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:  September 04, 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) LIKELIHOOD OF CONFUSION REFUSAL
• PRIOR-FILED PENDING APPLICATION – NOT ENTITLED TO REGISTER
• INDEFINITE AND OVERLY BROAD IDENTIFICATION OF GOODS AND SERVICES – AMENDMENT REQUIRED
• CLARIFICATION REQUIRED REGARDING THE NUMBER OF CLASSES FOR WHICH REGISTRATION IS SOUGHT
• CLARIFICATION REGARDING DRAWING REQUIRED

 

SECTION 2(d) LIKELIHOOD OF CONFUSION REFUSAL

 

The stated refusal refers to International Class 44 only and does not bar registration in the other class.

 

Registration of the applied-for mark is refused because of a likelihood of confusion with the marks in U.S. Registration Nos. 5561304, 5243643, and 5243641.  Trademark Act Section 2(d), 15 U.S.C. §1052(d); see TMEP §§1207.01 et seq.  See the attached registrations.

 

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.

 

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).

 

Here, the marks are highly similar because the marks contain the identical dominant word LIFEGUARD, which is identical in appearance, sound, and commercial impression.

 

That the marks begin with the same word is particularly important because 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”).

 

Additionally, although marks are compared in their entireties, one feature of a mark may be more significant or dominant in creating a commercial impression.  See In re Detroit Athletic Co., 903 F.3d 1297, 1305, 128 USPQ2d 1047, 1050 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (citing In re Dixie Rests., 105 F.3d 1405, 1407, 41 USPQ2d 1531, 1533-34 (Fed. Cir. 1997)); TMEP §1207.01(b)(viii), (c)(ii).  Matter that is descriptive of or generic for a party’s services is typically less significant or less dominant in relation to other wording in a mark.  See Anheuser-Busch, LLC v. Innvopak Sys. Pty Ltd., 115 USPQ2d 1816, 1824-25 (TTAB 2015) (citing In re Chatam Int’l Inc., 380 F.3d 1340, 1342-43, 71 USPQ2d 1944, 1946 (Fed. Cir. 2004)).

 

In the present case, the wording URGENT CARE and AMBULANCE SERIVCES in the registered marks are merely descriptive of registrants’ services.  Thus, this wording is less significant in terms of affecting the mark’s commercial impression, and renders the wording LIFEGUARD the more dominant element of the mark.

 

Additionally, the marks are confusingly similar in appearance because the same or similar term appears 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).  Here, all marks contain LIFEGUARD, which refers to someone that safeguards one’s life.  See http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/lifeguard.  When confronted with the marks, consumers will understand the marks as conveying this meaning.  Thus, because all marks contain the same or similar term that conveys the same commercial impression, the marks are confusingly similar.

 

Lastly, 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.  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)).  Thus, though the marks have different design elements, the wording consists of the identical dominant element—LIFEGUARD.

 

Ultimately, when consumers call for the services of applicant and registrant using marks that consist of the identical term, they are likely to be confused as to the source of those services due to the overall similarity between the marks. Thus, the marks are confusingly similar. 

 

Relatedness of the Services

 

Determining 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)).  

 

In this case, registrants use broad wording to describe their services, namely, Urgent medical care centers, excluding ambulance and other medical care related transportation services, medical services; medical evaluation of patients, which presumably encompasses applicant’s more narrow services, namely, Healthcare services, namely, providing real-time access to medical professionals by medical patients via telephone, video, email, mobile devices or a global computer network.  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 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)).

 

For the foregoing reasons, the marks are confusingly similar and the evidence shows that the services are commercially related and likely to be encountered together in the marketplace by consumers.  As a result, consumers are likely to be confused and mistakenly believe that the services originate from a common source. Therefore, registration is refused under Section 2(d) of the Trademark Act.

 

RESPONDING TO THE SECTION 2(d)—LIKELIHOOD OF CONFUSION REFUSAL

 

Applicant may respond to the stated refusal by submitting evidence and arguments against the refusal.  In addition, applicant may respond by doing one of the following:

 

(1)  Deleting the class to which the refusal pertains;

 

(2)  Filing a request to divide out the goods and/or services that have not been refused registration, so that the mark may proceed toward publication for opposition in the class to which the refusal does not pertain.  See 37 C.F.R. §2.87.  See generally TMEP §§1110 et seq. (regarding the requirements for filing a request to divide).  If applicant files a request to divide, then to avoid abandonment, applicant must also file a timely response to all outstanding issues in this Office action, including the refusal.  37 C.F.R. §2.87(e).

 

PRIOR-FILED PENDING APPLICATION – NOT ENTITLED TO REGISTER

 

The filing date of pending U.S. Application Serial No. 88281290 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.

 

REQUIREMENTS

 

If applicant responds to the refusal above, applicant must respond to the following requirements.

 

INDEFINITE AND OVERLY BROAD IDENTIFICATION OF GOODS AND SERVICES – AMENDMENT REQUIRED

 

The wording “Healthcare services, namely, providing real-time access to medical professionals by medical patients via telephone, video, email, mobile devices or a global computer network” in the identification of services must be clarified because it is too broad and could include services in other international classes.  See 37 C.F.R. §2.32(a)(6); TMEP §§1402.01, 1402.03.  In particular, this wording could encompass the provision of access to the internet, which is classified in Class 38.

 

Applicant may substitute the following wording, if accurate:

 

Class 10—      Oral appliance for the treatment of sleep apnea.

 

Class 44—      Healthcare services, namely, providing health assessment services in real-time to medical patients via telephone, video, email, mobile devices on a global computer and mobile network.

 

SCOPE ADVISORY

 

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

 

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.

 

CLARIFICATION REQUIRED REGARDING THE NUMBER OF CLASSES FOR WHICH REGISTRATION IS SOUGHT

 

The application references goods and/or services based on use in commerce in more than one international class; therefore, applicant must satisfy all the requirements below for each international class:

 

(1)        List the goods and/or services by their international class number in consecutive numerical order, starting with the lowest numbered class (for example, International Class 3: perfume; International Class 18: cosmetic bags sold empty).

 

(2)        Submit a filing fee for each international class not covered by the fee(s) already paid (view the USPTO’s current fee schedule).  Specifically, the application identifies goods and/or services based on use in commerce that are classified in at least 3 classes; however, applicant submitted a fee(s) sufficient for only 2 class(es).  Applicant must either (a) submit the filing fees for the classes not covered by the submitted fees or (b) restrict the application to the number of classes covered by the fees already paid.

 

(3)        Submit verified dates of first use of the mark anywhere and in commerce for each international class.  See more information about verified dates of use.

 

(4)        Submit a specimen for each international class.  The current specimen is acceptable for Class 44; and applicant needs a specimen for all other classes.  See more information about specimens.

 

            Examples of specimens for services include advertising and marketing materials, brochures, photographs of business signage and billboards, and website printouts that show the mark used in the actual sale, rendering, or advertising of the services. 

 

(5)        Submit a verified statement that “The specimen was in use in commerce on or in connection with the goods and/or services listed in the application at least as early as the filing date of the application.”  See more information about verification.

 

See 15 U.S.C. §§1051(a), 1112; 37 C.F.R. §§2.32(a)(6)-(7), 2.34(a)(1), 2.86(a); TMEP §§904, 1403.01, 1403.02(c).

 

See an overview of the requirements for a Section 1(a) multiple-class application and how to satisfy the requirements online using the Trademark Electronic Application System (TEAS) form.

 

CLARIFICATION REGARDING DRAWING REQUIRED

 

Applicant must clarify whether color is a feature of the mark because, although the drawing shows the mark in color, namely, gray, the application explicitly states that color is not claimed as a feature of the mark.  Applications for marks depicted in color must include not only a color drawing but also (1) a complete list of all the colors that are claimed as a feature of the mark and (2) a description of the literal and design elements in the mark that specifies where the colors appear in those elements.  37 C.F.R. §§2.37, 2.52(b)(1); see TMEP §807.07(a)-(a)(ii).  For applications where color is not claimed as a feature of the mark, the drawing should show the mark in black on a white background. TMEP §807.04.

 

Therefore, applicant must clarify whether color is claimed as a feature of the mark by satisfying one of the following:

 

(1)  If color is not a feature of the mark, applicant must submit a substitute black-and-white drawing of the mark to replace the color drawing of record that shows the mark in black on a white background.  See TMEP §807.07(a)(i).  However, any other amendments to the mark included in the substitute drawing will not be accepted if the changes would materially alter the mark.  37 C.F.R. §2.72; see TMEP §§807.14 et seq.  Applicant must also submit an accurate and concise description of the literal and design elements in the mark, omitting any reference to color.  37 C.F.R. §2.37; see TMEP §§808.01, 808.02.  The following is suggested, if accurate: 

 

The mark consists of a shield with an electrocardiogram running through the middle of it. The word “LIFEGUARD” is written to the right of the shield.

 

(2)  If color is a feature of the mark, applicant must submit both (a) a statement listing all the colors that are claimed as a feature of the mark and (b) a statement describing the literal and design elements in the mark that specifies where the colors appear in those elements.  37 C.F.R. §§2.37, 2.52(b)(1); TMEP §807.07(a)-(a)(ii).  Generic color names must be used to describe the colors in the mark, e.g., magenta, yellow, turquoise.  TMEP §807.07(a)(i)-(ii).  If black, white, and/or gray are not being claimed as a color feature of the mark, applicant must exclude them from the color claim and include in the mark description a statement that the colors black, white, and/or gray represent background, outlining, shading, and/or transparent areas and are not part of the mark.  See TMEP §807.07(d).  The following color claim and mark description are suggested, if accurate: 

 

Color claim:  “The color gray is claimed as a feature of the mark.”

 

Mark description:  “The mark consists of a gray shield with an electrocardiogram running through the middle of it. The gray word “LIFEGUARD” is written to the right of the shield.”

 

See TMEP §807.07(b).

 

Responding to this office action

 

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.

 

 

 

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  

 

 

/Jesse Nelman/

Jesse Nelman

Examining Attorney

Law Office 113

(571) 272-0191

jesse.nelman@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 September 04, 2019 for

U.S. Trademark Application Serial No. 88470405

 

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. 

 

 

/Jesse Nelman/

Jesse Nelman

Examining Attorney

Law Office 113

(571) 272-0191

jesse.nelman@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 September 04, 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.”