United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO)
Office Action (Official Letter) About Applicant’s Trademark Application
U.S. Application Serial No. 88571062
Mark: POWERED BY INNOVATION
|
|
Correspondence Address: 33 EAST MAIN STREET, SUITE 900
|
|
Applicant: Doosan Infracore North America LLC
|
|
Reference/Docket No. 167313.00173
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.
SECTION 2(d) REFUSAL – LIKELIHOOD OF CONFUSION
Applicant has applied to register POWERED BY INNOVATION in standard characters for “construction equipment, namely, excavators, material handlers, wheel loaders, articulated dump trucks; attachments for construction equipment, namely, buckets, grapples, compactors, couplers, and thumbs” in International Class 7.
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.
Similarity of the Marks
The applicant has applied for the mark POWERED BY INNOVATION. The cited mark is POWERED BY INNOVATION, NOT BY GAS, owned by Hong Kong Sun Rise Trading.
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).
When comparing marks, “[t]he proper test is not a side-by-side comparison of the marks, but instead whether the marks are sufficiently similar in terms of their commercial impression such that [consumers] who encounter the marks would be likely to assume a connection between the parties.” Cai v. Diamond Hong, Inc., __ F.3d __, 127 USPQ2d 1797, 1801 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (quoting Coach Servs., Inc. v. Triumph Learning LLC, 668 F.3d 1356, 1368, 101 USPQ2d 1713, 1721 (Fed. Cir. 2012)); TMEP §1207.01(b). The proper focus is on the recollection of the average purchaser, who retains a general rather than specific impression of trademarks. In re Inn at St. John’s, LLC, 126 USPQ2d 1742, 1746 (TTAB 2018) (citing In re St. Helena Hosp., 774 F.3d 747, 750-51, 113 USPQ2d 1082, 1085 (Fed. Cir. 2014); Geigy Chem. Corp. v. Atlas Chem. Indus., Inc., 438 F.2d 1005, 1007, 169 USPQ 39, 40 (CCPA 1971)); TMEP §1207.01(b).
Here, the applicant’s mark, POWERED BY INNOVATION, is confusingly similar to the registrant’s mark, POWERED BY INNOVATION, NOT BY GAS. Specifically, the marks share the wording “POWERED BY INNOVATION”
Thus, because the marks share and begin with the wording “POWERED BY INNOVATION”, and therefore look and sound similar, the marks are considered similar for likelihood of confusion purposes.
Relatedness of the Goods
The applicant’s goods at issue are “construction equipment, namely, excavators, material handlers, wheel loaders, articulated dump trucks; attachments for construction equipment, namely, buckets, grapples, compactors, couplers, and thumbs” in Class 7.
The registrant’s relevant goods are: “Chain saws; Lawn mowers; Power operated blowers; Power operated cultivators; Power-operated lawn and garden tillers” in Class 7.
• John Deere provides a variety of construction equipment as well as lawn mowers:
o http://www.deere.com/en/mowers/; http://www.deere.com/en/excavators/compact-excavators/17g-excavator/; http://www.deere.com/en/attachments-accessories-and-implements/construction-attachments/buckets/; http://www.deere.com/en/loaders/wheel-loaders/; http://www.deere.com/en/articulated-dump-trucks/; http://www.deere.com/en/attachments-accessories-and-implements/utility-tractors-attachments-accessories/loader-attachments/ad11-debris-grapples/; http://www.deere.com/en/attachments-accessories-and-implements/construction-attachments/plate-compactors/
• Grainger provides material handlers as well as lawn mowers:
o http://www.grainger.com/category/material-handling/forklifts-and-forklift-attachments; http://www.grainger.com/category/outdoor-equipment/lawn-mowers-and-equipment/lawn-mowers
• CAT provides power-operated tillers as well as couplers and thumbs:
o http://www.cat.com/en_US/products/new/attachments/tillers.html; http://www.cat.com/en_US/products/new/attachments/couplers-excavator.html; http://www.cat.com/en_US/products/new/attachments/thumbs.html
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).
Accordingly, because the marks are significantly similar and the goods are highly related, purchasers are likely to be confused as to the source of the goods. Thus, registration is refused pursuant to Section 2(d) of the Trademark 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 must address the following requirements.
CLASSIFICATION AND IDENTIFICATION OF GOODS
The identification of goods in Class 7 is indefinite and/or misclassified and must be clarified or reclassified to ensure proper analysis.
The wording “excavators, material handlers” and “attachments for construction equipment, namely, buckets, grapples, compactors, couplers, and thumbs” in the identification of goods is indefinite and must be clarified to specify the nature of the goods, as set forth below. See 37 C.F.R. §2.32(a)(6); TMEP §1402.01.
Applicant may adopt the following suggestions, if accurate:
007: Construction equipment, namely, excavating machines, material handling machines in the nature of {specify nature of material handlers, e.g., palletizers, case elevators, automatic pallet dispensing machines and automatic slip sheet dispensing machines, etc.}, wheel loaders; attachments for construction equipment, namely, loader buckets for excavators, grapple buckets for moving earth and loose objects, waste compactors, couplers of synthetic material, and excavator bucket thumbs
012: Articulated dump trucks
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.
Applicant must address the following additional requirement.
MULTIPLE-CLASS APPLICATION REQUIREMENTS
The application identifies goods that are classified in at least two classes; however, applicant submitted a fee sufficient for only one class. In a multiple-class application, a fee for each class is required. 37 C.F.R. §2.86(a)(2), (b)(2); TMEP §§810.01, 1403.01.
Therefore, applicant must either (1) restrict the application to the number of classes covered by the fees already paid, or (2) submit the fees for each additional class and satisfy all the requirements below for each international class based on Trademark Act Section 1(b):
(1) List the goods and/or services by their international class number in consecutive numerical order, starting with the lowest numbered class.
(2) Submit a filing fee for each international class not covered by the fee(s) already paid (view the USPTO’s current fee schedule). The application identifies goods that are classified in at least two classes; however, applicant submitted a fee(s) sufficient for only one class. As explained, applicant must either submit the filing fees for the classes not covered by the submitted fees or restrict the application to the number of classes covered by the fees already paid.
See 15 U.S.C. §§1051(b), 1112, 1126(e); 37 C.F.R. §§2.32(a)(6)-(7), 2.34(a)(2)-(3), 2.86(a); TMEP §§1403.01, 1403.02(c).
See an overview of the requirements for a Section 1(b) multiple-class application and how to satisfy the requirements online using the Trademark Electronic Application System (TEAS) form.
The fee for adding classes to a TEAS Reduced Fee (RF) application is $275 per class. See 37 C.F.R. §§2.6(a)(1)(iii), 2.23(a). See more information regarding the requirements for maintaining the lower TEAS RF fee and, if these requirements are not satisfied, for adding classes at a higher fee using regular TEAS.
RESPONSE GUIDELINES
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
/Nathaniel Pettican/
Nathaniel Pettican
Examining Attorney
Law Office 108
(571) 272-1087
nathaniel.pettican@uspto.gov
RESPONSE GUIDANCE