To: | Creston Industrial Sales Inc. (davidd@crestonindustrial.com) |
Subject: | U.S. Trademark Application Serial No. 88533823 - PYTHON - N/A |
Sent: | September 22, 2019 04:52:20 PM |
Sent As: | ecom105@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 Attachment - 45 Attachment - 46 Attachment - 47 |
United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO)
Office Action (Official Letter) About Applicant’s Trademark Application
U.S. Application Serial No. 88533823
Mark: PYTHON
|
|
Correspondence Address:
|
|
Applicant: Creston Industrial Sales Inc.
|
|
Reference/Docket No. N/A
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: September 22, 2019
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.
Please also note that a prior-filed, pending application has been cited as a potential bar to registration.
1) Likelihood of Confusion
Registration of the applied-for mark is refused because of a likelihood of confusion with the mark(s) in U.S. Registration No(s). 4058524 and 5858229. Trademark Act Section 2(d), 15 U.S.C. §1052(d); see TMEP §§1207.01 et seq. Please see the attached registration information.
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.
Similarity of the Marks
In the present case, both applicant’s mark and registrant’s mark is “PYTHON.” 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.
B. Registration No. 4058524
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).
As noted above, applicant’s mark is “PYTHON.” Registrant’s mark is mark is “PYTHONX”
Here, the marks differ only in that registrant’s mark has an additional “X” at the end. Thus, applicant’s entire mark comprises almost the entirety of the registered mark. Significantly, as a result of the shared/similar wording, the marks, as a whole, appear and sound similar. They also create similar overall commercial impression with each calling to mind a certain type of snake.
Moreover, please note that incorporating the entirety of one mark within another does not obviate the similarity between the compared marks, as in the present case, nor does it overcome a likelihood of confusion under Section 2(d). See Wella Corp. v. Cal. Concept Corp., 558 F.2d 1019, 1022, 194 USPQ 419, 422 (C.C.P.A. 1977) (finding CALIFORNIA CONCEPT and surfer design and CONCEPT confusingly similar); Coca-Cola Bottling Co. v. Jos. E. Seagram & Sons, Inc., 526 F.2d 556, 557, 188 USPQ 105, 106 (C.C.P.A. 1975) (finding BENGAL LANCER and design and BENGAL confusingly similar); In re Integrated Embedded, 120 USPQ2d 1504, 1513 (TTAB 2016) (finding BARR GROUP and BARR confusingly similar); In re Mr. Recipe, LLC, 118 USPQ2d 1084, 1090 (TTAB 2016) (finding JAWS DEVOUR YOUR HUNGER and JAWS confusingly similar); TMEP §1207.01(b)(iii). In the present case, the marks are identical in part.
In light of the foregoing, it is likely that consumers would be confused as to the origin of applicant’s goods and/or services.
The Goods and/or Services are Related
A. Registration No. 4058524
The goods in Registration No. 4058524 are computer numerically controlled (CNC) plasma cutting machines.
Applicant’s goods are as follows: cutting tools for use in computer numerical controlled (CNC) machine tools and/or manual machine tools, primarily used in the metalworking industry, namely precision tools, solid carbide tools, hard metal tools, high-speed steel tools; tools for machine tools for cutting, machining, drilling, turning, milling, reaming and thread cutting; indexable inserts and cutting tools with indexable inserts; tool bodies and tool holders for machine tools.
Determining likelihood of confusion is based on the description of the goods and/or services stated in the application and registration at issue, not on extrinsic evidence of actual use. See In re Detroit Athletic Co., 903 F.3d 1297, 1307, 128 USPQ2d 1047, 1052 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (citing In re i.am.symbolic, llc, 866 F.3d 1315, 1325, 123 USPQ2d 1744, 1749 (Fed. Cir. 2017)). When an application or registration broadly identifies goods or services, the goods or services are presumed to encompass all goods or services of the type described. See, e.g., In re Solid State Design Inc., 125 USPQ2d 1409, 1412-15 (TTAB 2018); Sw. Mgmt., Inc. v. Ocinomled, Ltd., 115 USPQ2d 1007, 1025 (TTAB 2015).
In this case, applicant’s cutting tools and tool-related goods and registrant’s goods either specifically indicated that they are or are used, at least in part, with computer numerical controlled (CNC) machines/machine tools. Moreover, applicant’s cutting machines/machine tools are broadly identified and, therefore, presumed to include those that are or are used with “plasma” cutting machines. Thus, applicant’s and registrant’s goods are legally identical, at least in part. See, e.g., In re i.am.symbolic, llc, 127 USPQ2d 1627, 1629 (TTAB 2018) (citing Tuxedo Monopoly, Inc. v.Gen. Mills Fun Grp., Inc., 648 F.2d 1335, 1336, 209 USPQ 986, 988 (C.C.P.A. 1981); Inter IKEA Sys. B.V. v. Akea, LLC, 110 USPQ2d 1734, 1745 (TTAB 2014); Baseball Am. Inc. v. Powerplay Sports Ltd., 71 USPQ2d 1844, 1847 n.9 (TTAB 2004)).
To the extent that the goods are not identical, they appear to be complementary and used for similar purposes. Specifically, in light of the broad wording, it is presumed that they include those used for the same or similar machines and those used for similar purposes.
The trademark examining attorney also has attached evidence from the USPTO’s X-Search database consisting of a number of third-party marks registered for use in connection with the same or similar goods and/or services as those of both applicant and registrant in this case. This evidence shows that the goods and/or services listed therein are of a kind that may emanate from a single source under a single mark. See In re I-Coat Co., 126 USPQ2d 1730, 1737 (TTAB 2018) (citing In re Infinity Broad. Corp., 60 USPQ2d 1214, 1217-18 (TTAB 2001); In re Albert Trostel & Sons Co.,29 USPQ2d 1783, 1785-86 (TTAB 1993); In re Mucky Duck Mustard Co., 6 USPQ2d 1467, 1470 n.6 (TTAB 1988)); TMEP §1207.01(d)(iii).
Additionally, registrant’s goods have no restrictions as to nature, type, channels of trade, or classes of purchasers and are, therefore, “presumed to travel in the same channels of trade to the same class of purchasers” as are applicant’s goods. In re Viterra Inc., 671 F.3d 1358, 1362, 101 USPQ2d 1905, 1908 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (quoting Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Packard Press, Inc., 281 F.3d 1261, 1268, 62 USPQ2d 1001, 1005 (Fed. Cir. 2002)).
B. Registration No. 5858229
The goods in Registration No. 5858229 include the following: apparatus for control of a clutch providing power transmission between an engine and a driven machine, namely, clutch controllers in the nature of hydraulic units for control of clutch valves providing controlled transmission of power to wood chippers and heavy-load equipment, other than for land vehicles.
Applicant’s goods include the following: tools for machine tools for cutting, milling and thread cutting; indexable inserts and cutting tools with indexable inserts; tool bodies and tool holders for machine tools.
As noted above, determining likelihood of confusion is based on the description of the goods and/or services stated in the application and registration at issue, not on extrinsic evidence of actual use. In re Detroit Athletic Co., 903 F.3d at 1307, 128 USPQ2d at 1052. When an application or registration broadly identifies goods or services, the goods or services are presumed to encompass all goods or services of the type described. In re Solid State Design Inc., 125 USPQ2d at 1412-15.
Here, applicant’s goods for cutting are broadly identified and, therefore, presumed to include those being wood chippers or tools for wood chippers. Thus, the goods appear identical in part and otherwise highly related.
Additionally, applicant’s goods/services have no restrictions as to nature, type, channels of trade, or classes of purchasers. Applicant’s and registrant’s goods/services are, therefore, presumed to travel in the same channels of trade to the same class of purchasers. In re Viterra Inc., 671 F.3d at 1362, 101 USPQ2d at 1908.
The trademark examining attorney has attached evidence from the USPTO’s X-Search database consisting of a number of third-party marks registered for use in connection with the same or similar goods and/or services as those of both applicant and registrant in this case. This evidence shows that the goods and/or services listed therein are of a kind that may emanate from a single source under a single mark. In re I-Coat Co., 126 USPQ2d at 1737 TMEP §1207.01(d)(iii).
Please Note: The refusal as to Registration No. 5858229 applies only to the goods specifically identified above
Doubt is Resolved in Favor of Registrant
The overriding concern is not only to prevent buyer confusion as to the source of the goods and/or services, but to protect the registrant from adverse commercial impact due to use of a similar mark by a newcomer. See In re Shell Oil Co., 992 F.2d 1204, 1208, 26 USPQ2d 1687, 1690 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Therefore, any doubt regarding a likelihood of confusion determination is resolved in favor of the registrant. TMEP §1207.01(d)(i); see Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Packard Press, Inc., 281 F.3d 1261, 1265, 62 USPQ2d 1001, 1003 (Fed. Cir. 2002); In re Hyper Shoppes (Ohio), Inc., 837 F.2d 463, 464-65, 6 USPQ2d 1025, 1026 (Fed. Cir. 1988).
In light of the foregoing, registration is refused under Trademark Act Section 2(d), 15 U.S.C. §1052(d).
Prior-filed, Pending 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.
2) Identification of Goods
Some of the wording in the identification of goods/services is indefinite and must be clarified. See 37 C.F.R. §2.32(a)(6); TMEP §1402.01. Applicant also must adopt the appropriate international classification number for the goods and/or services identified in the application. The USPTO follows the International Classification of Goods and Services for the Purposes of the Registration of Marks (Nice Classification), established by the World Intellectual Property Organization, to classify goods and services. See 37 C.F.R. §2.85(a); TMEP §§1401.02, 1401.02(a).
Here, applicant must clarify “cutting tools for use in computer numerical controlled (CNC) machine tools and/or manual machine tools, primarily used in the metalworking industry, namely precision tools, solid carbide tools, hard metal tools, high-speed steel tools.” Applicant must replace the indefinite term “and/or” with definite, all-inclusive wording. Applicant also must classify those that are machines or power-operated in Class 7. Meanwhile, manually-operated tools are classified in Class 8.
Here, the use of “manual machine tools” is indefinite. It is unclear if they are hand-operated (not power-operated) tools, if they are machines that are turned on by hand or if they are parts of machines. To ensure proper classification, this must be clarified.
It is also is noted that it is a bit awkward to says a tool is part of a tool. Thus, clarification is required.
“Tools for machine tools for cutting, machining, drilling, turning, milling, reaming and thread cutting” also must be similarly clarified because “tools for machine tools” is awkward. In this regard, the nature of the “tools” must be clarified. The nature or type of “machining” also must be clarified.
“Indexable inserts and cutting tools with indexable inserts” must be clarified to identify what “indexable inserts” listed by itself refers to. Moreover, it must be clear if the “cutting tools” are machines or power-operated and properly classified in Class 7 or if they are hand-operated cutting tools properly classified in Class 8.
Finally, the nature of “tool bodies” must be clarified.
Applicant may substitute the following wording, if accurate.
Cutting tools being parts of computer numerical controlled (CNC) machines including such machines that are manually turned on, all primarily used in the metalworking industry and being precision cutting tools, solid carbide cutting tools, hard metal cutting tools, and high-speed steel cutting tools; tools being machine parts, namely, parts for cutting machines, _________________ [clarify type of “machining” machines], drilling machines, turning machines, milling machines, reaming machines and thread cutting machines; indexable inserts being machine parts for use with cutting machines; cutting machines with indexable inserts; tool bodies being parts for cutting machines; tool holders for machine tools, in Class 7.
Manaully-operated cutting tools with indexable inserts, in Class 8.
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.
3) Multiple-classification 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 fee(s) 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).
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
Response guidelines. For this application to proceed, applicant must explicitly address each refusal and/or requirement 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.
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
Please do not hesitate to contact the undersigned with any questions.
/MaureenDallLott/
Maureen Dall Lott
Trademark Examining Attorney, Law Office 105
United States Patent and Trademark Office
571-272-9714
maureen.lott@uspto.gov
RESPONSE GUIDANCE