To: | Quartzdyne, Inc. (trademark@traskbritt.com) |
Subject: | U.S. Trademark Application Serial No. 88573720 - BEACON - 695-TM3725US |
Sent: | November 14, 2019 08:11:51 PM |
Sent As: | ecom115@uspto.gov |
Attachments: | Attachment - 1 Attachment - 2 Attachment - 3 Attachment - 4 Attachment - 5 Attachment - 6 |
United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO)
Office Action (Official Letter) About Applicant’s Trademark Application
U.S. Application Serial No. 88573720
Mark: BEACON
|
|
Correspondence Address:
|
|
Applicant: Quartzdyne, Inc.
|
|
Reference/Docket No. 695-TM3725US
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 14, 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.
Refusal – Likelihood of Confusion
Registration of the applied-for mark is refused because of a likelihood of confusion with the marks in U.S. Registration Nos. 5815328, 5311949 and 3036088. Trademark Act Section 2(d), 15 U.S.C. §1052(d); see TMEP §§1207.01 et seq.
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 Marks
Applicant has applied for BEACON for electronic measuring, reference and calibration apparatus and instrumentation for use in sensing and measuring pressure, temperature, and parts thereof; electronic monitors to collected data and settings including pressure and temperature data from oil and gas well; oil and gas well downhole survey and measurement equipment.
The registered marks are: (1) BEACON for Thermal imaging systems, not for medical use; (2) BEACON for Electronic monitor and alarm systems for monitoring sump pumps and communicating information relating to same comprising microprocessors, hardware and operating software, and also including valves, water level controls, proactive testing apparatus, displays, communications hardware, monitors, switches, detectors, alarms, horns, sensors and/or battery chargers; and (3) BEACON for Computer hardware in the nature of transceivers and transponders.
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 BEACON and registrants’ marks are BEACON. 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.
Similarity of Goods
In this case, the application uses broad wording to describe its electronic measuring, reference and calibration apparatus, as well as it electronic monitors, which presumably encompasses all goods of the type described, including registrants’ thermal imaging equipment (measuring temperature), electronic monitors for sump pumps and transponders/transceivers, which could be used to communicate with the electronic equipment. 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).
Thus, applicant’s and registrant’s goods are related.
Because the marks are so highly similar and the goods are so closely related, there is a likelihood that purchasers would confuse the sources of the goods and services or believe they stemmed from a single source. Accordingly, registration is properly refused under Section 2(d) of the Trademark Act due to a likelihood of confusion.
Identification of Goods
Applicant may adopt the following wording, if accurate {suggested edits in bold and
strikethrough}:
· electronic measuring,
reference and calibration apparatus and instrumentation for use in sensing and measuring pressure and temperature in
{specify field of use, e.g., oil and gas wells}, and replacement parts thereof; electronic monitors to collected data
and settings including in the nature of pressure and temperature data from oil and gas wells; oil and gas well downhole survey and measurement equipment
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.
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
Marc J. Leipzig
/Marc J. Leipzig/
Law Office 115
Trademark Examining Attorney
Phone: (571) 272-2104
marc.leipzig2@uspto.gov
RESPONSE GUIDANCE