To: | EVGA Corporation (usa@jcipgroup.com) |
Subject: | U.S. Trademark Application Serial No. 88588143 - EVGA - 85116-US-TM |
Sent: | November 22, 2019 11:42:27 AM |
Sent As: | ecom105@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 |
United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO)
Office Action (Official Letter) About Applicant’s Trademark Application
U.S. Application Serial No. 88588143
Mark: EVGA
|
|
Correspondence Address: CHINHWEI CHEN; JIANQ CHYUN INTELLECTUAL |
|
Applicant: EVGA Corporation
|
|
Reference/Docket No. 85116-US-TM
Correspondence Email Address: |
|
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 22, 2019
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.
PARTIAL SECTION 2(d) REFUSAL—LIKELIHOOD OF CONFUSION—CLASS 9
Registration of the applied-for mark is partially refused as to applicant’s class 9 goods because of a likelihood of confusion with the mark in U.S. Registration Nos. 4300519, 4304327, and 3079423, which are all owned by the same entity. Trademark Act Section 2(d), 15 U.S.C. §1052(d); see TMEP §§1207.01 et seq. See the attached registrations.
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 [or services] and differences in the marks.”); TMEP §1207.01.
Comparison of Marks
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).
In the present case, applicant has applied for the mark EVGA in stylized form. Registrant’s marks are EVGA, EVGA.COM, and EVGA in identical stylization to the applied-for mark.
Applicant and registrant’s marks either entirely consist of the lettering EVGA or prominently feature the lettering EVGA. Because of this, the marks as a whole are highly similar in sound and appearance. They also give off a highly similar commercial impression of a fanciful word or acronym that is the same four letters.
Accordingly, the marks are similar for likelihood of confusion purposes.
Comparison of 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).
The compared goods need not be identical or even competitive to find a likelihood of confusion. See On-line Careline Inc. v. Am. Online Inc., 229 F.3d 1080, 1086, 56 USPQ2d 1471, 1475 (Fed. Cir. 2000); Recot, Inc. v. Becton, 214 F.3d 1322, 1329, 54 USPQ2d 1894, 1898 (Fed. Cir. 2000); TMEP §1207.01(a)(i). They need only be “related in some manner and/or if the circumstances surrounding their marketing are such that they could give rise to the mistaken belief that [the goods] emanate from the same source.” Coach Servs., Inc. v. Triumph Learning LLC, 668 F.3d 1356, 1369, 101 USPQ2d 1713, 1722 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (quoting 7-Eleven Inc. v. Wechsler, 83 USPQ2d 1715, 1724 (TTAB 2007)); TMEP §1207.01(a)(i).
In the present case, applicant has applied, in relevant part, for the mark for use in connection with:
Class 9: Downloadable computer application software for mobile phones, namely, software for operation performance testing, customer relationship management, product trading platforms, software management platforms and executable application software, namely, games software; Downloadable computer software for operation performance testing, customer services, product trading platforms, software management platforms and executable application software, namely, games software; Downloadable computer game software; Handheld computers; Computer operating programs, recorded; Computer hardware; Touch panels; Motherboards; Graphics accelerators; Graphic cards; Sound cards; Professional graphics cards; Smartphones; Wearable video display monitors; Video display screens; Power supplies, electrical
Registrant has registered the cited mark for use in connection with:
Class 9: Computer hardware and computer software programs for the integration of text, audio, graphics, still image and moving pictures into an interactive delivery for multimedia applications
The attached internet evidence from Insightly, Salesforce, and Seismic shows that the same source that offers customer relationship management software and other goods like those identified by applicant commonly also offers software products with integration functions like the goods specified by registrant under the same mark. http://www.insightly.com/; http://www.salesforce.com/products/what-is-salesforce/; http://www.salesforce.com/products/integration/overview/?d=cta-body-promo-6; http://seismic.com/product/integrations/; http://seismic.com/product/engagement/.
Applicant and registrant’s goods are commonly offered by the same source and under the same mark, so they are considered related for likelihood of confusion purposes.
Conclusion
Because applicant and registrant's goods are related and the marks are similar, it is likely a potential consumer would be confused as to the source of the goods of applicant and registrant. Accordingly, the proposed mark creates a likelihood of confusion with a registered mark, and registration is partially refused on the Principal Register under Section 2(d).
The stated refusal refers to International Class 9 only and does not bar registration in the other classes.
(1) Record the assignment with the USPTO’s Assignment Recordation Branch (ownership transfer documents such as assignments can be filed online at http://etas.uspto.gov) and promptly notify the trademark examining attorney that the assignment has been duly recorded.
(2) Submit copies of documents evidencing the chain of title.
(3) Submit the following statement, verified with an affidavit or signed declaration under 37 C.F.R. §2.20: “Applicant is the owner of U.S. Registration Nos. 4300519, 4304327, and 3079423.” To provide this statement using the Trademark Electronic Application System (TEAS), use the “Response to Office Action” form; answer “yes” to wizard questions #3 and #10; then, continuing on to the next portion of the form, in the “Additional Statement(s)” section, find “Active Prior Registration(s)” and insert the U.S. registration numbers in the data fields; and follow the instructions within the form for signing. The form must be signed twice; a signature is required both in the “Declaration Signature” section and in the “Response Signature” section.
TMEP §812.01; see 15 U.S.C. §1060; 37 C.F.R. §§2.193(e)(1), 3.25, 3.73(a)-(b); TMEP §502.02(a).
Recording a document with the Assignment Recordation Branch does not constitute a response to an Office action. TMEP §503.01(d).
Applicant should note the following potential grounds for refusal.
PRIOR-FILED APPLICATIONS
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 marks in the referenced applications. 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.
Applicant may provide evidence of ownership of the mark(s) by satisfying one of the following:
(1) Record the assignment with the USPTO’s Assignment Recordation Branch (ownership transfer documents such as assignments can be filed online at http://etas.uspto.gov) and promptly notify the trademark examining attorney that the assignment has been duly recorded.
(2) Submit copies of documents evidencing the chain of title.
(3) Submit the following statement, verified with an affidavit or signed declaration under 37 C.F.R. §2.20: “Applicant is the owner of Application Serial No(s). 87780666 and 87780680.” To provide this statement using the Trademark Electronic Application System (TEAS), use the “Response to Office Action” form; answer “yes” to wizard questions #3 and #10; then, continuing on to the next portion of the form, in the “Additional Statement(s)” section, check the box for “Miscellaneous Statement” and write in the free form text field for the “Miscellaneous Statement” that “Applicant is the owner of Application Serial No(s). 87780666 and 87780680,” inserting the relevant application serial number(s); and follow the instructions within the form for signing. The form must be signed twice; a signature is required both in the “Declaration Signature” section and in the “Response Signature” section.
TMEP §812.01; see 15 U.S.C. §1060; 37 C.F.R. §§2.193(e)(1), 3.25, 3.73(a)-(b); TMEP §502.02(a).
Recording a document with the Assignment Recordation Branch does not constitute a response to an Office action. TMEP §503.01(d).
AMENDMENT TO IDENTIFICATION OF GOODS AND SERVICES REQUIRED
Applicant may substitute the following wording, if accurate (changes indicated in bold and strikethrough):
Class 9: Downloadable computer application software for mobile phones, namely, software for operation performance testing, customer relationship management, product trading
platforms, and software management platforms; and executable application software, namely, downloadable games
software; Downloadable computer software for operation performance testing, customer service administration, product trading platforms, and software
management; platforms and executable application software, namely, downloadable games software; Downloadable computer game software; Handheld
computers; Computer operating programs, recorded; Computer hardware; Touch panels; Motherboards; Graphics accelerators; Graphic cards; Sound cards; Professional graphics cards; Smartphones; Wearable
video display monitors; electronic Video display screens; Power supplies, electrical
Class 25: (no changes)
Class 35: Presentation of goods on communication media for retail purposes, namely, providing home shopping services in the field of general consumer merchandise by means of mobile telephone; On-line wholesale and retail store services featuring downloadable sound, music, image, video and game files; Export agency services for the goods of others; Management and compilation of computerised databases; On-line advertising on computer networks; Provision of business information via global computer networks; Promoting the goods and services of others by means of operating an on-line shopping mall with links to the retail web sites of others; Marketing, advertising, and promoting the retail goods and services of others through wireless electronic devices
Class 41: (no changes)
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.
ASSISTANCE
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.
Robert N. Guliano
/Robert N. Guliano/
robert.guliano@uspto.gov
571-272-0174
RESPONSE GUIDANCE