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:  December 04, 2019

 

This Office Action responds to applicant’s communication dated 11/12/2019 where applicant:

 

(1)   Amended the identification and classification of services.

 

The examining attorney has reviewed the applicant’s response and determined the following:

 

(1)   Applicant’s amended identification and classification of services is accepted. Therefore, the Identification and Classification requirement as well as the Clarification requirement are satisfied.

 

(2)   After further review, it has been determined that a Section 2(d) Refusal and Section 2(e)(1) Refusal should have been issued. Therefore, applicant must address these new refusals in the summary of issues listed below.

 

SUMMARY OF ISSUES:

 

• Section 2(d) Refusal – Likelihood of Confusion
• Section 2(e)(1) Refusal – Merely Descriptive
• Supplemental Register Advisory

 

SECTION 2(d) REFUSAL – LIKELIHOOD OF CONFUSION

 

The stated refusal refers to International Class 044 only and does not bar registration in the other class.

 

Registration of the applied-for mark is refused because of a likelihood of confusion with the mark ACCESS NURSING SERVICES in U.S. Registration No. 2057656. 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 ACCESSNURSE (standard character mark) used in connection with the relevant services “telephone nurse triage in the nature of conducting medical evaluations for patient triage via telephone; post-discharge services, namely, nurse conducted calls to discharged patients to check on their recoveries, medications and post-discharge needs” in International Class 044.

 

Registrant’s mark is ACCESS NURSING SERVICES (combination word and design mark) used in connection with the services “providing nursing personnel to render health care services to patients, excluding educational, counseling, psychological, or consulting services provided to, or related to the professional and personal development of, health care professionals” in International Class 042.

 

Trademark Act Section 2(d) bars registration of an applied-for mark that so resembles a registered mark that it is likely a consumer would be confused, mistaken, or deceived as to the source of the services of the applicant and registrant.  See 15 U.S.C. §1052(d).  Determining likelihood of confusion is made 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).  In re i.am.symbolic, llc, 866 F.3d 1315, 1322, 123 USPQ2d 1744, 1747 (Fed. Cir. 2017).  However, “[n]ot all of the [du Pont] factors are relevant to every case, and only factors of significance to the particular mark need be considered.”  Coach Servs., Inc. v. Triumph Learning LLC, 668 F.3d 1356, 1366, 101 USPQ2d 1713, 1719 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (quoting In re Mighty Leaf Tea, 601. F.3d 1342, 1346, 94 USPQ2d 1257, 1259 (Fed. Cir 2010)).  The USPTO may focus its analysis “on dispositive factors, such as similarity of the marks and relatedness of the services.”  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)); see TMEP §1207.01. 

 

In this case, the following factors are the most relevant: similarity of the marks, similarity of the nature of the services, and similarity of the trade channels of the 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.

 

SIMILARITY 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 Davia, 110 USPQ2d 1810, 1812 (TTAB 2014) (citing In re 1st USA Realty Prof’ls, Inc., 84 USPQ2d 1581, 1586 (TTAB 2007)); In re White Swan Ltd., 8 USPQ2d 1534, 1535 (TTAB 1988)); TMEP §1207.01(b).

 

Applicant’s mark ACCESSNURSE and registrant’s mark ACCESS NURSING SERVICES are confusingly similar.

 

Applicant’s mark and registrant’s mark are similar in appearance, sound, meaning, and commercial impression. The marks share the words ACCESSNURSE and ACCESS NURSING which are very similar in appearance and sound except for applicant’s use of the word NURSE and lack of space between the words, where the registrant uses the word NURSING and has a space between the words. NURSE and NURSING are similar in meaning. The word NURSE means “a person trained to care for the sick or infirm” while the word NURSING means “the profession or practice of providing care for the sick or infirm.” When combined with the word ACCESS, meaning, the means or opportunity to approach or see someone or use or benefit from something, the marks create the similar overall impression of having the means or opportunity to benefit from provided care for the sick or infirm in each of the marks. See attached evidence from lexico.com defining ACCESS, NURSE, and NURSING. Marks may be confusingly similar in appearance where similar terms or phrases or similar parts of terms or phrases appear in the compared marks and create a similar overall commercial impression.  See Crocker Nat’l Bank v. Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce, 228 USPQ 689, 690-91 (TTAB 1986), aff’d sub nom. Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce v. Wells Fargo Bank, Nat’l Ass’n, 811 F.2d 1490, 1495, 1 USPQ2d 1813, 1817 (Fed. Cir. 1987) (finding COMMCASH and COMMUNICASH confusingly similar); In re Corning Glass Works, 229 USPQ 65, 66 (TTAB 1985) (finding CONFIRM and CONFIRMCELLS confusingly similar); In re Pellerin Milnor Corp., 221 USPQ 558, 560 (TTAB 1983) (finding MILTRON and MILLTRONICS confusingly similar); TMEP §1207.01(b)(ii)-(iii).

 

Additionally, registrant’s use of the word SERVICES does not obviate a finding of a likelihood of confusion. Although marks are compared in their entireties, one feature of a mark may be more significant or dominant in creating a commercial impression.  See In re Viterra Inc., 671 F.3d 1358, 1362, 101 USPQ2d 1905, 1908 (Fed. Cir. 2012); In re Nat’l Data Corp., 753 F.2d 1056, 1058, 224 USPQ 749, 751 (Fed. Cir. 1985); TMEP §1207.01(b)(viii), (c)(ii).  Disclaimed matter that is descriptive of or generic for a party’s services is typically less significant or less dominant when comparing marks.  In re Detroit Athletic Co., 903 F.3d 1297, 1305, 128 USPQ2d 1047, 1050 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (citing In re Dixie Rests., Inc., 105 F.3d 1405, 1407, 41 USPQ2d 1531, 1533-34 (Fed. Cir. 1997)); TMEP §1207.01(b)(viii), (c)(ii). Here, the registrant has disclaimed the words NURSING SERVICES and thus, this wording is less significant in creating a commercial impression, leaving the word ACCESS as the dominant portion of the registered mark.

 

Furthermore, registrant’s use of minor stylization and design elements in the mark does not obviate a finding of a likelihood of confusion. 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 services.  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)). Here, it is unlikely that consumers would refer to the registered mark by the minor stylization and design elements, but instead are likely to refer to the mark by the wording. Thus, the wording is the dominant portion of the mark.

 

Therefore, although the applicant’s mark and registrant’s mark have minor differences, the marks are very similar and thus have the same overall commercial impression, and as a result, purchasers are likely to be confused as to the source of the applicant’s and registrant’s services. Therefore, the marks are confusingly similar.

 

RELATEDNESS OF THE SERVICES

 

The services are compared to determine whether they are similar, commercially related, or travel in the same trade channels.  See Coach Servs., Inc. v. Triumph Learning LLC, 668 F.3d 1356, 1369-71, 101 USPQ2d 1713, 1722-23 (Fed. Cir. 2012); Herbko Int’l, Inc. v. Kappa Books, Inc., 308 F.3d 1156, 1165, 64 USPQ2d 1375, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2002); TMEP §§1207.01, 1207.01(a)(vi).

 

When analyzing an applicant’s and registrant’s services for similarity and relatedness, that determination is based on the description of the services in the application and registration at issue, not on extrinsic evidence of actual use.  See Stone Lion Capital Partners, LP v. Lion Capital LLP, 746 F.3d 1317, 1323, 110 USPQ2d 1157, 1162 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (quoting Octocom Sys. Inc. v. Hous. Computers Servs. Inc., 918 F.2d 937, 942, 16 USPQ2d 1783, 1787 (Fed. Cir. 1990)). 

 

Applicant’s relevant services “telephone nurse triage in the nature of conducting medical evaluations for patient triage via telephone; post-discharge services, namely, nurse conducted calls to discharged patients to check on their recoveries, medications and post-discharge needs” in International Class 044 are related to registrant’s services “providing nursing personnel to render health care services to patients, excluding educational, counseling, psychological, or consulting services provided to, or related to the professional and personal development of, health care professionals” in International Class 042.

 

The attached Internet evidence from cms24-7.com, curehealthcarestaffing.com, and libertyhealthcare.com establishes that the same entity commonly provides nursing and nurse staffing, telemedicine, and triage support services and markets the services under the same mark and that the relevant services are sold or provided through the same trade channels and used by the same classes of consumers in the same fields of use.  Thus, applicant’s and registrant’s 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).

 

Because the marks are confusingly similar and the services are related, there is a likelihood of confusion between the marks. Therefore, registration is refused pursuant to Section 2(d) of the Trademark Act.

 

Applicant may respond to the stated refusal by submitting evidence and arguments against the refusal.  In addition, applicant may respond by doing one of the following:

 

(1)  Deleting the class to which the refusal pertains;

 

(2)  Filing a request to divide out the services that have not been refused registration, so that the mark may proceed toward publication for opposition in the class to which the refusal does not pertain.  See 37 C.F.R. §2.87.  See generally TMEP §§1110 et seq. (regarding the requirements for filing a request to divide).  If applicant files a request to divide, then to avoid abandonment, applicant must also file a timely response to all outstanding issues in this Office action, including the refusal.  37 C.F.R. §2.87(e).; or

 

(3)  Amending the basis for that class, if appropriate.  TMEP §806.03(h).  (The basis cannot be changed for applications filed under Trademark Act Section 66(a).  TMEP §1904.01(a).)

 

Applicant should note the following additional ground for refusal.

 

SECTION 2(e)(1) REFUSAL - MERELY DESCRIPTIVE

 

Registration is refused because the applied-for mark ACCESSNURSE merely describes a feature, function, purpose, or use of applicant’s services. Trademark Act Section 2(e)(1), 15 U.S.C. §1052(e)(1); see TMEP §§1209.01(b), 1209.03 et seq.

 

A mark is merely descriptive if it describes a characteristic, quality, feature, function, purpose, use, or subject matter of an applicant’s services.  TMEP §1209.01(b); see, e.g., In re TriVita, Inc., 783 F.3d 872, 874, 114 USPQ2d 1574, 1575 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (quoting In re Oppedahl & Larson LLP, 373 F.3d 1171, 1173, 71 USPQ2d 1370, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2004)); In re Steelbuilding.com, 415 F.3d 1293, 1297, 75 USPQ2d 1420, 1421 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (citing Estate of P.D. Beckwith, Inc. v. Comm’r of Patents, 252 U.S. 538, 543 (1920)).

 

The attached evidence shows that the word ACCESS means the means or opportunity to approach or see someone. Additionally, the attached evidence shows the word NURSE means a person trained to care for the sick or infirm, especially in a hospital. See attached lexico.com definitions of ACCESS and NURSE. Together the term ACCESSNURSE means the means or opportunity to approach or see a person trained to care for the sick or infirm. Applicant’s services include medical call center and telephone nurse triage services. Thus, the wording ACCESSNURSE merely describes a feature of applicant’s services because ACCESSNURSE immediately conveys to consumers that applicant’s call center and telephone nurse triage services provide consumers with the means or opportunity to approach or see a person trained to care for the sick or infirm.

 

Generally, if the individual components of a mark retain their descriptive meaning in relation to the services, the combination results in a composite mark that is itself descriptive and not registrable.  In re Fat Boys Water Sports LLC, 118 USPQ2d 1511, 1516 (TTAB 2016) (citing In re Tower Tech, Inc., 64 USPQ2d 1314, 1317-18 (TTAB (2002)); TMEP §1209.03(d); see, e.g., In re Petroglyph Games, Inc., 91 USPQ2d 1332, 1341 (TTAB 2009) (holding BATTLECAM merely descriptive of computer game software with a feature that involve battles and provides the player with the option to utilize various views of the battlefield); In re Cox Enters., 82 USPQ2d 1040, 1043 (TTAB 2007) (holding THEATL merely descriptive of publications featuring news and information about Atlanta where THEATL was the equivalent of the nickname THE ATL for the city of Atlanta); In re Tower Tech, Inc., 64 USPQ2d 1314, 1317-18 (TTAB 2002) (holding SMARTTOWER merely descriptive of highly automated cooling towers); In re Sun Microsystems, Inc., 59 USPQ2d 1084, 1085 (TTAB 2001) (holding AGENTBEANS merely descriptive of computer software for use in developing and deploying application programs on a global computer network). Here the individual components of applicant’s mark retain their descriptive meaning in relation to applicant’s medical call center and telephone nurse triage services, and therefore the combination of these terms results in a composite mark that is still merely descriptive of applicant’s services.

 

In accordance with the attached evidence, the mark ACCESSNURSE is descriptive of applicant’s services because the mark immediately conveys to consumers that applicant’s medical and business services allow consumers the means or opportunity to approach or see a person trained to care for the sick or infirm Therefore, applicant’s mark is merely descriptive and registration on the Principal Register is refused under Section 2(e)(1).

 

SUPPLEMENTAL REGISTER ADVISORY

 

The applied-for mark has been refused registration on the Principal Register.  Applicant may respond to the refusal by submitting evidence and arguments in support of registration and/or by amending the application to seek registration on the Supplemental Register.  See 15 U.S.C. §1091; 37 C.F.R. §§2.47, 2.75(a); TMEP §§801.02(b), 816.  Amending to the Supplemental Register does not preclude applicant from submitting evidence and arguments against the refusal.  TMEP §816.04.

 

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

 

RESPONSE GUIDELINES

 

For this application to proceed, applicant must explicitly address each refusal in this Office action.  For a refusal, applicant may provide written arguments and evidence against the refusal, and may have other response options if specified above.  For a requirement, applicant should set forth the changes or statements.  Please see “Responding to Office Actions” and the informational video “Response to Office Action” for more information and tips on responding.

 

Please call or email the assigned trademark examining attorney with questions about this Office action.  Although the trademark examining attorney cannot provide legal advice or statements about applicant’s rights, the trademark examining attorney can provide applicant with additional explanation about the refusals in this Office action.  See TMEP §§705.02, 709.06.  Although the USPTO does not accept emails as responses to Office actions, emails can be used for informal communications and will be included in the application record.  See 37 C.F.R. §§2.62(c), 2.191; TMEP §§304.01-.02, 709.04-.05. 

 

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.    

 

 

Rebecca Coughlan

/Rebecca D. Coughlan/

Trademark Examining Attorney, Law Office 113

Phone: 571-272-4975

Email: rebecca.coughlan@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 December 04, 2019 for

U.S. Trademark Application Serial No. 88530677

 

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. 

 

 

Rebecca Coughlan

/Rebecca D. Coughlan/

Trademark Examining Attorney, Law Office 113

Phone: 571-272-4975

Email: rebecca.coughlan@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 December 04, 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.”