| To: | BDG Media, Inc. (trademark@prangerlaw.com) |
| Subject: | U.S. Trademark Application Serial No. 88524916 - INPUT - 07154 |
| Sent: | October 16, 2019 09:01:15 AM |
| Sent As: | ecom123@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 Attachment - 14 Attachment - 15 Attachment - 16 Attachment - 17 Attachment - 18 Attachment - 19 Attachment - 20 Attachment - 21 Attachment - 22 Attachment - 23 Attachment - 24 Attachment - 25 Attachment - 26 Attachment - 27 Attachment - 28 Attachment - 29 Attachment - 30 Attachment - 31 Attachment - 32 Attachment - 33 Attachment - 34 Attachment - 35 Attachment - 36 Attachment - 37 Attachment - 38 Attachment - 39 Attachment - 40 Attachment - 41 Attachment - 42 Attachment - 43 Attachment - 44 |
United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO)
Office Action (Official Letter) About Applicant’s Trademark Application
|
U.S. Application Serial No. 88524916
Mark: INPUT
|
|
|
Correspondence Address:
|
|
|
Applicant: BDG Media, Inc.
|
|
|
Reference/Docket No. 07154
Correspondence Email Address: |
|
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 16, 2019
SUMMARY OF ISSUES
SECTION 2(d) REFUSAL – LIKELIHOOD OF CONFUSION
Registration of the applied-for mark is refused because of a likelihood of confusion with the mark in U.S. Registration No. 1179113 (“INPUT” in typed drawing format). Trademark Act Section 2(d), 15 U.S.C. §1052(d); see TMEP §§1207.01 et seq. See the attached registration.
Applicant has requested registration for the mark "INPUT" in standard characters for "Providing on-line digital publications in the nature of articles, stories, reports, dispatches, narratives, photographs, videos, films, and audio-visual recordings featuring news and commentary in the fields of current events, Business and technology; Providing on-line digital publications in the nature of articles and reports in the fields of politics, technology, and business; Providing a website featuring non-downloadable photographs, videos, films, and audio-visual recordings featuring news and commentary in the fields of technology and business; Non-downloadable electronic publications in the nature of magazines and articles in the fields of politics, technology, and business" in Class 41.
Registrant's mark is "INPUT" in typed drawing form for "Printed Matter-Namely, Catalogs, Subscription Program Reports and Research Reports in the Field of Planning Services for Management" in Class 16.
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, similarity and nature of the goods and services, and similarity of the trade channels of the goods and services. 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.
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).
In the present case, applicant’s mark is “INPUT” and registrant’s mark is “INPUT”. These marks are identical in appearance, sound, and meaning, “and have the potential to be used . . . in exactly the same manner.” In re i.am.symbolic, llc, 116 USPQ2d 1406, 1411 (TTAB 2015), aff’d, 866 F.3d 1315, 123 USPQ2d 1744 (Fed. Cir. 2017). Additionally, because they are identical, these marks are likely to engender the same connotation and overall commercial impression when considered in connection with applicant’s and registrant’s respective goods and/or services. Id.
Therefore, the marks are confusingly similar.
COMPARISON OF THE GOODS AND SERVICES
In the present case, the applicant's online news and commentary in the field of business are closely related to the registrant's research reports in the field of business management planning.
The attached Internet evidence establishes that the same entity commonly produces research reports in the field of business planning while also providing business, technology, and current event news and commentary and markets the goods and services under the same mark. See attached websites Aacsb.edu, Deloitte.com, Smallbusiness.chron.com, Plasticsindustry.org, Toyassociation.org. This evidence also demonstrates that the relevant goods and services are sold or provided through the same trade channels and used by the same classes of consumers in the same fields of use and suggests that the goods and services are similar or complementary in terms of purpose or function. Thus, applicant’s and registrant’s goods and services 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).
For these reasons, consumers are likely to mistakenly conclude that the goods and services emanate from the same source. Therefore, the goods and services are closely related.
Because the marks are confusingly similar and the goods and services are closely related, consumers are likely to be confused as to the source of the goods and services. Thus, registration is refused pursuant to Trademark Act Section 2(d).
RESPONSE TO REFUSAL
Although applicant’s mark has been refused registration, applicant may respond to the refusal(s) by submitting evidence and arguments in support of registration.
REQUIREMENT
If the applicant responds to the refusal, then the applicant must also respond to the below requirement.
IDENTIFICATION OF SERVICES AMENDMENT REQUIRED
The wording “reports,” “dispatches”, and “narratives” in the identification of services is indefinite and must be clarified because the form of the identified services is not stated with sufficient clarity. See 37 C.F.R. §2.32(a)(6); TMEP §1402.01.
The wording "Providing on-line digital publications" in the identification of services for International Class 41 must be clarified because it is too broad and could include services in other international classes. See 37 C.F.R. §2.32(a)(6); TMEP §§1402.01, 1402.03. In particular, this wording could encompass downloadable digital publications in Class 9 and non-downloadable digital publications in Class 41.
Applicant may substitute the following wording, if accurate (suggested amendments featured in bold, underline, and strikethrough).
Class 9: Downloadable digital publications accessed via the internet, namely, articles, stories, news reports, news dispatches, narratives in the form of __________ {identify form of narrative in Class 41, e.g., articles, audio-visual recordings, etc.}, photographs, videos, films, and audio-visual recordings featuring news and commentary in the fields of current events, Business and technology
Class 41: Providing on-line non-downloadable digital publications in the nature of articles, stories, news reports, news dispatches, narratives in the form of __________ {identify form of narrative in Class 41, e.g., articles, audio-visual recordings, etc.}, photographs, videos, films, and audio-visual recordings featuring news and commentary in the fields of current events, Business and technology; Providing on-line digital publications in the nature of articles and news reports in the fields of politics, technology, and business; Providing a website featuring non-downloadable photographs, videos, films, and audio-visual recordings featuring news and commentary in the fields of technology and business; Non-downloadable electronic publications in the nature of magazines and articles in the fields of politics, technology, and business
SCOPE ADVISORY
Applicant’s goods and/or services may be clarified or limited, but may not be expanded beyond those originally itemized in the application or as acceptably amended. See 37 C.F.R. §2.71(a); TMEP §1402.06. Applicant may clarify or limit the identification by inserting qualifying language or deleting items to result in a more specific identification; however, applicant may not substitute different goods and/or services or add goods and/or services not found or encompassed by those in the original application or as acceptably amended. See TMEP §1402.06(a)-(b). The scope of the goods and/or services sets the outer limit for any changes to the identification and is generally determined by the ordinary meaning of the wording in the identification. TMEP §§1402.06(b), 1402.07(a)-(b). Any acceptable changes to the goods and/or services will further limit scope, and once goods and/or services are deleted, they are not permitted to be reinserted. TMEP §1402.07(e).
For assistance with identifying and classifying goods and services in trademark applications, please see the USPTO’s online searchable U.S. Acceptable Identification of Goods and Services Manual. See TMEP §1402.04.
MULTIPLE-CLASS APPLICATION REQUIREMENTS
(1) List the goods and/or services by their international class number in consecutive numerical order, starting with the lowest numbered class.
(2) Submit a filing fee for each international class not covered by the fees already paid (view the USPTO’s current fee schedule). The application identifies goods and/or services that are classified in at least two classes; however, applicant submitted a fee(s) sufficient for only one class(es). Applicant must either submit the filing fees for the classes not covered by the submitted fees or restrict the application to the number of classes covered by the fees already paid.
See 15 U.S.C. §§1051(b), 1112, 1126(e); 37 C.F.R. §§2.32(a)(6)-(7), 2.34(a)(2)-(3), 2.86(a); TMEP §§1403.01, 1403.02(c).
The fee for adding classes to a TEAS Reduced Fee (RF) application is $275 per class. See 37 C.F.R. §§2.6(a)(1)(iii), 2.23(a). See more information regarding the requirements for maintaining the lower TEAS RF fee and, if these requirements are not satisfied, for adding classes at a higher fee using regular TEAS.
See an overview of the requirements for a Section 1(b) multiple-class application and how to satisfy the requirements online using the Trademark Electronic Application System (TEAS) form.
RESPONSE GUIDELINES
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
Kathleen Schwarz
Kathleen H. Schwarz
/Kathleen H. Schwarz/
Examining Attorney
Law Office 123
571-272-2460
kathleen.schwarz@uspto.gov
RESPONSE GUIDANCE
