| To: | Aesculap AG (kennedyp@pepperlaw.com) |
| Subject: | U.S. Trademark Application Serial No. 88536129 - SQ.LINE - 120254.2092 |
| Sent: | October 15, 2019 09:56:26 AM |
| Sent As: | ecom128@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 |
United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO)
Office Action (Official Letter) About Applicant’s Trademark Application
|
U.S. Application Serial No. 88536129
Mark: SQ.LINE
|
|
|
Correspondence Address: |
|
|
Applicant: Aesculap AG
|
|
|
Reference/Docket No. 120254.2092
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 15, 2019
The referenced application has been reviewed by the assigned trademark examining attorney. Applicant must respond timely and completely to the issues below. 15 U.S.C. §1062(b); 37 C.F.R. §§2.62(a), 2.65(a); TMEP §§711, 718.03.
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. 5173522 (“QLINE”). Trademark Act Section 2(d), 15 U.S.C. §1052(d); see TMEP §§1207.01 et seq. See the attached registration.
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 and differences in the marks.”); TMEP §1207.01.
a. Comparing the Marks
Applicant’s mark is “SQ.LINE” in standard characters, and registrant’s mark is “QLINE” in standard characters.
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 incorporates the entirety of the registered mark. However, 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.
Further, while applicant’s mark also contains a letter “S” and a period (“.”) between the letters “SQ” and the word “LINE”, the additional matter does not differentiate the commercial impression created by applicant’s mark from that of registrant’s mark. Consumer confusion has been held likely for marks that do not physically sound or look alike but that convey the same idea, stimulate the same mental reaction, or may have the same overall meaning. Proctor & Gamble Co. v. Conway, 419 F.2d 1332, 1336, 164 USPQ 301, 304 (C.C.P.A. 1970) (holding MISTER STAIN likely to be confused with MR. CLEAN on competing cleaning products); see In re M. Serman & Co., 223 USPQ 52, 53 (TTAB 1984) (holding CITY WOMAN for ladies’ blouses likely to be confused with CITY GIRL for a variety of female clothing); H. Sichel Sohne, GmbH v. John Gross & Co., 204 USPQ 257, 260-61 (TTAB 1979) (holding BLUE NUN for wines likely to be confused with BLUE CHAPEL for the same goods); Ralston Purina Co. v. Old Ranchers Canning Co., 199 USPQ 125, 128 (TTAB 1978) (holding TUNA O’ THE FARM for canned chicken likely to be confused with CHICKEN OF THE SEA for canned tuna); Downtowner Corp. v. Uptowner Inns, Inc., 178 USPQ 105, 109 (TTAB 1973) (holding UPTOWNER for motor inn and restaurant services likely to be confused with DOWNTOWNER for the same services); TMEP §1207.01(b).
In the present case, the additional matter in applicant’s mark does not change the overall commercial impression of the mark and thus, the marks are confusingly similar.
Applicant seeks to register its mark in connection with “Surgical, medical, dental and veterinary apparatus and instruments; Surgical instruments for use in orthopedic surgery; Surgical apparatus and instruments for medical use; Instruments for gastrointestinal surgery; Medical and veterinary apparatus and instruments; Medical devices for closing wounds; Haemostats; Instruments for cardiac stimulation; Urological apparatus and instruments; Surgical apparatus and instruments for dental use; Lag screws in the nature of orthopaedic surgical instruments; Receptacles for receiving surgical instruments; Shears; Surgical instruments; Surgical apparatus and instruments for veterinary use; Trays for holding surgical instruments; Prosthetics and artificial implants; Orthopaedic and surgical implants; Suture materials” in International Class 10.
Registrant’s goods are identified as “Surgical apparatus and instruments for use in ophthalmic surgery; surgical apparatus and instruments, namely, ophthalmic implants; surgical apparatus and instruments for carrying out vitrectomy, namely, vitreous cutters; surgical apparatus and instruments for phacoemulsification, namely, phaco needles, and sleeve sets; surgical apparatus and instruments, namely, lasers, light fibers and light sources for medical purposes; surgical apparatus and instruments, namely, diathermy forceps and pins; surgical apparatus and instruments, namely, viscous fluid injection and aspiration sets, air-fluid exchange sets, and irrigation and aspiration handles; kits for vitrectomy comprising entry systems comprising knives, cannulas, and plugs” in International Class 10.
Determining likelihood of confusion is based on the description of the goods 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)).
In this case, the application uses broad wording to describe “Surgical, medical, dental and veterinary apparatus and instruments; Surgical apparatus and instruments for medical use; Medical and veterinary apparatus and instruments; Surgical apparatus and instruments for dental use; Surgical instruments; Surgical apparatus and instruments for veterinary use”, which presumably encompasses all goods of the type described, including registrant’s more narrowly defined “Surgical apparatus and instruments for use in ophthalmic surgery; surgical apparatus and instruments, namely, ophthalmic implants; surgical apparatus and instruments for carrying out vitrectomy, namely, vitreous cutters; surgical apparatus and instruments for phacoemulsification, namely, phaco needles, and sleeve sets; surgical apparatus and instruments, namely, lasers, light fibers and light sources for medical purposes; surgical apparatus and instruments, namely, diathermy forceps and pins; surgical apparatus and instruments, namely, viscous fluid injection and aspiration sets, air-fluid exchange sets, and irrigation and aspiration handles”. 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). Thus, applicant’s and registrant’s goods are legally identical. 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)).
Additionally, the goods of the parties have no restrictions as to nature, type, channels of trade, or classes of purchasers and are “presumed to travel in the same channels of trade to the same class of purchasers.” 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)). Thus, applicant’s and registrant’s goods are related.
With respect to the remaining goods identified in the application, namely, “instruments for gastrointestinal surgery; medical devices for closing wounds; haemostats; instruments for cardiac stimulation; urological apparatus and instruments; lag screws in the nature of orthopaedic surgical instruments; receptacles for receiving surgical instruments; shears; surgical apparatus and instruments for veterinary use; trays for holding surgical instruments; prosthetics and artificial implants; orthopaedic and surgical implants; suture materials”, the attached Internet evidence, consisting of screenshots from Ace Surgical, Medline, and Roboz establishes that the same entity commonly manufactures the relevant goods and markets the goods under the same mark, and that the relevant goods 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 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).
Ace Surgical:
Medline:
Boboz:
Accordingly, registration must be refused pursuant to Section 2(d) of the Trademark Act.
AMENDMENT OF IDENTIFICATION OF GOODS
Additionally, the wording “instruments for gastrointestinal surgery”, “medical and veterinary apparatus and instruments”, “instruments for cardiac stimulation”, “Urological apparatus and instruments”, “receptacles for receiving surgical instruments”, “trays for holding surgical instruments”, “prosthetics and artificial implants”, and “orthopaedic and surgical implants” in the identification of goods is indefinite and must be clarified because it doesn’t specify the purpose of the goods (i.e. surgical or medical), the nature of the goods, or the material composition of the goods, as explained in the suggestions below. See 37 C.F.R. §2.32(a)(6); TMEP §1402.01.
Applicant may substitute the following wording, if accurate (changes and suggestions in bold):
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 fee already paid (view the USPTO’s current fee schedule). The application identifies goods that are classified in at least two classes; however, applicant submitted a fee sufficient for only one class. 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.
RESPONDING TO THIS OFFICE ACTION
How to respond. Click to file a response to this nonfinal Office action
RESPONSE GUIDANCE
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.
Scleidorovich, Joanna
/Joanna Scleidorovich/
Law Office 128
(571) 270-7384
Joanna.Scleidorovich@uspto.gov
