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 | 88495080 |
LAW OFFICE ASSIGNED | LAW OFFICE 126 |
MARK SECTION | |
MARK | http://uspto.report/TM/88495080/mark.png |
LITERAL ELEMENT | INSIDER |
STANDARD CHARACTERS | YES |
USPTO-GENERATED IMAGE | YES |
MARK STATEMENT | The mark consists of standard characters, without claim to any particular font style, size or color. |
ARGUMENT(S) | |
The Examiner has rejected the instant application based upon a perceived likelihood of confusion between the instant mark INSIDER for “Publishing of electronic publications” in Class 41, and the previously registered mark, Reg. No. 5,675,981 for the mark INSIDER, INC. (with “Inc.” disclaimed), for the following goods: “Downloadable software in the nature of mobile applications for providing articles, news, information, and commentary in the fields of business, finance, entertainment, careers, sports, popular culture, food, health, exercise, technology, innovation, science, digital culture, and lifestyle” in Class 9; “Advertising and promotional services; Marketing services; Market research; Online advertising; Promoting the goods and services of others; and Conducting opinion polls online” in Class 35; and “Providing an interactive website featuring non-downloadable videos containing news, information, and commentary in the fields of business, finance, entertainment, careers, sports, popular culture, food, health, exercise, technology, innovation, science, digital culture, and lifestyle; Electronic publishing services, namely, publication of text and graphic works of others online featuring articles, news, information, and commentary in the fields of business, finance, entertainment, careers, sports, popular culture, food, health, exercise, technology, innovation, science, digital culture, and lifestyle; Digital video, audio, and multimedia publishing services; Video production services; Educational services, namely, arranging and conducting conferences and seminars in the fields of national and international politics, business, finance, entertainment, careers, sports, popular culture, food, health, exercise, technology, innovation, science, digital culture, and lifestyle” in Class 41. Both marks are standard character marks. Applicant respectfully disagrees with the Examiner’s conclusion that the two marks are confusingly similar, and respectfully requests the withdrawal of the rejection. The ultimate test for deciding whether a mark is registrable under 15 U.S.C. § 2(d) is whether a consumer would likely be confused into believing that the goods/services of the applicant provided under the applicant’s mark would emanate from the same source as the goods/services provided by the registrant under the registrant’s mark. Here, it is respectfully submitted, this is not the case. First, the consumers of the applicant’s and registrants products are sophisticated business persons, knowledgeable of the marketplace and capable of distinguishing between sources of different, even if seemingly related, products and services. Elec. Design & Sales, Inc. v. Elec. Data Sys. Corp., 954 F.2d 713, 718, 21 U.S.P.Q.2d 1388, 1392 (Fed. Cir. 1992). (“[s]ophisticated consumers may be expected to exercise greater care.” quoting Pignons S.A. de Mecanique de Precision v. Polaroid Corp., 657 F.2d 482, 489, 212 USPQ 246, 252 (1st Cir. 1981)). Furthermore, in this case, the applicant commenced use at a much earlier date, 2004, than did the registrant, April 14, 2018, and so the consuming public would not be confused into believing the services they had been purchasing for so long from the applicant herein came from a newcomer (the registrant of the cited mark). The applicant also has a newly issued registration for the mark INSIDER SUMMIT, Reg. No. 5,942,573 for related services, which registration was based on use since at least as early as 2006. Where an applied-for mark is similar to a registered mark owned by the applicant, and where the applicant has use of its mark long prior to the registrant, these factors may weigh against a finding of a likelihood of confusion and in favor of registrability. In re Strategic Partners, Inc., 102 USPQ2d 1397 (TTAB 2012). Here, therefore, these factors, not considered by the Examiner in the pending Office Action, outweigh any perceived similarities of the mark, and in favor of the registrability of the instant mark. Early and favorable action is therefore respectfully solicited. |
|
ADDITIONAL STATEMENTS SECTION | |
ACTIVE PRIOR REGISTRATION(S) | The applicant claims ownership of active prior U.S. Registration Number(s) 5942573. |
ATTORNEY SECTION (current) | |
NAME | Roger S. Thompson |
ATTORNEY BAR MEMBERSHIP NUMBER | NOT SPECIFIED |
YEAR OF ADMISSION | NOT SPECIFIED |
U.S. STATE/ COMMONWEALTH/ TERRITORY | NOT SPECIFIED |
FIRM NAME | THE LAW OFFICES OF ROGER S. THOMPSON |
INTERNAL ADDRESS | SUITE D-14 |
STREET | 116 PINEHURST AVE. |
CITY | NW YORK |
STATE | New York |
POSTAL CODE | 10033 |
COUNTRY | US |
PHONE | 212-923-5145 |
FAX | 866-276-8409 |
roger@thompson-ip.com | |
AUTHORIZED TO COMMUNICATE VIA EMAIL | Yes |
DOCKET/REFERENCE NUMBER | 5175-018 |
ATTORNEY SECTION (proposed) | |
NAME | Roger S. Thompson |
ATTORNEY BAR MEMBERSHIP NUMBER | XXX |
YEAR OF ADMISSION | XXXX |
U.S. STATE/ COMMONWEALTH/ TERRITORY | XX |
FIRM NAME | THE LAW OFFICES OF ROGER S. THOMPSON |
INTERNAL ADDRESS | SUITE D-14 |
STREET | 116 PINEHURST AVE. |
CITY | NEW YORK |
STATE | New York |
POSTAL CODE | 10033 |
COUNTRY | United States |
PHONE | 212-923-5145 |
FAX | 866-276-8409 |
roger@thompson-ip.com | |
AUTHORIZED TO COMMUNICATE VIA EMAIL | Yes |
DOCKET/REFERENCE NUMBER | 5175-018 |
CORRESPONDENCE SECTION (current) | |
NAME | ROGER S. THOMPSON |
FIRM NAME | THE LAW OFFICES OF ROGER S. THOMPSON |
INTERNAL ADDRESS | SUITE D-14 |
STREET | 116 PINEHURST AVE. |
CITY | NW YORK |
STATE | New York |
POSTAL CODE | 10033 |
COUNTRY | US |
PHONE | 212-923-5145 |
FAX | 866-276-8409 |
roger@thompson-ip.com; rogersthompson1@gmail.com | |
AUTHORIZED TO COMMUNICATE VIA EMAIL | Yes |
DOCKET/REFERENCE NUMBER | 5175-018 |
CORRESPONDENCE SECTION (proposed) | |
NAME | Roger S. Thompson |
FIRM NAME | THE LAW OFFICES OF ROGER S. THOMPSON |
INTERNAL ADDRESS | SUITE D-14 |
STREET | 116 PINEHURST AVE. |
CITY | NEW YORK |
STATE | New York |
POSTAL CODE | 10033 |
COUNTRY | United States |
PHONE | 212-923-5145 |
FAX | 866-276-8409 |
roger@thompson-ip.com; rogersthompson1@gmail.com | |
AUTHORIZED TO COMMUNICATE VIA EMAIL | Yes |
DOCKET/REFERENCE NUMBER | 5175-018 |
SIGNATURE SECTION | |
RESPONSE SIGNATURE | /Roger S. Thompson/ |
SIGNATORY'S NAME | Roger S. Thompson |
SIGNATORY'S POSITION | Attorney of record, New York Bar member |
SIGNATORY'S PHONE NUMBER | 212-923-5145 |
DATE SIGNED | 02/10/2020 |
AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY | YES |
FILING INFORMATION SECTION | |
SUBMIT DATE | Mon Feb 10 22:57:57 EST 2020 |
TEAS STAMP | USPTO/ROA-XX.XXX.XXX.XXX- 20200210225757279334-8849 5080-700e47a8ce86e58edabc 348bba5b1142d936b51cb22ec 8db2d0652e699d132a4a-N/A- N/A-20200210225058985075 |
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) |
The Examiner has rejected the instant application based upon a perceived likelihood of confusion between the instant mark INSIDER for “Publishing of electronic publications” in Class 41, and the previously registered mark, Reg. No. 5,675,981 for the mark INSIDER, INC. (with “Inc.” disclaimed), for the following goods:
“Downloadable software in the nature of mobile applications for providing articles, news, information, and commentary in the fields of business, finance, entertainment, careers, sports, popular culture, food, health, exercise, technology, innovation, science, digital culture, and lifestyle” in Class 9;
“Advertising and promotional services; Marketing services; Market research; Online advertising; Promoting the goods and services of others; and Conducting opinion polls online” in Class 35; and
“Providing an interactive website featuring non-downloadable videos containing news, information, and commentary in the fields of business, finance, entertainment, careers, sports, popular culture, food, health, exercise, technology, innovation, science, digital culture, and lifestyle; Electronic publishing services, namely, publication of text and graphic works of others online featuring articles, news, information, and commentary in the fields of business, finance, entertainment, careers, sports, popular culture, food, health, exercise, technology, innovation, science, digital culture, and lifestyle; Digital video, audio, and multimedia publishing services; Video production services; Educational services, namely, arranging and conducting conferences and seminars in the fields of national and international politics, business, finance, entertainment, careers, sports, popular culture, food, health, exercise, technology, innovation, science, digital culture, and lifestyle” in Class 41.
Both marks are standard character marks.
Applicant respectfully disagrees with the Examiner’s conclusion that the two marks are confusingly similar, and respectfully requests the withdrawal of the rejection.
The ultimate test for deciding whether a mark is registrable under 15 U.S.C. § 2(d) is whether a consumer would likely be confused into believing that the goods/services of the applicant provided under the applicant’s mark would emanate from the same source as the goods/services provided by the registrant under the registrant’s mark. Here, it is respectfully submitted, this is not the case.
First, the consumers of the applicant’s and registrants products are sophisticated business persons, knowledgeable of the marketplace and capable of distinguishing between sources of different, even if seemingly related, products and services. Elec. Design & Sales, Inc. v. Elec. Data Sys. Corp., 954 F.2d 713, 718, 21 U.S.P.Q.2d 1388, 1392 (Fed. Cir. 1992). (“[s]ophisticated consumers may be expected to exercise greater care.” quoting Pignons S.A. de Mecanique de Precision v. Polaroid Corp., 657 F.2d 482, 489, 212 USPQ 246, 252 (1st Cir. 1981)).
Furthermore, in this case, the applicant commenced use at a much earlier date, 2004, than did the registrant, April 14, 2018, and so the consuming public would not be confused into believing the services they had been purchasing for so long from the applicant herein came from a newcomer (the registrant of the cited mark). The applicant also has a newly issued registration for the mark INSIDER SUMMIT, Reg. No. 5,942,573 for related services, which registration was based on use since at least as early as 2006.
Where an applied-for mark is similar to a registered mark owned by the applicant, and where the applicant has use of its mark long prior to the registrant, these factors may weigh against a finding of a likelihood of confusion and in favor of registrability. In re Strategic Partners, Inc., 102 USPQ2d 1397 (TTAB 2012).
Here, therefore, these factors, not considered by the Examiner in the pending Office Action, outweigh any perceived similarities of the mark, and in favor of the registrability of the instant mark.
Early and favorable action is therefore respectfully solicited.