| Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 no persons are required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a valid OMB control number. PTO Form 1957 (Rev 10/2011) |
| OMB No. 0651-0050 (Exp 09/20/2020) |
| Input Field |
Entered |
|---|---|
| SERIAL NUMBER | 88485605 |
| LAW OFFICE ASSIGNED | LAW OFFICE 127 |
| MARK SECTION | |
| MARK FILE NAME | http://uspto.report/TM/88485605/mark.png |
| LITERAL ELEMENT | BBOX |
| STANDARD CHARACTERS | NO |
| USPTO-GENERATED IMAGE | NO |
| ARGUMENT(S) | |
RESPONSEIn response to the Trademark Examining Attorney’s Office Action dated September 19, 2019, the following amendments and remarks are respectfully submitted in connection with the above-identified application. IN THE APPLICATION Please adopt the amended Identification of Goods in International Classes 9 as follows: Interfaces for computers;
REMARKS Applicant thanks the Trademark Examining Attorney for the very thorough consideration given the present application. IDENTIFICATION OF GOODS Applicant deletes “magnetic data media” from the Identification of Goods. Therefore, this refusal is traversed. SECTION 2(D) LIKELIHOOD OF CONFUSION The Examining Attorney is respectfully requested to reconsider the refusal to register the present application based on the arguments and remarks as set forth herein below. The present application has been refused registration on the contention that the Applicant’s mark would be likely to be confused as compared with the registered mark as set forth in U.S. Registration No. 3172360. This refusal is respectfully traversed.
The Dissimilarity of the Respective Goods The goods in question are not related in such a way that consumers expect them to originate from the same source. Applicant has amended the identification of goods to delete “oscillograph” which the Examining Attorney specifically noted to be subject of the Section 2(d) refusal. Therefore, the remaining goods are “Interfaces for computers; Wireless communication devices for voice, data or image transmission; High frequency mobile and sea-based communication antennas; Interface cards for data processing equipment in the form of printed circuits; Spectroscopes; spectrograph apparatus; Electronic integrated circuits; printed circuit boards.” The cited goods are “Electrical monitoring devices for continuous in-line monitoring and reporting on power quality, power conditions, line impedance, and environmental conditions”. It is clear that the registrant’s goods are directed to devices for the continuous measuring of electricity such as a standard power meter measuring wattage, amperage, and/or current. The other registered goods refer to power line impedance measurement devices used to measure impedance on alternating current (AC) voltage and devices for measuring environmental conditions (e.g., barometer, anemometer, thermometer). By contrast, Applicant’s goods do not include such meters for measuring electricity, power line impedance and environmental conditions. For example, Applicant’s spectroscopes measure properties of light over a specific portion of the electromagnetic spectrum, which typically are used in spectroscopic analysis to identify materials such as compositions of liquids and matter. These devices are wholly different from those of the registrant. Indeed, the respective channels of trade are entirely different. Consumers would not expect continuous power meters used by power companies or in personal homes to originate from the same source as manufacturers of interfaces for computers, high frequency mobile and sea-based communication antennas, interface cards for data processing equipment in the form of printed circuits, spectroscopes, printed circuit boards, and the rest of Applicant’s goods. Where consumers are faced with various types of goods, it is reasonable that consumers can easily distinguish between them. Thus these cumulative differences obviate a likelihood of confusion between the respective marks. Applicant submits that as a result of these differences, Applicant’s and registrant’s respective marks are easily distinguishable by relevant consumers, such that they would not be likely to believe they originate from the same source. Therefore, this factor weighs against a likelihood of confusion because the relevant consumers would less likely to be confused by similarities in the respective marks.
Conclusion In view of the arguments, it is respectfully submitted that the Applicant’s mark is not likely to cause confusion, or to cause mistake, or to deceive. In fact, Applicant has shown that the mark cited as an obstacle to the registration of its mark is distinguishable in the difference in the goods and trade channels. Therefore, it is respectfully requested that the Examining Attorney withdraw the refusal to register the Applicant’s mark. It is believed that the present application is in condition for publication. An early Notice of Publication is respectfully requested. Respectfully submitted, Muncy, Geissler, Olds & Lowe, P.C
By: /Simone Chen/ Simone Chen Muncy, Geissler, Olds & Lowe, P.C. 4000 Legato Road, Suite 310 Fairfax, VA 22033 Tel. 703.621.7140 |
|
| EVIDENCE SECTION | |
| EVIDENCE FILE NAME(S) | |
| ORIGINAL PDF FILE | evi_735371204-20191211180115204939_._20191211_Amendment__BBOX_.pdf |
| CONVERTED PDF FILE(S) (4 pages) |
\\TICRS\EXPORT17\IMAGEOUT17\884\856\88485605\xml5\ROA0002.JPG |
| \\TICRS\EXPORT17\IMAGEOUT17\884\856\88485605\xml5\ROA0003.JPG | |
| \\TICRS\EXPORT17\IMAGEOUT17\884\856\88485605\xml5\ROA0004.JPG | |
| \\TICRS\EXPORT17\IMAGEOUT17\884\856\88485605\xml5\ROA0005.JPG | |
| DESCRIPTION OF EVIDENCE FILE | Response |
| GOODS AND/OR SERVICES SECTION (current) | |
| INTERNATIONAL CLASS | 009 |
| DESCRIPTION | |
| Interfaces for computers; magnetic data media; Wireless communication devices for voice, data or image transmission; High frequency mobile and sea-based communication antennas; Interface cards for data processing equipment in the form of printed circuits; oscillograph; Spectroscopes; spectrograph apparatus; Electronic integrated circuits; printed circuit boards | |
| FILING BASIS | Section 1(b) |
| GOODS AND/OR SERVICES SECTION (proposed) | |
| INTERNATIONAL CLASS | 009 |
| TRACKED TEXT DESCRIPTION | |
| Interfaces for computers; |
|
| FINAL DESCRIPTION | |
| Interfaces for computers; Wireless communication devices for voice, data or image transmission; High frequency mobile and sea-based communication antennas; Interface cards for data processing equipment in the form of printed circuits; Spectroscopes; spectrograph apparatus; Electronic integrated circuits; printed circuit boards | |
| FILING BASIS | Section 1(b) |
| ATTORNEY SECTION (current) | |
| NAME | Simone Chen |
| ATTORNEY BAR MEMBERSHIP NUMBER | NOT SPECIFIED |
| YEAR OF ADMISSION | NOT SPECIFIED |
| U.S. STATE/ COMMONWEALTH/ TERRITORY | NOT SPECIFIED |
| FIRM NAME | MUNCY, GEISSLER, OLDS & LOWE, P.C. |
| STREET | 4000 LEGATO ROAD, SUITE 310 |
| CITY | FAIRFAX |
| STATE | Virginia |
| POSTAL CODE | 22033 |
| COUNTRY | US |
| PHONE | 703-621-7140 |
| FAX | 703-621-7155 |
| simone@mg-ip.com | |
| AUTHORIZED TO COMMUNICATE VIA EMAIL | Yes |
| ATTORNEY SECTION (proposed) | |
| NAME | Simone Chen |
| ATTORNEY BAR MEMBERSHIP NUMBER | XXX |
| YEAR OF ADMISSION | XXXX |
| U.S. STATE/ COMMONWEALTH/ TERRITORY | XX |
| FIRM NAME | MUNCY, GEISSLER, OLDS & LOWE, P.C. |
| STREET | 4000 LEGATO ROAD, SUITE 310 |
| CITY | FAIRFAX |
| STATE | Virginia |
| POSTAL CODE | 22033 |
| COUNTRY | United States |
| PHONE | 703-621-7140 |
| FAX | 703-621-7155 |
| simone@mg-ip.com | |
| AUTHORIZED TO COMMUNICATE VIA EMAIL | Yes |
| CORRESPONDENCE SECTION (current) | |
| NAME | SIMONE CHEN |
| FIRM NAME | MUNCY, GEISSLER, OLDS & LOWE, P.C. |
| STREET | 4000 LEGATO ROAD, SUITE 310 |
| CITY | FAIRFAX |
| STATE | Virginia |
| POSTAL CODE | 22033 |
| COUNTRY | US |
| PHONE | 703-621-7140 |
| FAX | 703-621-7155 |
| simone@mg-ip.com; mailroom@mg-ip.com | |
| AUTHORIZED TO COMMUNICATE VIA EMAIL | Yes |
| CORRESPONDENCE SECTION (proposed) | |
| NAME | Simone Chen |
| FIRM NAME | MUNCY, GEISSLER, OLDS & LOWE, P.C. |
| STREET | 4000 LEGATO ROAD, SUITE 310 |
| CITY | FAIRFAX |
| STATE | Virginia |
| POSTAL CODE | 22033 |
| COUNTRY | United States |
| PHONE | 703-621-7140 |
| FAX | 703-621-7155 |
| simone@mg-ip.com; mailroom@mg-ip.com | |
| AUTHORIZED TO COMMUNICATE VIA EMAIL | Yes |
| SIGNATURE SECTION | |
| RESPONSE SIGNATURE | /Simone Chen/ |
| SIGNATORY'S NAME | Simone Chen |
| SIGNATORY'S POSITION | Attorney of Record, CA State Bar Member |
| SIGNATORY'S PHONE NUMBER | 703-621-7140 |
| DATE SIGNED | 12/11/2019 |
| AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY | YES |
| FILING INFORMATION SECTION | |
| SUBMIT DATE | Wed Dec 11 18:07:29 EST 2019 |
| TEAS STAMP | USPTO/ROA-XX.XX.XX.XXX-20 191211180729918698-884856 05-70032d5f1d740f645e3ac5 1a47b33dd827b7faa4f302aa9 dba9eb7af5fa422f4d87-N/A- N/A-20191211180115204939 |
| Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 no persons are required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a valid OMB control number. PTO Form 1957 (Rev 10/2011) |
| OMB No. 0651-0050 (Exp 09/20/2020) |
In response to the Trademark Examining Attorney’s Office Action dated September 19, 2019, the following amendments and remarks are respectfully submitted in connection with the above-identified application.
IN THE APPLICATION
Please adopt the amended Identification of Goods in International Classes 9 as follows:
Interfaces for computers; magnetic data media; Wireless communication devices for voice,
data or image transmission; High frequency mobile and sea-based communication antennas; Interface cards for data processing equipment in the form of printed circuits; oscillograph; Spectroscopes; spectrograph apparatus; Electronic integrated circuits; printed circuit boards
REMARKS
Applicant thanks the Trademark Examining Attorney for the very thorough consideration given the present application.
IDENTIFICATION OF GOODS
Applicant deletes “magnetic data media” from the Identification of Goods. Therefore, this refusal is traversed.
SECTION 2(D) LIKELIHOOD OF CONFUSION
The Examining Attorney is respectfully requested to reconsider the refusal to register the present application based on the arguments and remarks as set forth herein below.
The present application has been refused registration on the contention that the Applicant’s mark would be likely to be confused as compared with the registered mark as set forth in U.S. Registration No. 3172360. This refusal is respectfully traversed.
The Dissimilarity of the Respective Goods
The goods in question are not related in such a way that consumers expect them to originate from the same source. Applicant has amended the identification of goods to delete “oscillograph” which the Examining Attorney specifically noted to be subject of the Section 2(d) refusal. Therefore, the remaining goods are “Interfaces for computers; Wireless communication devices for voice, data or image transmission; High frequency mobile and sea-based communication antennas; Interface cards for data processing equipment in the form of printed circuits; Spectroscopes; spectrograph apparatus; Electronic integrated circuits; printed circuit boards.”
The cited goods are “Electrical monitoring devices for continuous in-line monitoring and reporting on power quality, power conditions, line impedance, and environmental conditions”. It is clear that the registrant’s goods are directed to devices for the continuous measuring of electricity such as a standard power meter measuring wattage, amperage, and/or current. The other registered goods refer to power line impedance measurement devices used to measure impedance on alternating current (AC) voltage and devices for measuring environmental conditions (e.g., barometer, anemometer, thermometer). By contrast, Applicant’s goods do not include such meters for measuring electricity, power line impedance and environmental conditions. For example, Applicant’s spectroscopes measure properties of light over a specific portion of the electromagnetic spectrum, which typically are used in spectroscopic analysis to identify materials such as compositions of liquids and matter. These devices are wholly different from those of the registrant.
Indeed, the respective channels of trade are entirely different. Consumers would not expect continuous power meters used by power companies or in personal homes to originate from the same source as manufacturers of interfaces for computers, high frequency mobile and sea-based communication antennas, interface cards for data processing equipment in the form of printed circuits, spectroscopes, printed circuit boards, and the rest of Applicant’s goods.
Where consumers are faced with various types of goods, it is reasonable that consumers can easily distinguish between them. Thus these cumulative differences obviate a likelihood of confusion between the respective marks. Applicant submits that as a result of these differences, Applicant’s and registrant’s respective marks are easily distinguishable by relevant consumers, such that they would not be likely to believe they originate from the same source.
Therefore, this factor weighs against a likelihood of confusion because the relevant consumers would less likely to be confused by similarities in the respective marks.
Conclusion
In view of the arguments, it is respectfully submitted that the Applicant’s mark is not likely to cause confusion, or to cause mistake, or to deceive. In fact, Applicant has shown that the mark cited as an obstacle to the registration of its mark is distinguishable in the difference in the goods and trade channels. Therefore, it is respectfully requested that the Examining Attorney withdraw the refusal to register the Applicant’s mark.
It is believed that the present application is in condition for publication. An early Notice of Publication is respectfully requested.
Respectfully submitted,
Muncy, Geissler, Olds & Lowe, P.C
By: /Simone Chen/
Simone Chen
Muncy, Geissler, Olds & Lowe, P.C.
4000 Legato Road, Suite 310
Fairfax, VA 22033
Tel. 703.621.7140
