to the refusal(s), applicant must also respond to the requirement(s) set forth below.
REQUIREMENT – AMEND IDENTIFICATION OF GOODS
For the reasons set forth below, specific wording in the identification of goods is unacceptable as indefinite and must be clarified. See 37 C.F.R. §2.32(a)(6); TMEP §1402.01.
The wording “computer software for use in customizing integrated circuits and in manufacturing customized integrated circuits” is indefinite and must be clarified because the nature of the goods remains unclear. See 37 C.F.R. §2.32(a)(6); TMEP §1402.01. Computer software must be specified as “downloadable” and/or “recorded” to clarify the nature of the goods. Thus, applicant must amend the identification to further clarify the nature of the goods.
Applicant may adopt the following wording, specified in bold, if accurate:
International Class 9: Integrated circuits and semiconductors; programmable integrated circuits; integrated circuit layouts; [clarify the nature of the goods, e.g., downloadable] computer software for use in customizing integrated circuits and in manufacturing customized integrated circuits.
Scope Advisory
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.
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.
ASSISTANCE
How to respond. Click to file a response to this nonfinal Office action
Rhoda Nkojo
Examining Attorney
Law Office 117
(571) 272-8468
Rhoda.Nkojo@uspto.gov
RESPONSE GUIDANCE