To: | Reliance Partners, LLC (ipatl@alston.com) |
Subject: | U.S. Trademark Application Serial No. 88483301 - ACCELERATE - 531191 |
Sent: | November 21, 2019 12:54:17 PM |
Sent As: | ecom124@uspto.gov |
Attachments: |
United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO)
Office Action (Official Letter) About Applicant’s Trademark Application
U.S. Application Serial No. 88483301
Mark: ACCELERATE
|
|
Correspondence Address: |
|
Applicant: Reliance Partners, LLC
|
|
Reference/Docket No. 531191
Correspondence Email Address: |
|
SUSPENSION NOTICE
No Response Required
Issue date: November 21, 2019
The application is suspended for the reason(s) specified below. See 37 C.F.R. §2.67; TMEP §§716 et seq.
Application suspended until disposition of cited registration(s). Registration maintenance documents are or were due to be filed for the registration(s) cited against applicant in a refusal based on Trademark Act Section 2(d). 15 U.S.C. §1052(d). If the maintenance documents are not timely filed and accepted by the USPTO, the cited registration(s) will cancel and/or expire and will no longer bar registration of applicant’s mark under Section 2(d). See 15 U.S.C. §§1058, 1059, 1141k. Action on this application is suspended for six months to await disposition of the cited registration(s); after which, the trademark examining attorney will determine whether to maintain or withdraw the Section 2(d) refusal. See 37 C.F.R. §2.67; TMEP §716.02(e).
Refusal and requirement resolved and maintained and continued. The following requirement is satisfied:
• Identification of Services Requirement
See TMEP §713.02.
The following refusal is maintained and continued:
• Section 2(d) Refusal – Likelihood of Confusion
See id. These refusal will be made final once this application is removed from suspension, unless a new issue arises. See TMEP §716.01.
The examining attorney was not persuaded by applicant’s arguments against refusal at this time. Although the wording may be weak it remains distinctive wording and the applicant mark appears nearly identical to the registered marks, and they are each phonetically equivalent. Additionally, the services are highly related and the registrant’s do not specify the channels of trade and as such are broader than those in the application.
Lastly, the fact that purchasers are sophisticated or knowledgeable in a particular field does not necessarily mean that they are sophisticated or knowledgeable in the field of trademarks or immune from source confusion. TMEP §1207.01(d)(vii); see, e.g., Stone Lion Capital Partners, LP v. Lion Capital LLP, 746 F.3d. 1317, 1325, 110 USPQ2d 1157, 1163-64 (Fed. Cir. 2014); Top Tobacco LP v. N. Atl. Operating Co., 101 USPQ2d 1163, 1170 (TTAB 2011). Further, where the purchasers consist of both professionals and the public, the standard of care for purchasing the goods is that of the least sophisticated potential purchaser. In re FCA US LLC, 126 USPQ2d 1214, 1222 (TTAB 2018) (citing Stone Lion Capital Partners, LP v. Lion Capital LLP, 746 F.3d. at 1325, 110 USPQ2d at 1163).
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.
/Alexandra El-Bayeh/
Trademark Examining Attorney
Law Office 124
(571) 270-5911
alexandra.el-bayeh@uspto.gov