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:  October 15, 2019

 

Introduction:

 

The referenced application has been reviewed by the assigned trademark examining attorney.  Applicant must respond timely and completely to the issue(s) below.  15 U.S.C. §1062(b); 37 C.F.R. §§2.62(a), 2.65(a); TMEP §§711, 718.03.

 

SUMMARY OF ISSUES:

 

• Likelihood of confusion/Pending applications
• Descriptiveness refusal
• Attorney Information

Likelihood of Confusion:

The applicant applied to register the mark: 360 for Alarm sensors; Burglar alarms; Carbon monoxide detectors; Electronic glass break detectors; Fire and smoke detectors; Leak detectors for plumbing; Liquid level sensors; Motion detectors; Passive infrared detectors; Safety sensors, namely, carbon monoxide detectors, smoke detectors, and combination carbon monoxide and smoke detectors; Smoke detectors; Temperature sensors in Int. Class 9.

Registration of the applied-for mark is refused because of a likelihood of confusion with the mark(s) in U.S. Registration No. 5822243 for 360 and design for network monitoring cameras for surveillance; intelligent cameras; electronic data recorders for automobiles; camcorders for automobiles, namely, camcorders for recording the real-time traffic status into audio and video files in the process of vehicle traveling; burglar, fire, smoke, and gas alarms for alarm monitoring system in Int. class 9.  Trademark Act Section 2(d), 15 U.S.C. §1052(d); see TMEP §§1207.01 et seq.  See the attached registration.

Similarities in Appearance, Sound, Connotation and Commercial Impression:

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.

In this case, the following factors are the most relevant: similarity of the marks as to the 360 portion, similarity and nature of the goods, and similarity of the trade channels of the goods.  See In re Viterra Inc., 671 F.3d 1358, 1361-62, 101 USPQ2d 1905, 1908 (Fed. Cir. 2012); In re Dakin’s Miniatures Inc., 59 USPQ2d 1593, 1595-96 (TTAB 1999); TMEP §§1207.01 et seq.

360 vs. 360 and design

The applicant features the mark “360” and the registrant features the mark “360 and design”. The marks in question both feature the same number 360. When applicant's mark, incorporating the registered mark, is used in connection with the identical or similar goods confusion is plainly likely. Prospective users of such products who are familiar with the registered mark in connection with these goods and who are then presented with applicant's mark, which incorporates what is essentially the same mark into the name are likely to understand or interpret applicant's mark as an indication that it also comes from the same source as only bearing the additional descriptive elements. They might think that applicant's mark identifies another line of the goods from the same provider under the registered mark, or that applicant's mark is an updated or newer trademark which developed from or grew out of the previously registered mark, perhaps for a new or different product line, but such people are clearly likely to assume some association or connection between the goods bearing the same marks.

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.  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, even where the word portion has been disclaimed.  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)).

Goods:

The applicant features Alarm sensors; Burglar alarms; Carbon monoxide detectors; Electronic glass break detectors; Fire and smoke detectors; Leak detectors for plumbing; Liquid level sensors; Motion detectors; Passive infrared detectors; Safety sensors, namely, carbon monoxide detectors, smoke detectors, and combination carbon monoxide and smoke detectors; Smoke detectors; Temperature sensors in Int. Class 9.

The registrant features network monitoring cameras for surveillance; intelligent cameras; electronic data recorders for automobiles; camcorders for automobiles, namely, camcorders for recording the real-time traffic status into audio and video files in the process of vehicle traveling; burglar, fire, smoke, and gas alarms for alarm monitoring system in Int. class 9. The parties both feature the same type of goods or goods which are related and used together.

As to the identical goods, where the marks of the respective parties are identical or virtually identical, as in this case, the degree of similarity or relatedness between the goods and/or services needed to support a finding of likelihood of confusion declines.  See In re i.am.symbolic, llc, 116 USPQ2d 1406, 1411 (TTAB 2015) (citing In re Shell Oil Co., 992 F.2d 1204, 1207, 26 USPQ2d 1687, 1689 (Fed. Cir. 1993)), aff’d, 866 F.3d 1315, 123 USPQ2d 1744 (Fed. Cir. 2017); TMEP §1207.01(a).

Furthermore, where the goods and/or services of an applicant and registrant are “similar in kind and/or closely related,” the degree of similarity between the marks required to support a finding of likelihood of confusion is not as great as in the case of diverse goods and/or services.  In re J.M. Originals Inc., 6 USPQ2d 1393, 1394 (TTAB 1987); see Shen Mfg. Co. v. Ritz Hotel Ltd., 393 F.3d 1238, 1242, 73 USPQ2d 1350, 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2004); TMEP §1207.01(b).

Pending Applications:

The filing date of pending U.S. Application Serial Nos. 87018916; 87020877; and 87537725 precedes applicant’s filing date.  See attached referenced applications.  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 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.

 

Substantive Refusal: descriptiveness refusal

 

The examining attorney refuses registration on the Principal Register because the proposed mark merely describes a feature and characteristic of the goods.  Trademark Act Section 2(e)(1), 15 U.S.C. Section 1052(e)(1); TMEP section 1209 et seq.

 

A mark is merely descriptive under Trademark Act Section 2(e)(1), 15 U.S.C. 1052(e)(1), if it describes an ingredient, quality, characteristic, function, feature, purpose or use of the relevant goods/services.  In re Gyulay, 820 F.2d 1216, 3 USPQ2d 1009 (Fed. Cir. 1987);  In re Bed & Breakfast Registry, 791 F.2d 157, 229 USPQ 818 (Fed. Cir. 1986); In re MetPath Inc., 223 USPQ 88 (TTAB 1984); In re Bright-Crest, Ltd., 204 USPQ 591 (TTAB 1979); TMEP section 1209.01(b).

 

The applicant applied to register “360” for Alarm sensors; Burglar alarms; Carbon monoxide detectors; Electronic glass break detectors; Fire and smoke detectors; Leak detectors for plumbing; Liquid level sensors; Motion detectors; Passive infrared detectors; Safety sensors, namely, carbon monoxide detectors, smoke detectors, and combination carbon monoxide and smoke detectors; Smoke detectors; Temperature sensors in Int. class 9.

 

This mark immediately names a feature and characteristic of the goods, namely that the applicant features Alarm sensors; Burglar alarms; Carbon monoxide detectors; Electronic glass break detectors; Fire and smoke detectors; Leak detectors for plumbing; Liquid level sensors; Motion detectors; Passive infrared detectors; Safety sensors, namely, carbon monoxide detectors, smoke detectors, and combination carbon monoxide and smoke detectors; Smoke detectors; Temperature sensors that provide a 360 degree view for monitoring or protection.

 

It is not necessary that a term describe all of the purposes, functions, characteristics or features of the goods/services to be merely descriptive.  It is enough if the term describes one attribute of the goods/services.  In re H.U.D.D.L.E., 216 USPQ 358 (TTAB 1982); In re MBAssociates, 180 USPQ 338 (TTAB 1973). Accordingly, the mark is refused registration on the Principal Register under Section 2(e)(1).

 

Advisory for ITU cases:

 

A mark in an application under Trademark Act Section 1(b) is not eligible for registration on the Supplemental Register until an acceptable amendment to allege use under 37 C.F.R. §2.76 or statement of use under 37 C.F.R. §2.88 has been filed.  37 C.F.R. §§2.47(d) and 2.75(b); TMEP §1102.03.  When a Section 1(b) application is amended to the Supplemental Register, the effective filing date of the application is the date of filing of the allegation of use.  37 C.F.R. §2.75(b); 37 C.F.R. §2.75(b); TMEP §§206.01 and 1102.03.

 

Although an amendment to the Supplemental Register would normally be an appropriate response to this/these refusal(s), such a response is not appropriate in the present case.  The instant application was filed under Trademark Act Section 1(b), 15 U.S.C. §1051(b), and is not eligible for registration on the Supplemental Register until an acceptable amendment to allege use under 37 C.F.R. §2.76 has been timely filed.  37 C.F.R. §2.47(d); TMEP §§815.02, 816.02 and 1102.03.

 

If applicant files an amendment to allege use and also amends to the Supplemental Register, please note that the effective filing date of the application will then be the date of filing of the amendment to allege use.  37 C.F.R. §2.75(b); TMEP §§206.01 and 816.02.

 

Benefits of Supplemental Registration:

Although Supplemental Register registration does not afford all the benefits of registration on the Principal Register, it does provide the following advantages:

 

·       The registrant may use the registration symbol ®;

·       The registration is protected against registration of a confusingly similar mark under §2(d) of the Trademark Act, 15 U.S.C. §1052(d);

·       The registrant may bring suit for infringement in federal court; and

·       The registration may serve as the basis for a filing in a foreign country under the Paris Convention and other international agreements.

 

Although applicant’s mark has been refused registration, applicant may respond to the refusals by submitting evidence and arguments in support of registration.

 

Other Informalities:

If the applicant chooses to respond to the refusal to register, the applicant must also respond to the following informalities.

U.S. Attorney Bar Information:

 

Attorney bar information required.  Applicant’s attorney must provide the following bar information:  (1) his or her bar membership number, if the bar provides one; (2) the name of the U.S. state, commonwealth, or territory of his or her bar membership; and (3) the year of his or her admission to the bar.  37 C.F.R. §2.17(b)(3).  This information is required for all U.S.-licensed attorneys who are representing trademark applicants at the USPTO.  Id.  If the attorney’s bar does not issue bar membership numbers, applicant must state this for the record.  See id.

 

To provide bar information.  Applicant’s attorney should respond to this Office action by using the appropriate TEAS response form and provide his or her bar information in the “Attorney Information” page of the form, within the bar information section.  See 37 C.F.R. §2.17(b)(1)(ii).  Bar information provided in any other area of the form will be viewable by the public in USPTO records.

 

Attorney statement required.  Applicant’s attorney must provide the following statement:  “I am an attorney who is an active member in good standing of the bar of a U.S. state (including the District of Columbia and any U.S. Commonwealth or territory).”  See 37 C.F.R. §2.17(b)(3).  This is required for all U.S.-licensed attorneys who are representing trademark applicants at the USPTO.  Id. 

 

Questions:

 

Applicant is encouraged to call or email the assigned trademark examining attorney below to resolve the issues in this Office action.  Although the USPTO will not accept an email as a response to an Office action, an applicant can communicate by phone or email to agree to a proposed amendment to the application that will immediately place the application in condition for publication, registration, or suspension.  See 37 C.F.R. §2.62(c); TMEP §707.

 

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  

 

 

/ LDA/

Lourdes Ayala,

Attorney at Law

Law Office 106

Telephone Number 571-272-9316

Lourdes.Ayala@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 October 15, 2019 for

U.S. Trademark Application Serial No. 88517582

 

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. 

 

 

/ LDA/

Lourdes Ayala,

Attorney at Law

Law Office 106

Telephone Number 571-272-9316

Lourdes.Ayala@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 October 15, 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.”