| To: | MSC Services Corp. (trademark@curtis.com) |
| Subject: | U.S. Trademark Application Serial No. 88519187 - PRO-SAFE - 254174-10348 |
| Sent: | October 15, 2019 03:33:24 PM |
| Sent As: | ecom117@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 |
United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO)
Office Action (Official Letter) About Applicant’s Trademark Application
|
U.S. Application Serial No. 88519187
Mark: PRO-SAFE
|
|
|
Correspondence Address: |
|
|
Applicant: MSC Services Corp.
|
|
|
Reference/Docket No. 254174-10348
Correspondence Email Address: |
|
COMBINED EXAMINER’S AMENDMENT/PRIORITY ACTION 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
Applicant must address issues shown below. On October 15, 2019, the examining attorney and Samuel Ballard, associate of attorney of record, discussed the issues below. Applicant must timely respond to these issues. See 15 U.S.C. §1062(b); 37 C.F.R. §2.62(a); TMEP §708.05.
SECTION 2(d) REFUSAL – LIKELIHOOD OF CONFUSION
THIS PARTIAL REFUSAL APPLIES ONLY TO THE GOODS SPECIFIED THEREIN
Registration of the applied-for mark is refused because of a likelihood of confusion with the mark in U.S. Registration No. 3105563. Trademark Act Section 2(d), 15 U.S.C. §1052(d); see TMEP §§1207.01 et seq. See the attached registration.
Applicant’s mark is PRO-SAFE for “batteries.” Registrant’s mark is PROSAFE for “Network interface cards; network interface adapters; power converters; communications equipment, namely, bridges, servers, electricity adapters, Ethernet adapters, flash card adapters and plug adapters; VPN (virtual private network) operating software; computer software for managing and operating computer and communications hardware over electronic, optical, or wireless communications networks; all the aforementioned goods used to enable users to share Internet access, files, digital multimedia content and applications among multiple personal computers and other Internet-enabled devices.”
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 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. 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).
When comparing marks, “[t]he proper test is not a side-by-side comparison of the marks, but instead whether the marks are sufficiently similar in terms of their commercial impression such that [consumers] who encounter the marks would be likely to assume a connection between the parties.” Cai v. Diamond Hong, Inc., __ F.3d __, 127 USPQ2d 1797, 1801 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (quoting Coach Servs., Inc. v. Triumph Learning LLC, 668 F.3d 1356, 1368, 101 USPQ2d 1713, 1721 (Fed. Cir. 2012)); TMEP §1207.01(b). The proper focus is on the recollection of the average purchaser, who retains a general rather than specific impression of trademarks. In re Inn at St. John’s, LLC, 126 USPQ2d 1742, 1746 (TTAB 2018) (citing In re St. Helena Hosp., 774 F.3d 747, 750-51, 113 USPQ2d 1082, 1085 (Fed. Cir. 2014); Geigy Chem. Corp. v. Atlas Chem. Indus., Inc., 438 F.2d 1005, 1007, 169 USPQ 39, 40 (CCPA 1971)); TMEP §1207.01(b).
In this case both the applicant’s mark and the registrant’s mark feature the wording PRO adjacent to the wording SAFE. The fact that the applicant’s mark contains a hyphen between the two words will not obviate the likelihood of confusion in this case. The compared marks are identical except for a slight difference in appearance between registrant’s mark, which has no space separating the words, that is, PROSAFE; and applicant’s mark, which appears with a hyphen separating the words, that is, PRO-SAFE. As such, the marks are identical in sound and virtually identical in appearance, and are thus confusingly similar for the purposes of determining likelihood of confusion. See, e.g., Seaguard Corp. v. Seaward Int’l, Inc., 223 USPQ 48, 51 (TTAB 1984) (“[T]he marks ‘SEAGUARD’ and ‘SEA GUARD’ are, in contemplation of law, identical [internal citation omitted].”); In re Best W. Family Steak House, Inc., 222 USPQ 827, 827 (TTAB 1984) (“There can be little doubt that the marks [BEEFMASTER and BEEF MASTER] are practically identical”); Stock Pot, Inc., v. Stockpot Rest., Inc., 220 USPQ 52, 52 (TTAB 1983), aff’d 737 F.2d 1576, 222 USPQ 665 (Fed. Cir. 1984) (“There is no question that the marks of the parties [STOCKPOT and STOCK POT] are confusingly similar. The word marks are phonetically identical and visually almost identical.”).
Therefore as the marks sound identical, have the same commercial impression of professional safety, and are virtually identical in appearance, the marks are confusingly similar.
COMPARISON OF THE GOODS
In this case, attached Internet evidence shows that it is common in the applicant’s industry for the same entity to provide the applicant’s goods under the same mark as the registrant’s goods. For example, Lenovo® and Belkin® provide the applicant’s goods of batteries under the same mark as the registrant’s goods of Ethernet adapters. Therefore, as it is common in the applicant’s industry for the same entity to provide the applicant’s goods under the same mark as the registrant’s goods the 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).
Although applicant’s mark has been refused registration, applicant may respond to the refusal by submitting evidence and arguments in support of registration.
MULTIPLE-CLASS APPLICATION REQUIREMENTS
(1) List the goods by their international class number in consecutive numerical order, starting with the lowest numbered class (for example, International Class 3: perfume; International Class 18: cosmetic bags sold empty).
(2) Submit a filing fee for each international class not covered by the fees already paid (view the USPTO’s current fee schedule). Specifically, the application identifies goods based on use in commerce that are classified in at least 6 classes; however, applicant submitted fees sufficient for only 5 classes. Applicant must either (a) submit the filing fees for the classes not covered by the submitted fees or (b) restrict the application to the number of classes covered by the fees already paid.
(3) Submit verified dates of first use of the mark anywhere and in commerce for each international class. See more information about verified dates of use.
(4) Submit a specimen for each international class. The current specimen is acceptable for classes 6, 8, 9, 18, and 19; and applicant needs a specimen for class 20. See more information about specimens.
Examples of specimens for goods include tags, labels, instruction manuals, containers, and photographs that show the mark on the actual goods or packaging, or displays associated with the actual goods at their point of sale. 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.
(5) Submit a verified statement that “The specimen was in use in commerce on or in connection with the goods and/or services listed in the application at least as early as the filing date of the application.” See more information about verification.
See 15 U.S.C. §§1051(a), 1112; 37 C.F.R. §§2.32(a)(6)-(7), 2.34(a)(1), 2.86(a); TMEP §§904, 1403.01, 1403.02(c).
See an overview of the requirements for a Section 1(a) multiple-class application and how to satisfy the requirements online using the Trademark Electronic Application System (TEAS) form.
Application has been amended as shown below. As agreed to by the individual identified in the Priority Action section, the examining attorney has amended the application as shown below. Please notify the examining attorney immediately of any objections. TMEP §707. In addition, applicant is advised that amendments to the goods and/or services are permitted only if they clarify or limit them; amendments that add to or broaden the scope of the goods and/or services are not permitted. 37 C.F.R. §2.71(a).
The identification of goods is amended to read as follows:
Class 6: Portable metal bollards and posts; Leak diverters in the nature of a metal water storage and diversion device; metal spill containment berms; traffic safety equipment, namely, metal speed bumps, non-luminous and non-mechanical traffic and parking signs of metal, non-luminous and non-mechanical hazard signs of metal
Class 8: Utility knives, snap blade utility knives and box cutters
Class 9: Batteries; biological safety cabinets; protective footwear for the prevention of accident or injury; safety mirrors for prevention of accidents; inspection mirrors; traffic safety equipment, namely, traffic cones, traffic warning flags and wind socks for indicating wind direction and intensity; traffic safety equipment, namely, luminous and mechanical traffic and parking signs, luminous and mechanical hazard signs
Class 18: umbrellas
Class 19: Leak diverters in the nature of a non-metal water storage and diversion device; non-metal spill containment berms; traffic safety equipment, namely, non-metal speed bumps, and portable non-metal and plastic traffic and pedestrian barriers in the nature of fences, traffic barrels, rope and non-metal chain barriers, mooring bollards, posts and post sleeves
Class 20: traffic safety equipment, namely, automobile bumper guards
See TMEP §§1402.01, 1402.01(e).
If the applicant has any questions or requires assistance in responding to this Examiner’s Amendment or Priority Action, please contact the assigned examining attorney.
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.
/Stephanie Rydland/
Stephanie Rydland
Examining Attorney
Law Office 117
(571) 272-7226
Stephanie.Rydland@uspto.gov
RESPONSE GUIDANCE
