Suspension Letter

United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO)

Office Action (Official Letter) About Applicant’s Trademark Application

 

 

 

SUSPENSION NOTICE

No Response Required

 

 

Issue date:  February 03, 2020

 

 

The application is suspended for the reason(s) specified below.  See 37 C.F.R. §2.67; TMEP §§716 et seq. 

 

The pending application(s) below has an earlier filing date or effective filing date than applicant’s application.  If the mark in the application(s) below registers, the USPTO may refuse registration of applicant’s mark under Section 2(d) because of a likelihood of confusion with the registered mark(s). 15 U.S.C. §1052(d); see 37 C.F.R. §2.83; TMEP §§1208.02(c). Action on this application is suspended until the prior-filed application(s) below either registers or abandons.  37 C.F.R. §2.83(c).  Information relevant to the application(s) below was sent previously.

 

            - U.S. Application Serial No(s). 88491419

 

Refusal(s) and/or requirement(s) resolved and maintained and continued.  The following refusal(s) and/or requirement(s) is/are maintained and continued: 

 

•         Section 2(d) Refusal – Likelihood of Confusion

•         Identification of Goods and Services

 

See id.  These refusal(s) and/or requirement(s) will be made final once this application is removed from suspension, unless a new issue arises.  See TMEP §716.01.

 

 

SECTION 2(d) REFUSAL – LIKELIHOOD OF CONFUSION

Refusal of registration because of a likelihood of confusion with the mark in U.S. Registration No. 4355873 (“OLISE”) is withdrawn.

 

Registration of the applied-for mark is refused because of a likelihood of confusion with the mark in U.S. Registration No. 4910769 (“OLIS”) is maintained and continued.  Trademark Act Section 2(d), 15 U.S.C. §1052(d); see TMEP §§1207.01 et seq.  See previous Office Action dated October 30, 2019 and attached evidence including attached registration.

 

The examining attorney has carefully considered the applicant’s response but is not persuaded.  Arguments are briefly addressed below but will be addressed in detail in a Final Refusal.

 

Where the marks of the respective parties are identical or virtually identical, as in this case, the degree of similarity or relatedness between the goods and/or services needed to support a finding of likelihood of confusion declines.  See In re i.am.symbolic, llc, 116 USPQ2d 1406, 1411 (TTAB 2015) (citing In re Shell Oil Co., 992 F.2d 1204, 1207, 26 USPQ2d 1687, 1689 (Fed. Cir. 1993)), aff’d, 866 F.3d 1315, 123 USPQ2d 1744 (Fed. Cir. 2017); TMEP §1207.01(a).

 

In the present case, the marks are identical.  Additionally, applicant seemingly acquiesces to the evidence previously provide showing the integration of robotics into the fields of banking and financing.  However, applicant argues that banking and robotics are not commonly associated by the general consumer. 

 

“‘[A] showing of actual confusion is not necessary to establish a likelihood of confusion.’”  In re i.am.symbolic, llc, 866 F.3d 1315, 1322, 123 USPQ2d 1744, 1747 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (quoting Herbko Int’l, Inc. v. Kappa Books, Inc., 308F.3d 1156, 1164-65, 64 USPQ2d 1375, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2002)); TMEP §1207.01(d)(ii).  “[T]he relevant test is likelihood of confusion, not actual confusion.”  In re Detroit Athletic Co., 903 F.3d 1297, 1309, 128 USPQ2d 1047, 1053 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (emphasis in original).

 

Applicant argues that its activities are geographically separate from those of registrant in that the registrant is a European company with no offices in the United States; however, applicant seeks a geographically unrestricted registration.  The owner of a registration without specified limitations enjoys a presumption of exclusive right to nationwide use of the registered mark under Trademark Act Section 7(b), 15 U.S.C. §1057(b), regardless of its actual extent of use.  Giant Food, Inc. v. Nation’s Foodservice, Inc., 710 F.2d 1565, 1568, 218 USPQ 390, 393 (Fed. Cir. 1983).  Therefore, the geographical extent of applicant’s and registrant’s activities is not relevant to a likelihood of confusion determination.

 

Thus, applicant’s and registrant’s marks are identical and their goods and/or services are related.

 

For the reasons discussed above and in the previous Office Action dated October 30, 2019, the Section 2(d) refusal is maintained and continued.

 

Although applicant’s mark has been refused registration, applicant may respond to the refusal(s) by submitting evidence and arguments in support of registration.  However, if applicant responds to the refusal(s), applicant must also respond to the requirement(s) set forth below.

 

IDENTIFICATION OF GOODS AND SERVICES

 

THIS PARTIAL REQUIREMENT APPLIES ONLY TO THE GOODS SPECIFIED IN CLASS 09

 

The goods and services are:

 

Class 09:  Downloadable and preinstalled recorded software for manipulators and controllers in the field of robotics; computer hardware in the field of robotics

 

[ACCEPTABLE, NO CHANGE NEEDED] Class 42:  Engineering services for others in the field of robotics; computer technology consultation in the field of robotics.

 

The identification for software in International Class 9 is indefinite and too broad and must be clarified to specify (1) the purpose or function of the software and its content or field of use, if content- or field- specific; and (2) whether its format is downloadable, recorded, or online non-downloadable.  See 37 C.F.R. §2.32(a)(6); TMEP §§1402.03(d), 1402.11(a).  Downloadable and recorded goods are in International Class 9, whereas providing their temporary, online non-downloadable use is a service in International Class 42.  See TMEP §1402.03(d).   

 

The USPTO requires such specificity in order for a trademark examining attorney to examine the application properly and make appropriate decisions concerning possible conflicts between the applicant’s mark and other marks.  See In re N.A.D. Inc., 57 USPQ2d 1872, 1874 (TTAB 2000); TMEP §1402.03(d).

 

Here applicant has amended the identification for software in Class 9 to specify the format and the field of use. However, “software for manipulators and controllers” does not specify the purpose or function of the software.  The function should specify the purpose of the software in relation to the manipulators and controllers, such as “software for controlling manipulators and controllers”

 

Applicant may adopt the following wording, if accurate: 

 

Class 09:  Downloadable and preinstalled recorded software for {indicate the function or purpose of the software in relation to manipulators and controllers, e.g., controlling, calibrating, etc.} manipulators and controllers in the field of robotics; computer hardware in the field of robotics

 

Class 42:  Engineering services for others in the field of robotics; computer technology consultation in the field of robotics.

 

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.

 

 

Suspension process.  The USPTO will periodically check this application to determine if it should remain suspended.  See TMEP §716.04.  As needed, the trademark examining attorney will issue a letter to applicant to inquire about the status of the reason for the suspension.  TMEP §716.05. 

 

No response required.  Applicant may file a response, but is not required to do so. 

 

 

/Marta Stadeli/

Examining Attorney

Law Office 123

(571) 272-6747

marta.stadeli@uspto.gov

 

 

 

 

United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO)

 

USPTO OFFICIAL NOTICE

 

Office Action (Official Letter) has issued

on February 03, 2020 for

U.S. Trademark Application Serial No. 88546107

 

Your trademark application has been reviewed by a trademark examining attorney.  As part of that review, the assigned attorney has issued an official letter.  Please follow the steps below.

 

(1)  Read the official letter.  No response is necessary.

 

(2)  Direct questions about the contents of the Office action to the assigned attorney below. 

 

/Marta Stadeli/

Examining Attorney

Law Office 123

(571) 272-6747

marta.stadeli@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).

 

 

 

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.”