| To: | MS360, LLC (bfriesen@mggmlpa.com) |
| Subject: | U.S. Trademark Application Serial No. 88477504 - MICRO-CLEAN - N/A |
| Sent: | September 11, 2019 12:29:25 PM |
| Sent As: | ecom120@uspto.gov |
| Attachments: | Attachment - 1 Attachment - 2 Attachment - 3 Attachment - 4 Attachment - 5 Attachment - 6 Attachment - 7 Attachment - 8 Attachment - 9 Attachment - 10 Attachment - 11 Attachment - 12 Attachment - 13 Attachment - 14 Attachment - 15 Attachment - 16 Attachment - 17 Attachment - 18 Attachment - 19 Attachment - 20 Attachment - 21 Attachment - 22 Attachment - 23 Attachment - 24 |
United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO)
Office Action (Official Letter) About Applicant’s Trademark Application
|
U.S. Application Serial No. 88477504
Mark: MICRO-CLEAN
|
|
|
Correspondence Address: 1001 LAKESIDE AVENUE, SUITE 1400
|
|
|
Applicant: MS360, LLC
|
|
|
Reference/Docket No. N/A
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 11, 2019
INTRODUCTION
SECTION 2(d) REFUSAL – LIKELIHOOD OF CONFUSION
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.
Comparison 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).
Applicant seeks registration of the mark MICRO-CLEAN, in standard character.
Registrant’s mark is MIKROKLENE, in standard character.
Also, the marks are confusingly similar in sound, appearance, connotation, and commercial impression because they are comprised of the same words – MICRO and CLEAN. Registrant’s mark is spelled differently, e.g., MIKRO and KLEN, but this is just a different spelling of the same words. Here, in addition to sounding the same, the marks have a similar meaning and commercial impression (that is, to be free of dirt of contamination at a microscopic levels). See attached definitions from the Merriam-Webster Dictionary.
As such, when the marks are considered in their entireties, they are confusingly similar such that consumers are likely to mistake the source of the goods.
Comparison of the Goods
Applicant’s goods are: Antimicrobial coatings to treat the growth of mold, mildew, bacteria and fungus on various surfaces, in class 5.
Registrant’s goods are: General Purpose Detergent Having Germicidal Properties, in class 3.
First, both applicant and registrant provide products that serve as a disinfectant or one that acts to inhibit the growth of germs, mold, mildew, fungus, etc. Because there are no restrictions, it is presumed that the same class of consumers would be purchasing these goods. The goods 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 are related.
Thus, applicant’s and registrant’s goods are considered related for likelihood of confusion purposes. See, e.g., In re Davey Prods. Pty Ltd., 92 USPQ2d 1198, 1202-04 (TTAB 2009); In re Toshiba Med. Sys. Corp., 91 USPQ2d 1266, 1268-69, 1271-72 (TTAB 2009).
Conclusion
The marks are confusingly similar in sound, appearance, connotation and commercial impression because the marks are comprised of the same words that sound similar – micro and clean. When coupled with the highly related goods for cleaning, disinfecting, or coatings that clean germs or harmful bacteria and microbes, consumers are likely to confuse the marks and mistake the source of the goods.
Based on the foregoing, the applied-for mark is refused for likelihood of confusion under Trademark Act Section 2(d).
Applicant should note the following additional ground for refusal.
SECTIONS 1, 2, 3 AND 45 REFUSAL – IDENTIFIES A SYSTEM OR PROCESS
A process or system is only a way of doing something, and is not generally a tangible product. Cf. TMEP §1301.02(e). An applied-for mark that identifies only a process, style, method, or system is therefore not registrable as a trademark. Cf. In re HSB Solomon Assocs., LLC, 102 USPQ2d at 1270; In re Hughes Aircraft Co., 222 USPQ 263, 264 (TTAB 1984).
Whether a designation functions as a mark depends on the commercial impression it makes on the relevant public; that is, whether purchasers would likely regard it as a source-indicator for the goods. See In re Keep A Breast Found., 123 USPQ2d 1869, 1879 (TTAB 2017) (quoting In re Eagle Crest Inc., 96 USPQ2d 1227, 1229 (TTAB 2010)); TMEP §1202. The specimen and any other relevant evidence of use is reviewed to determine whether an applied-for mark is being used as a trademark. In re Bose Corp., 546 F.2d 893, 897, 192 USPQ 213, 216 (C.C.P.A. 1976); In re Volvo Cars of N. Am., Inc., 46 USPQ2d 1455, 1459 (TTAB 1998).
In this case, the specimen shows the applied-for mark used solely to identify a process or system because the mark is used in the context of how something was done – i.e., “OUR FACILITY IS NOT JUST CLEAN – IT’S MICRO CLEAN” appears on the plaque. Further the fact that the mark appears on a plaque to be placed in the facility also does not show use in commerce of a antimicrobial product, but rather it is something that is displayed on the premises to explain the condition or existence of something. This does not actually reference a good (e.g., microbial product) but it refers to a how a facility was cleaned or the process or system by which the facility was cleaned.
Therefore, registration is refused under Sections 1, 2, 3, and 45 of the Trademark Act as the mark merely identifies a process or system.
MARK ON THE DRAWING AND SPECIMEN DIFFER
Registration is refused because the specimen does not show the mark in the drawing in use in commerce in International Class 5, which is required in the application or amendment to allege use. Trademark Act Sections 1 and 45, 15 U.S.C. §§1051, 1127; 37 C.F.R. §§2.34(a)(1)(iv), 2.56(a); TMEP §§904, 904.07(a), 1301.04(g)(i). The mark appearing on the specimen and in the drawing must match; that is, the mark in the drawing “must be a substantially exact representation of the mark” on the specimen. See 37 C.F.R. §2.51(a)-(b); TMEP §807.12(a).
In this case, the specimen displays the mark as MICRO-CLEAN. However, the drawing displays the mark as MICRO CLEAN. The mark on the specimen does not match the mark in the drawing because the drawing shows the use of a hyphen between the words, whereas the specimen shows the mark without the hyphen. Applicant has thus failed to provide the required evidence of use of the mark in commerce. See TMEP §807.12(a).
Applicant may respond to this refusal by satisfying one of the following:
(1) Submit a new drawing of the mark that shows the mark on the specimen and, if appropriate, an amendment of the description and/or color claim that agrees with the new drawing. See 37 C.F.R. §2.72(a)-(b). Applicant may amend the mark in the drawing to match the mark on the specimen but may not make any other changes or amendments that would materially alter the drawing of the mark. See 37 C.F.R. §2.72(a)-(b); TMEP §807.14.
(2) Submit a different specimen (a verified “substitute” specimen) for each applicable international class that (a) shows the mark in the drawing in actual use in commerce for the goods and/or services in the application or amendment to allege use, and (b) was in actual use in commerce at least as early as the filing date of the application or prior to the filing of an amendment to allege use.
Examples of specimens for goods include tags, labels, instruction manuals, containers, photographs that show the mark on the actual goods or packaging, and displays associated with the actual goods at their point of sale. See TMEP §§904.03 et seq. Webpages may also be specimens for goods when they include a picture or textual description of the goods associated with the mark and the means to order the goods. TMEP §904.03(i).
For more information about drawings and instructions on how to satisfy these response options online using the Trademark Electronic Application System (TEAS) form, see the Drawing webpage.
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
/Jeane Yoo/
Jeane Yoo
Examining Attorney
Law Office 120
(571) 272-5021
Jeane.Yoo@uspto.gov
RESPONSE GUIDANCE
