To: | AMD Lasers, Inc (terry.jones@caogroup.com) |
Subject: | U.S. Trademark Application Serial No. 88570523 - MONET - CAO-TM-056 |
Sent: | November 08, 2019 02:31:32 PM |
Sent As: | ecom123@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 Attachment - 23 Attachment - 24 Attachment - 25 |
United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO)
Office Action (Official Letter) About Applicant’s Trademark Application
U.S. Application Serial No. 88570523
Mark: MONET
|
|
Correspondence Address:
|
|
Applicant: AMD Lasers, Inc
|
|
Reference/Docket No. CAO-TM-056
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: November 08, 2019
SECTION 2(d) REFUSAL – LIKELIHOOD OF CONFUSION
Registration of the applied-for mark is refused because of a likelihood of confusion with the mark(s) in U.S. Registration No(s). 4491068. Trademark Act Section 2(d), 15 U.S.C. §1052(d); see TMEP §§1207.01 et seq. See the attached registration(s).
Applicant's mark is MONET in standard characters for "Dental instruments for use in curing dental composites” in Class 10.
The registered mark is MONET DENTAL STUDIO in standard characters for "Custom manufacture of dental prosthetics; Dental laboratories; Dental technician services" in Class 40.
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.
Comparison of the Marks
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).
Applicant's mark is MONET in standard characters. Registrant's mark is MONET DENTAL STUDIO in standard characters.
Applicant's mark is confusingly similar to registrant's mark because the applicant's mark appears to be a shortened form of registrant's mark and consists of the dominant portion of registrant's mark.
Although marks are compared in their entireties, one feature of a mark may be more significant or dominant in creating a commercial impression. See In re Viterra Inc., 671 F.3d 1358, 1362, 101 USPQ2d 1905, 1908 (Fed. Cir. 2012); In re Nat’l Data Corp., 753 F.2d 1056, 1058, 224 USPQ 749, 751 (Fed. Cir. 1985); TMEP §1207.01(b)(viii), (c)(ii). Disclaimed matter that is descriptive of or generic for a party’s goods and/or services is typically less significant or less dominant when comparing marks. In re Detroit Athletic Co., 903 F.3d 1297, 1305, 128 USPQ2d 1047, 1050 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (citing In re Dixie Rests., Inc., 105 F.3d 1405, 1407, 41 USPQ2d 1531, 1533-34 (Fed. Cir. 1997)); TMEP §1207.01(b)(viii), (c)(ii).
Here, registrant has disclaimed the term "DENTAL STUDIO", rendering the word "MONET" the dominant element of the mark.
For the foregoing reasons, the marks are considered similar for likelihood of confusion purposes.
Comparison of the Goods and Services
Applicant's goods are: "Dental instruments for use in curing dental composites" in Class 10.
Registrant's services are: "Custom manufacture of dental prosthetics; Dental laboratories; Dental technician services" in Class 40.
The attached Internet evidence establishes that the same entity commonly produces and provides the relevant goods and services and markets the goods and services under the same mark. See attached evidence from http://www.dentsplysirona.com/; http://www.denmat.com/. This evidence establishes that produce dental instruments for use in curing dental composites also provide the custom manufacture or dental prosthetics and dental laboratory services.
The attached Internet evidence establishes that the goods and services are similar or complementary in terms of purpose or function. See attached evidence from http://www.bainternational.com/products/dental-laboratory/small-equipment.html ("B.A. International offers a selection of dental laboratory equipment. Browse for dental steam cleaners, dental light curing units and dental vibrating units."); http://www.dentalcompare.com/Dental-Lab-Products/ ("Dental laboratories focused on removables will need to have: … Acrylic and Curing Equipment"); http://www.fortworthremovabledentallab.com/about ("We utilize the Ivobase denture-curing unit for all of our hybrid dentures"). This evidence establishes that dental curing instruments are used by dental technicians and in dental laboratories.
Thus, applicant’s 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).
Thus, as the marks are similar and the goods and/or services are related, there is a likelihood of confusion between the marks. Therefore, registration is refused pursuant to Section 2(d) of the Trademark Act.
Response to Section 2(d) Refusal
RESPONSE
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
/Megan M. Hartnett/
Megan M. Hartnett
Trademark Examining Attorney
Law Office 123
571-270-1977
megan.hartnett@uspto.gov
RESPONSE GUIDANCE