To: | CareSource (sketler@ralaw.com) |
Subject: | U.S. Trademark Application Serial No. 88581480 - CARESOURCE VETERANS ADVANTAGE - 127642.0137 |
Sent: | November 21, 2019 05:26:01 AM |
Sent As: | ecom109@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 |
United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO)
Office Action (Official Letter) About Applicant’s Trademark Application
U.S. Application Serial No. 88581480
Mark: CARESOURCE VETERANS ADVANTAGE
|
|
Correspondence Address:
|
|
Applicant: CareSource
|
|
Reference/Docket No. 127642.0137
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 21, 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.
SECTION 2(d) REFUSAL – LIKELIHOOD OF CONFUSION
· VETERANS ADVANTAGE, in standard characters, for “Providing financial information, namely, information about military veterans benefits” in Class 36 (U.S. Registration No. 3995680)
Trademark Act Section 2(d), 15 U.S.C. §1052(d); see TMEP §§1207.01 et seq. See the attached registration(s).
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.
1. Similarity of the Marks
Applicant’s Mark: CARESOURCE VETERANS ADVANTAGE, in standard characters
Registrant’s Mark: VETERANS ADVANTAGE, in standard characters
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).
In this case, the marks are highly similar because the marks share the wording, VETERANS ADVANTAGE. The only difference between the marks is applicant’s addition of the wording CARESOURCE, in its mark.
In the present case, the applicant’s addition of the wording, CARESOURCE, to the registrant’s mark, VETERANS ADVANTAGE, does not obviate the likelihood of confusion as the additional wording does not alter the overall commercial impression between the marks. Thus, the marks are identical in part.
In this case, both marks share the similar wording, VETERANS ADVANTAGE. This similarity creates a confusingly similar commercial impression because consumers are likely to believe that registrant’s mark is a condensed form of applicant’s mark or that registrant has begun offering similar services under another iteration of its registered mark. Thus, the addition of CARESOURCE does not create a distinct commercial impression that distinguishes applicant’s mark from registrant’s mark.
Therefore, the marks are confusingly similar.
2. Relatedness of the Services
Applicant’s Services:
· Class 36: Provision of health insurance plans; health insurance services in the nature of underwriting, issuing, and administration of health insurance plans; administration of health care benefits plans in the nature of health maintenance organizations; administrative services for the public health sector, namely, administration of pre-paid health care plans; health insurance claims processing; provider relations, namely, administration of preferred provider plans in the field of health care; health insurance administration
Registrant’s Services:
· Class 36: Providing financial information, namely, information about military veterans benefits
· http://www.tricare.mil/FindDoctor/AllProviderDirectories/VAFacilities (offering financial information about military veterans benefits and providing health insurance)
Thus, applicant’s and registrant’s 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).
The marks create the same commercial impression and the attached evidence illustrates that the services are commercially related and are likely to be encountered together in the marketplace by consumers. Accordingly, consumers are likely to be confused and mistakenly believe that the services originate from a common source. Therefore, registration must be refused. Trademark Act Section 2(d), 15 U.S.C. §1052(d); see TMEP §§1207.01 et seq.
PRIOR-FILED APPLICATION(S)
In response to this Office action, applicant may present arguments in support of registration by addressing the issue of the potential conflict between applicant’s mark and the mark in the referenced application. Applicant’s election not to submit arguments at this time in no way limits applicant’s right to address this issue later if a refusal under Section 2(d) issues.
In this case, applicant must disclaim the wording “VETERANS” because it is not inherently distinctive. These unregistrable term(s) at best are merely descriptive of an ingredient, quality, characteristic, function, feature, purpose, or use of applicant’s goods and/or services. See 15 U.S.C. §1052(e)(1); DuoProSS Meditech Corp. v. Inviro Med. Devices, Ltd., 695 F.3d 1247, 1251, 103 USPQ2d 1753, 1755 (Fed. Cir. 2012); TMEP §§1213, 1213.03(a).
VETERANS means “a person who has served in the armed forces” or “a soldier who has seen considerable active service”. See attached, or http://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/veteran?family=veterans; see also http://www.caresource.com/veteran-care/
As illustrated by the dictionary definition, the wording “VETERANS” describes a feature, characteristic, or intended audience of applicant’s services, namely, providing health insurance plants to people who have served in the armed forces (VETERANS).
Applicant may respond to this issue by submitting a disclaimer in the following format:
No claim is made to the exclusive right to use “VETERANS” apart from the mark as shown.
For an overview of disclaimers and instructions on how to satisfy this issue using the Trademark Electronic Application System (TEAS), see the Disclaimer webpage.
An applicant may not claim exclusive rights to terms that others may need to use to describe their goods and/or services in the marketplace. See Dena Corp. v. Belvedere Int’l, Inc., 950 F.2d 1555, 1560, 21 USPQ2d 1047, 1051 (Fed. Cir. 1991); In re Aug. Storck KG, 218 USPQ 823, 825 (TTAB 1983). A disclaimer of unregistrable matter does not affect the appearance of the mark; that is, a disclaimer does not physically remove the disclaimed matter from the mark. See Schwarzkopf v. John H. Breck, Inc., 340 F.2d 978, 978, 144 USPQ 433, 433 (C.C.P.A. 1965); TMEP §1213.
IDENTIFICATION AND CLASSIFICATION OF SERVICES
Generally, a trademark examining attorney will recommend language to replace unacceptable wording in identifications of goods and/or services. See TMEP §1402.01(e). However, in this case, the trademark examining attorney is unable to suggest alternative wording because the wording does not appear to describe any goods and/or services in the International Class specified in the application. See TMEP §1904.02(c)(iii). Applicant may respond by amending the highlighted wording to clarify the nature of the goods and/or services; however, any amendment to the identification must be within the scope of the wording in the initial application. See TMEP §§1402.01(c), 1402.07(a), 1904.02(c)(iii).
Specifically, “Provision of health insurance plans” is indefinite, broad, and requires further clarification as to the underlying nature of the services for proper classification. If applicant is providing an health insurance exchange, then the services are classified in Class 35, e.g., “Providing health insurance exchanges in the nature of a marketplace that offers purchasers of health insurance a variety of plans from different insurance providers”. If, however, applicant is offering actual health insurance services, then applicant is required to specify the underlying nature of the service for Class 36 classification, e.g., “health insurance underwriting”.
“Administration of health care benefits plans in the nature of health maintenance organizations” is indefinite and confusingly written and requires further clarification as to the underlying nature of the services for proper classification. Currently, “in the nature of health maintenance organizations” is classified in Class 44. The administration of health maintenance organizations is not definite in Class 36. Further, the wording could also allude to Class 35 services, e.g., “Cost management for the health care benefit plans of others”. Thus, further clarification is required.
In the recommendations below, the examining attorney sought to offer comprehensive proposals in instances where the identification of goods or recitations of services are definite. Applicant is not required to accept these proposals, but any further changes must be within the scope of the identifications set out in the application. Please see below for a more thorough discussion.
Additionally, where necessary, the examining attorney has indicated where applicant must supply additional information. In such cases, the wording is presented in bold print within brackets, for example, “Computer software for {specify the functions of the programs, e.g., use in database management, use as a spreadsheet, word processing, etc. and, if software is content – or field specific, the content or field of use}.” In such a case, applicant must supply the required information within the brackets and remove the brackets from the identification.
Accordingly, applicant may adopt any or all of the following identification, if accurate (changes in bold):
· CLASS 35: Providing health insurance exchanges in the nature of a marketplace that offers purchasers of health insurance a variety of plans from different insurance providers
· CLASS 36: Provision of health
insurance plans, namely, {specify underlying nature of the services in this class, e.g., health insurance underwriting}; health insurance services in the nature of underwriting,
issuing, and administration of health insurance plans; administration of health care benefits plans in the nature of health maintenance organizations [Moved to Class 44];
administrative services for the public health sector, namely, administration of pre-paid health care plans; health insurance claims processing; provider relations, namely, administration of preferred
provider plans in the field of health care; health insurance administration
· CLASS 44: administration of health care benefits plans in the nature of health maintenance organizations
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.
MULTIPLE-CLASS APPLICATION REQUIREMENTS
(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 and/or services that are classified in at least 2 classes; however, applicant submitted a fee(s) sufficient for only 1 class. 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.
RESPONSE GUIDELINES
If applicant has questions regarding this Office action, please telephone or e-mail the assigned trademark examining attorney. All relevant e-mail communications will be placed in the official application record; however, an e-mail communication will not be accepted as a response to this Office action and will not extend the deadline for filing a proper response. See 37 C.F.R. §§2.62(c), 2.191; TMEP §§304.01-.02, 709.04-.05. Further, although the trademark examining attorney may provide additional explanation pertaining to the refusal(s) and/or requirement(s) in this Office action, the trademark examining attorney may not provide legal advice or statements about applicant’s rights. See TMEP §§705.02, 709.06.
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
/Philip Liu/
Trademark Examining Attorney
U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
Law Office 109
(571) 272 - 6792
Philip.Liu@uspto.gov
RESPONSE GUIDANCE