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 18, 2019

 

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 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 RF applicants who do not meet these requirements must submit an additional processing fee of $125.  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 RF applicants may respond to an Office action by authorizing an examiner’s amendment by telephone or e-mail without incurring this additional fee.  

 

INTRODUCTION

 

The referenced application has been reviewed by the assigned trademark examining attorney.  Applicant must respond timely and completely to the issues below.  15 U.S.C. §1062(b); 37 C.F.R. §§2.62(a), 2.65(a); TMEP §§711, 718.03.

 

SUMMARY OF ISSUES

 

The applicant must address:

 

• Section 2(d) Refusal – Likelihood of Confusion; and
• Identification of Goods Amendment Required.

 

SECTION 2(d) 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. 4822596.  Trademark Act Section 2(d), 15 U.S.C. §1052(d); see TMEP §§1207.01 et seq.  See the attached registration.

 

Here, the applicant’s mark is SYNOVACOLL for radio therapeutic preparations for insertion into a human, and the registrant’s mark is SYNOVA for, among other things, cells, including stem cells, for medical or clinical use.

 

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 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.  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 and differences in the marks.”); TMEP §1207.01.

 

In this case, the following factors are the most relevant: similarity of the marks, similarity in function or purpose of the goods, and similarity of the trade channels of the goods.  See In re Viterra Inc., 671 F.3d 1358, 1361-62, 101 USPQ2d 1905, 1908 (Fed. Cir. 2012); In re Dakin’s Miniatures Inc., 59 USPQ2d 1593, 1595-96 (TTAB 1999); TMEP §§1207.01 et seq.

 

Similarity 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).

 

Here, the applicant’s standard character mark SYNOVACOLL is confusingly similar to the registrant’s standard character mark SYNOVA.

 

Specifically, the applicant’s mark begins with and the registrant’s mark is comprised of the same distinctive wording SYNOVA, which is identical in appearance, sound, commercial impression, and meaning, namely, evoking a coined or fanciful term.  http://www.wordnik.com/words/Synova.  Consumers are generally more inclined to focus on the first word or prefix in any trademark.  See Palm Bay Imps., Inc. v. Veuve Clicquot Ponsardin Maison Fondee En 1772, 396 F.3d 1369, 1372, 73 USPQ2d 1689, 1692 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (finding similarity between VEUVE ROYALE and two VEUVE CLICQUOT marks in part because “VEUVE . . . remains a ‘prominent feature’ as the first word in the mark and the first word to appear on the label”); Century 21 Real Estate Corp. v. Century Life of Am., 970 F.2d 874, 876, 23 USPQ2d 1698, 1700 (Fed Cir. 1992) (finding similarity between CENTURY 21 and CENTURY LIFE OF AMERICA in part because “consumers must first notice th[e] identical lead word”); see also In re Detroit Athletic Co., 903 F.3d 1297, 1303, 128 USPQ2d 1047, 1049 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (finding “the identity of the marks’ two initial words is particularly significant because consumers typically notice those words first”).  Because SYNOVA is the first wording in the applicant’s mark and the only wording in the registrant’s mark, consumers will focus on this wording for source identification, thereby making it the dominant feature of the marks.

 

Though the applicant’s mark ends with the wording COLL, this addition does not obviate the similarities between the marks.  See Coca-Cola Bottling Co. v. Jos. E. Seagram & Sons, Inc., 526 F.2d 556, 557, 188 USPQ 105, 106 (C.C.P.A. 1975) (finding BENGAL and BENGAL LANCER and design confusingly similar); In re Toshiba Med. Sys. Corp., 91 USPQ2d 1266, 1269 (TTAB 2009) (finding TITAN and VANTAGE TITAN confusingly similar); In re El Torito Rests., Inc., 9 USPQ2d 2002, 2004 (TTAB 1988) (finding MACHO and MACHO COMBOS confusingly similar); TMEP §1207.01(b)(iii).  In the present case, the marks are identical in part.  Additionally, because COLL appears to derive from the wording colloid, http://serene-llc.com/studies/, this wording appears to be suggestive of the identified goods and, thus, does not substantially change the commercial impression or meaning of the mark with respect to the goods. 

 

Accordingly, the marks are confusingly similar.

 

Relatedness of the Goods

 

The goods 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).

 

Here, the applicant’s radio therapeutic preparations for insertion into a human are closely related to the registrant’s cells, including stem cells, for medical or clinical use.

 

As an initial matter, the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board and its primary reviewing court have used a stricter standard to determine likelihood of confusion for pharmaceuticals or medicinal products due to the potential harm or serious consequences that could be caused if the public confused one drug or medicinal product for another.  See Glenwood Labs., Inc. v. Am. Home Prods. Corp., 455 F.2d 1384, 1386-87, 173 USPQ 19, 21-22 (C.C.P.A. 1972); Schering Corp. v. Alza Corp., 207 USPQ 504, 509 (TTAB 1980); Ethicon, Inc. v. Am. Cyanamid Co., 192 USPQ 647, 651-52 (TTAB 1976); TMEP §1207.01(d)(xii).  Although physicians and pharmacists are no doubt carefully trained to recognize differences in the characteristics of pharmaceuticals or medicinal products, they are not immune from mistaking similar trademarks used on these goods.  See Alfacell Corp. v. Anticancer Inc., 71 USPQ2d 1301, 1305-06 (TTAB 2004); Blansett Pharmacal Co. v. Carmrick Labs., Inc., 25 USPQ2d 1473, 1477 (TTAB 1992); Schering Corp., 207 USPQ at 509.  Thus, in this case where confusion could result in harm or other serious consequences to consumers, this potential harm is considered an additional relevant factor and a lesser degree of proof may be sufficient to establish a likelihood of confusion.  See Glenwood Labs., Inc., 455 F.2d at 1386-87, 173 USPQ at 21-22; Schering Corp., 207 USPQ at 509; Ethicon, Inc., 192 USPQ at 651-52; TMEP §1207.01(d)(xii).

 

Additionally, the identification of goods in the application does not indicate what disease or condition the goods treats or prevents.  Notwithstanding, the attached evidence from what appears to be the applicant’s website indicates that the applicant’s goods treat arthritis.  http://serene-llc.com/studies/.  The attached evidence also indicates that the registrant’s goods treat arthritis.  http://www.ocregister.com/2013/09/18/the-businessman-produce-delivered-students-start-business-and-more/.  Moreover, stem cell therapy may be used to treat arthritis.  http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/325583.php#stem-cell-for-ra.  Thus, the function or purpose of the parties’ goods is the same, namely, to treat arthritis.

 

Lastly, the trademark examining attorney has attached evidence from the USPTO’s X-Search database consisting of four third-party marks registered for use in connection with the same or similar goods as those of both applicant and registrant in this case.  See U.S. Registration Nos. 5182216, 5336445, 5608403, and 5340278.  This evidence shows that the goods listed therein 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).

 

Accordingly, the goods are closely related. 

 

Because the marks are confusingly similar and the goods are closely related, consumers are likely to be confused as to the source of the goods.  Thus, registration is refused pursuant to Trademark Act Section 2(d). 

 

Response to Refusal

 

Although the applicant's mark has been refused registration, the applicant may respond to the refusal by submitting evidence and offering argument against the refusal and in support of registration.

 

REQUIREMENT

 

If the applicant responds to the refusal, then the applicant also must respond to the below requirement.

 

IDENTIFICATION OF GOODS AMENDMENT REQUIRED

 

The wording in the identification of goods is indefinite and must be clarified to specify the disease or condition to be prevented or treated.  See 37 C.F.R. §2.32(a)(6); TMEP §1402.01. 

 

Therefore, the applicant may adopt the following identification of goods, if accurate:

 

Class 5: Radio therapeutic preparations for insertion into a human for treating {specify disease or condition to be prevented or treated, e.g., arthritis}

 

Applicant’s goods may be clarified or limited, but may not be expanded beyond those originally itemized in the application or as acceptably amended.  See 37 C.F.R. §2.71(a); TMEP §1402.06.  Applicant may clarify or limit the identification by inserting qualifying language or deleting items to result in a more specific identification; however, applicant may not substitute different goods or add goods not found or encompassed by those in the original application or as acceptably amended.  See TMEP §1402.06(a)-(b).  The scope of the goods sets the outer limit for any changes to the identification and is generally determined by the ordinary meaning of the wording in the identification.  TMEP §§1402.06(b), 1402.07(a)-(b).  Any acceptable changes to the goods will further limit scope, and once goods are deleted, they are not permitted to be reinserted.  TMEP §1402.07(e).

 

For assistance with identifying and classifying goods in trademark applications, please see the USPTO’s online searchable U.S. Acceptable Identification of Goods and Services Manual.  See TMEP §1402.04.

 

RESPONSE GUIDELINES

 

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 and requirement 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.

 

How to respond.  Click to file a response to this nonfinal Office action  

 

/Kevin G. Crennan/

Trademark Examining Attorney

Law Office 113

(571) 272-7949

kevin.crennan@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 18, 2019 for

U.S. Trademark Application Serial No. 88575302

 

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. 

 

 

/Kevin G. Crennan/

Trademark Examining Attorney

Law Office 113

(571) 272-7949

kevin.crennan@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 18, 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.”