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:  November 08, 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.

SUMMARY OF ISSUES:

• Refusal - Likelihood of Confusion
• Requirement – Identification of Goods and Services

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. 5259186.  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 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.

Applicant has applied for the mark POWERFLEX in standard characters for use with “computer operating system software for data storage systems; software-defined storage” in Class 9 and “software as a service for operating data storage systems” in Class 42.

Registrant’s mark is POWERFLEX in standard characters for use with “computer hardware; electronic components for computers; blank storage apparatus for computer data; blank sound cards; blank memory storage devices; computer memory hardware; ram cards; motherboards; power units; power modules; wireless computer mice; wireless computer peripherals; pairable wireless speakers; computer keyboards; input devices for computers; camera stands; video camera stands; charging apparatus; battery charging equipment; USB hardware; USB cables; USB flash drives; devices for hands-free use of mobile phones; screen protectors for mobile phones; protective covers and cases for mobile phones; headsets for use with computers; sleeves for laptops; handheld personal computers; personal home computers; computerized personal organizers; smartphones in the shape of a watch; batteries; lithium batteries; solar battery chargers; solar batteries; rechargeable batteries; mobile phone stands; DVD players and recorders; digital cameras; compact digital cameras; USB chargers; power connectors; high definition multimedia interface cables; car audio apparatus, namely, in-car compact disc players, in-car radios, in-car media players, in-car loudspeakers, in-car amplifiers, in-car navigation equipment; camera mounts; tablet holders adapted for use in cars; in-car telephone handset cradles; audio cable connectors; ac chargers; charging cables; charging docks; external battery packs; external storage devices, namely, external computer hard drives; audio equipment, namely, amplifiers, vinyl record players, turntables, graphic equalizers, compact disc players, digital media players, microphones; portable media players; headphones; loudspeakers; loudspeaker stands; parts and fittings for all aforesaid goods; all of the aforementioned products for use with personal computers, tablet computers for personal use, and other personal electronic and mobile communications devices, and not for operational monitoring, regulation, and control of electric motors” in Class 9.

Similarity of the Marks

In a likelihood of confusion determination, the marks in their entireties are compared for similarities in appearance, sound, connotation, and commercial impression.  In re i.am.symbolic, llc, 866 F.3d 1315, 1323, 123 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2017); 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)); In re E. I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., 476 F.2d 1357, 1361, 177 USPQ 563, 567 (C.C.P.A. 1973); TMEP §1207.01(b)-(b)(v). 

In the present case, applicant’s mark is POWERFLEX and registrant’s mark is POWERFLEX.  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 and Services

The applicant’s goods and services are related to the registrant’s goods. The goods and 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).

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)).  

The Trademark Trial and Appeal Board has held that computer hardware products are related to computer software products, such that their marketing under the same or similar marks may be likely to cause source confusion.  See In re TIE/Commc’ns, Inc., 5 USPQ2d 1457, 1458 (TTAB 1987) (holding DATA STAR likely to cause confusion when used in connection with both registrant’s “computer programs recorded on magnetic media” and applicant’s “voice/data communications terminals and parts thereof”); In re Epic Sys. Corp., 228 USPQ 213, 214-15 (TTAB 1985) (holding EPIC for computer software for use in health care facilities likely to be confused with EPIC DATA for “electronic data collection terminals and electronic data collection units”); In re Teradata Corp., 223 USPQ 361, 362 (TTAB 1984) (holding Y NET for computer hardware likely to be confused with XYNET for computer software); Alpha Indus., Inc. v. Alpha Microsystems, 220 USPQ 67, 69, 71-72 (TTAB 1983) (holding ALPHA MICRO for digital computer equipment and programs likely to be confused with ALPHA MICROWAVE for microwave components and subassemblies).

In this case, the registration uses broad wording to describe “computer hardware,” “electronic components for computers,” “blank storage apparatus for computer data,” “blank memory storage devices,” and “computer memory hardware,” which is related to applicant’s “computer operating system software for data storage systems; software-defined storage” in Class 9 and “software as a service for operating data storage systems” in Class 42. 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).

Computer hardware “includes the physical, tangible parts or components of a computer, such as the cabinet, central processing unit, monitor, keyboard, computer data storage, graphics card, sound card, speakers and motherboard.”  It is important to note that “hardware is typically directed by the software to execute any command or instruction. A combination of hardware and software forms a usable computing system, although other systems exist with only hardware components.”  See the attached excerpt from Wikipedia.

Operating system or “OS” is “software installed on a computer's hard drive that enables computer hardware to communicate with and run computer programs.” “Without a computer operating system, a computer and software programs would be useless.” See attached excerpt from Computer Hope.

The attached Internet evidence, consisting of excerpts from Apple, Microsoft, Samsung, and Google, establishes that the same entity commonly provides registrant’s “computer hardware, blank storage apparatus for computer data; blank memory storage devices; computer memory hardware; ram cards; motherboards” and/or applicant’s “computer operating system software, software-defined storage” in Class 9 and “software as a service for operating data storage systems.”  For example, the attached excerpts from Microsoft show the same entity providing “computer hardware,” “computer operating system software,” and “software as a service.” The attached excerpts from Apple and Google show the same entity providing “computer hardware” and “computer operating system software.” Thus, applicant and registrant’s goods and/or 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).

Additionally, 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, namely “computer hardware” and “computer operating system software,” 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).

As the attached evidence demonstrates “computer operating system software,” like applicant’s, is a necessity to properly use “computer hardware,” like the registrant’s. Further, it is noted that applicant uses each of the following marks on both computer hardware and computer software, DELL EMC and DELL EMC POWERONE. See attached applications. Thus, applicant and registrant’s goods and services are closely related.  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)).

Conclusion

Since applicant’s mark is confusingly similar to registrant’s mark and the goods and services are related, there is a likelihood of confusion as to the source of applicant’s goods and services. Therefore, applicant’s mark is refused registration pursuant to §2(d) of the Trademark Act.

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

However, if applicant responds to the refusal, applicant must also respond to the requirement set forth below.

REQUIREMENT - IDENTIFICATION OF GOODS AND SERVICES

The identification of goods and services is indefinite and must be clarified because the nature of the goods and services is unclear and it can identify goods and services in more than one Class.  See 37 C.F.R. §2.32(a)(6); TMEP §1402.01. Specifically, “software” classified in Class 9 must specify that it is downloadable or recorded since non-downloadable software is properly classified in Class 42. Finally, in Class 42, “software as a service (SAAS)” must specify that it is services, i.e. that the software as a service (SAAS) is services being provided for the benefit of others and must specify the field or function of the software as a service (SAAS).

Suggested Amendments

Below is a suggested identification and classification. Bolded words represent wording that has been added or changed.

Applicant may substitute the following wording, if accurate:

Class 9:

Downloadable computer operating system software for data storage systems; downloadable or recorded computer software in the nature of software-defined storage (SDS)

Class 42:

Software as a service (SAAS) services featuring software for operating data storage systems

Applicant may amend the identification to clarify or limit the goods and/or services, but not to broaden or expand the goods and/or services beyond those in the original application or as acceptably amended.  See 37 C.F.R. §2.71(a); TMEP §1402.06.  Generally, any deleted goods and/or services may not later be reinserted.  See 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.

ASSISTANCE

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 refusal(s) and/or requirement(s) 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  

/Sean O'Tormey/

Sean O'Tormey

Examining Attorney

Law Office 111

(571) 272-3081

sean.otormey@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 November 08, 2019 for

U.S. Trademark Application Serial No. 88553901

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. 

/Sean O'Tormey/

Sean O'Tormey

Examining Attorney

Law Office 111

(571) 272-3081

sean.otormey@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 November 08, 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.”