| To: | 3CR Bioscience Ltd. (pctrademarks@perkinscoie.com) |
| Subject: | U.S. Trademark Application Serial No. 88536976 - PACE - 135290.4001 |
| Sent: | October 21, 2019 02:27:23 PM |
| Sent As: | ecom104@uspto.gov |
| Attachments: | Attachment - 1 Attachment - 2 Attachment - 3 Attachment - 4 |
United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO)
Office Action (Official Letter) About Applicant’s Trademark Application
|
U.S. Application Serial No. 88536976
Mark: PACE
|
|
|
Correspondence Address:
|
|
|
Applicant: 3CR Bioscience Ltd.
|
|
|
Reference/Docket No. 135290.4001
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 21, 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.
SECTION 2(d) REFUSAL – LIKELIHOOD OF CONFUSION
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.
Here, applicant seeks registration of PACE in connection with “Chemicals used in science; chemicals and bio-chemicals for the detection and/or amplification and/or profiling (fingerprinting) and/or genotyping of nucleic acids including DNA; chemicals and bio-chemicals for the detection of pathogens; laboratory chemicals for use in research, analysis, synthesis and testing; chemical compositions and materials for use in genotyping; reagents, enzymes, chemical compositions, chemical primers and chemical probes for scientific or medical research use; chemical protocols for the extraction of DNA.”
The mark in the cited registration is PACE, which is registered in connection with “genetic probe assay kits for medical research use, the kits consisting primarily of dna, reagents and accessories for use therewith,” among other goods.”
Comparison of the Marks
In the present case, applicant’s mark is PACE and registrant’s mark is PACE. 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.
Relatedness of the Goods
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)).
In this case, the application use(s) broad wording to describe its “chemicals used in science,” which presumably encompasses all goods of the type described, including registrant’s more narrow assay kits that contain reagents (chemicals) among other goods. See the attached evidence from The American Heritage Dictionary. 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 and/or services 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 and/or services are related.
Thus, upon encountering applicant’s and registrant’s marks, consumers are likely to be confused and mistakenly believe that the respective goods emanate from a common source. Accordingly, applicant’s mark must be refused registration under Section 2(d) of the Lanham Act.
Although applicant’s mark has been refused registration, applicant may respond to the refusal(s) by submitting evidence and arguments in support of registration.
Applicant has included the term “and/or” in the identification of goods and/or services. However, this term is generally not accepted in identifications when (1) it is unclear whether applicant is using the mark, or intends to use the mark, on all the identified goods or services; (2) the nature of the goods and services is unclear; or (3) classification cannot be determined from such wording. See TMEP §1402.03(a). In this case, it is unclear whether applicant is using the mark, or intends to use the mark, on all the identified goods.
An application must specify, in an explicit manner, the particular goods or services on or in connection with which the applicant uses, or has a bona fide intention to use, the mark in commerce. See 15 U.S.C. §1051(a)(2), (b)(2); 37 C.F.R. §2.32(a)(6); TMEP §1402.01. Therefore, applicant should replace “and/or” or “or” with “and” in the identification of goods or services, if appropriate, or rewrite the identification with the “and/or” or “or” deleted and the goods or services specified using definite and unambiguous language.
The identification of goods contains parentheses. Generally, applicants should not use parentheses and brackets in identifications in their applications so as to avoid confusion with the USPTO’s practice of using parentheses and brackets in registrations to indicate goods and/or services that have been deleted from registrations or in an affidavit of incontestability to indicate goods and/or services not claimed. See TMEP §1402.12. The only exception is that parenthetical information is permitted in identifications in an application if it serves to explain or translate the matter immediately preceding the parenthetical phrase in such a way that it does not affect the clarity or scope of the identification, e.g., “fried tofu pieces (abura-age).” Id.
Therefore, applicant must remove the parentheses from the identification and incorporate any parenthetical or bracketed information into the description of the goods.
In addition, the wording “chemical compositions and materials for use in genotyping” in the identification of goods for International Class 1 must be clarified because it is too broad and could include goods in other international classes. See 37 C.F.R. §2.32(a)(6); TMEP §§1402.01, 1402.03. In particular, this wording could encompass various materials being chemicals in Class 1 or materials such as laboratory equipment in Class 9. Similarly, the wording “laboratory chemicals for use in research, analysis, synthesis and testing” must indicate the goods are not for medical or veterinary purposes for proper classification in Class 1.
Finally, the wording “chemical protocols for the extraction of DNA” in the identification of goods for International Class 1 must be clarified because it is not clear the nature of the goods. See 37 C.F.R. §2.32(a)(6); TMEP §§1402.01, 1402.03.
Class 1: Chemicals used in science; chemicals and bio-chemicals for the detection and amplification and profiling being fingerprinting and genotyping of nucleic acids including DNA; chemicals and bio-chemicals for the detection of pathogens; laboratory chemicals for use in research, analysis, synthesis and testing, other than for medical or veterinary purposes; chemical compositions and materials in the nature of chemicals for use in genotyping; reagents, enzymes, chemical compositions, chemical primers and chemical probes for scientific or medical research use; chemical protocols for the extraction of DNA, namely, {indicate specific chemicals properly classified in Class 1 e.g., chemicals for the extraction of DNA}
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.
ASSISTANCE
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
Michael Eisnach
/Michael Eisnach/
Examining Attorney
Law Office 104
(571) 272-2592
michael.eisnach@uspto.gov
RESPONSE GUIDANCE
