To: | DAS Brands, LLC (ascicchitano@dasinc.com) |
Subject: | U.S. Trademark Application Serial No. 88564282 - POWERDRIVE - N/A |
Sent: | September 06, 2019 07:52:43 PM |
Sent As: | ecom101@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 |
United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO)
Office Action (Official Letter) About Applicant’s Trademark Application
U.S. Application Serial No. 88564282
Mark: POWERDRIVE
|
|
Correspondence Address:
|
|
Applicant: DAS Brands, LLC
|
|
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 06, 2019
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
Likelihood of Confusion-Section 2(d)
The examining attorney refuses registration under Trademark Act Section 2(d), 15 U.S.C. Section 1052(d), because the applicant's mark, when used on the identified goods, is likely to be confused with the registered marks in U.S. Registration Nos. 5306965 and 5044574. See the enclosed registrations.
The examining attorney must analyze each case in two steps to determine whether there is a likelihood of confusion. First, the examining attorney must look at the marks themselves for similarities in appearance, sound, connotation and commercial impression. In re E. I. DuPont de Nemours & Co., 476 F.2d 1357, 177 USPQ 563 (CCPA 1973). Second, the examining attorney must compare the goods or services to determine if they are related or if the activities surrounding their marketing are such that confusion as to origin is likely. In re August Storck KG, 218 USPQ 823 (TTAB 1983); In re International Telephone and Telegraph Corp., 197 USPQ 910 (TTAB 1978); Guardian Products Co., v. Scott Paper Co., 200 USPQ 738 (TTAB 1978).
Applicant seeks to register the mark POWERDRIVE in standard characters. The mark in Registration No. 5306965 is POWERDRIVE in standard characters. The mark in Registration No. 5044574 is POWERDRIVER in standard characters.
The examining attorney must compare the marks for similarities in sound, appearance, meaning or connotation. In re E. I. DuPont de Nemours & Co., 476 F.2d 1357, 177 USPQ 563 (CCPA 1973). Similarity in any one of these elements is sufficient to find a likelihood of confusion. In re Mack, 197 USPQ 755 (TTAB 1977).
The applicant’s mark and the mark in Registration No. 5306965 are identical in appearance, sound and meaning as they both contain the wording POWERDRIVE, the dominant and only element of the applicant’s mark and of the registrant’s mark.
The applicant’s mark and the marks in Registration No. 5044574 are similar in appearance, sound and meaning as they both contain the word POWERDRIVE or POWERDRIVER, the dominant and only element in the registrant’s marks and of the applicant’s mark. The addition of the letter “R” to the end of registrant’s mark does not change the overall similarity in commercial impression between the two marks.
If the marks of the respective parties are identical or highly similar, the examining attorney must consider the commercial relationship between the goods or services of the respective parties carefully to determine whether there is a likelihood of confusion. In re Concordia International Forwarding Corp., 222 USPQ 355 (TTAB 1983).
The goods and services of the parties need not be identical or directly competitive to find a likelihood of confusion. They need only be related in some manner, or the conditions surrounding their marketing be such, that they could be encountered by the same purchasers under circumstances that could give rise to the mistaken belief that the goods and services come from a common source. In re Martin's Famous Pastry Shoppe, Inc., 748 F.2d 1565, 223 USPQ 1289 (Fed. Cir. 1984); In re Corning Glass Works, 229 USPQ 65 (TTAB 1985); In re Rexel Inc., 223 USPQ 830 (TTAB 1984); Guardian Products Co., Inc. v. Scott Paper Co., 200 USPQ 738 (TTAB 1978); In re International Telephone & Telegraph Corp., 197 USPQ 910 (TTAB 1978).
Applicant's goods are batteries. The goods in Registration No. 5306965 are USB charging devices for use with electronic devices. The goods are related as they could be used together. The electronic devices require batteries to power them and batteries require charging devices to charge them, so the applicant’s batteries could be used inside electronic devices which are charged by registrant’s chargers. The goods would flow in the same channels of trade. The goods would be sold on electronics websites, and in catalogs and stores. See the attached websites showing batteries and chargers sold in the same section of the online store. The goods would be marketed to people who are interested in buying batteries or battery chargers for their electronic devices.
The goods in Registration No. 5044574 are batteries. The applicant’s goods and registrant’s goods are identical. The goods would flow in the same channels of trade. The goods would be sold on battery websites, and in catalogs and stores. The goods would be marketed to people who are interested in buying batteries.
As a consequence confusion as to the identity of the source of the goods is likely to occur.
Although the examining attorney has refused registration, the applicant may respond to the refusal to register by submitting evidence and arguments in support of registration.
Applicant’s cancellation proceeding No. 92071415 filed against Registration No. 5306965 is noted.
Email/Telephone for Inquiries
/Angela M Micheli/
Trademark Examining Attorney, Law Office 101
571.272.9196
571.273.9196 (fax)
angela.micheli@uspto.gov
RESPONSE GUIDANCE