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:  December 09, 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.

SUMMARY OF ISSUES:

• Potentially Conflicting Prior Pending Application
• Section 2(d) Refusal – Likelihood of Confusion
• Identification of Goods

POTENTIALLY CONFLICTING PRIOR-FILED APPLICATION(S)

The filing date of pending U.S. Application Serial No. 87536169 (“MOTO”) precedes applicant’s filing date.  See attached referenced application.  If the mark in the referenced application registers, applicant’s mark may be refused registration under Trademark Act Section 2(d) because of a likelihood of confusion between the two marks.  See 15 U.S.C. §1052(d); 37 C.F.R. §2.83; TMEP §§1208 et seq.  Therefore, upon receipt of applicant’s response to this Office action, action on this application may be suspended pending final disposition of the earlier-filed referenced application.

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.

Applicant should note the following additional ground for refusal.

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. 3402839 (“MOTO”).  Trademark Act Section 2(d), 15 U.S.C. §1052(d); see TMEP §§1207.01 et seq.  See the attached registration.

The applicant’s mark is “MOTO-SOUND” for intent to use with “loudspeakers; woofers; fuses; amplifiers; electrical power distribution blocks; electric cables, wires, conductors and connection fittings therefor; speaker audio kits comprising enclosures, templates, wiring, cables, and connectors” in International Class 9.

The registrant’s mark is “MOTO” for use with “Telephones, cellular telephones, [ radio telephones, pagers, two-way radios, radio transmitters, radio receivers, radio transceivers, electronic organizers, and related accessories for the foregoing goods, namely, headsets, microphones, speakers, carrying cases, and belt clips; radio base stations, switches, routers, computers, ] computer software and programs used for transmission or reproducing or receiving of sound, images, video or data over a telecommunications network or system between terminals and for enhancing and facilitating use and access to computer networks and telephone networks; [ computer software for use in general purpose database management; computer e-commerce software to allow user to safely place orders and make payments in the field of electronic business transactions via a global computer network or telecommunications network; computer software for training and product support for computers and mobile phones in the field of communications; computer utility software for performing computer maintenance work; computer game software for mobile handsets; computer software and programs featuring music, movies, animation, electronic books, games in the field of general entertainment; computer software for the distribution of information and interactive multimedia content containing text, images, video and sound to users in the field of communications; ] computer software and programs for management and operation of wireless telecommunications devices [; computer software for accessing, searching, indexing and retrieving information and data from global computer networks and global communication networks, and for browsing and navigating through web sites on said networks; computer software for sending and receiving short messages and electronic mail and for filtering non-text information from the data; analog and digital radio transceivers or receivers for data, voice, image and video communication, modems, global positioning units, batteries, battery chargers, power adapters, and antennas ]” in International Class 9.

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 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).

The marks are similar in sound, appearance and meaning because of the common dominant wording “MOTO” in both marks.

The only difference between the marks is the addition of “-SOUND” at the end of applicant’s mark.  This difference does not change the commercial impression of the marks.

Adding a term to a registered mark generally does not obviate the similarity between the compared marks, as in the present case, nor does it overcome a likelihood of confusion under Section 2(d).  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.

Here the registrant’s mark is “MOTO”.  The addition of “-SOUND” in the applicant’s mark “MOTO-SOUND” does not obviate the similarity with registrant’s mark “MOTO”.

Additionally, consumers are generally more inclined to focus on the first word, prefix, or syllable in any trademark or service mark.  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”).

In the present case, the first word in both the registrant’s mark and the applicant’s mark is “MOTO”.  This is the word that consumers are more inclined to focus on and identical in both marks and thus confusingly similar. 

Accordingly, the marks are considered similar for likelihood of confusion purposes.

Similarity of Goods

The goods and/or services 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 and/or services 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 and/or services] 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).

And generally, the greater degree of similarity between the applied-for mark and the registered mark, the lesser the degree of similarity between the goods and/or services of the parties is required to support a finding of likelihood of confusion.  In re C.H. Hanson Co., 116 USPQ2d 1351, 1353 (TTAB 2015) (citing In re Opus One Inc., 60 USPQ2d 1812, 1815 (TTAB 2001)); In re Thor Tech, Inc., 90 USPQ2d 1634, 1636 (TTAB 2009). 

The applicant’s goods, namely, “loudspeakers; woofers; fuses; amplifiers; electrical power distribution blocks; electric cables, wires, conductors and connection fittings therefor; speaker audio kits comprising enclosures, templates, wiring, cables, and connectors” are closely related to the registrant’s goods, namely, “Telephones, cellular telephones, [ radio telephones, pagers, two-way radios, radio transmitters, radio receivers, radio transceivers, electronic organizers, and related accessories for the foregoing goods, namely, headsets, microphones, speakers, carrying cases, and belt clips; radio base stations, switches, routers, computers, ] computer software and programs used for transmission or reproducing or receiving of sound, images, video or data over a telecommunications network or system between terminals and for enhancing and facilitating use and access to computer networks and telephone networks; [ computer software for use in general purpose database management; computer e-commerce software to allow user to safely place orders and make payments in the field of electronic business transactions via a global computer network or telecommunications network; computer software for training and product support for computers and mobile phones in the field of communications; computer utility software for performing computer maintenance work; computer game software for mobile handsets; computer software and programs featuring music, movies, animation, electronic books, games in the field of general entertainment; computer software for the distribution of information and interactive multimedia content containing text, images, video and sound to users in the field of communications; ] computer software and programs for management and operation of wireless telecommunications devices [; computer software for accessing, searching, indexing and retrieving information and data from global computer networks and global communication networks, and for browsing and navigating through web sites on said networks; computer software for sending and receiving short messages and electronic mail and for filtering non-text information from the data; analog and digital radio transceivers or receivers for data, voice, image and video communication, modems, global positioning units, batteries, battery chargers, power adapters, and antennas ]” because both are likely to involve the same channels of trade and the same classes of consumers.

For example, the attached Internet evidence, consisting of websites from Dell, Logitech, Sony, LG, and Samsung, establishes that the same entity commonly manufactures/produces/provides the relevant goods, namely, speakers, amplifiers, speaker kits, as well as cellular phones, computers, and software, and markets the goods under the same mark.  Thus, applicant’s and registrant’s goods are considered highly 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, registration is refused under Trademark Act Section 2(d) based on likelihood of confusion.

Although applicant’s mark has been refused registration, applicant may respond to the refusal(s) by submitting evidence and arguments in support of registration.  However, if applicant responds to the refusal(s), applicant must also respond to the requirement(s) set forth below.

IDENTIFICATION OF GOODS

The goods are:

Class 9:  loudspeakers; woofers; fuses; amplifiers; electrical power distribution blocks; electric cables, wires, conductors and connection fittings therefor; speaker audio kits comprising enclosures, templates, wiring, cables, and connectors.

The identification for “kits” in International Class 9 is indefinite and must be clarified.  See 37 C.F.R. §2.32(a)(6); TMEP §§1401.05(a), 1402.01, 1402.03.  Kits generally consist of a group of components that (1) share a common theme, or (2) are used to make a particular product.  See TMEP §1401.05(a).  Applicant must amend the identification to clarify the product being made and the components in the kits, using the guidelines below.  See id.

For kits consisting of a group of components that share a common theme, the identification should specify the theme followed by the wording “comprising” or “comprised of” and a list of the components that make up the kit, with all of the components in the predominant class listed first.  See id.  Generally, a kit is classified in the same international class as the majority of the components in the kit.  See id.  For example, “nail care kits comprised of nail polish, nail polish remover, false nails, nail files, and printed instructions” are in International Class 3, the class of the kits’ primary components which are listed first in the kits’ components (with “nail files” in International Class 8, and “printed instructions” in International Class 16 listed after the International Class 3 components).

If there are no components that are more dominant than another in a shared-theme kit, the first component listed after the wording “comprising” or “comprised of” will determine the class of the kit.  See id.  For example, “tool kits comprising hand saws and power-driven saws” are in International Class 8 (the class for “hand saws”), and “tool kits comprising power-driven saws and hand saws” are in International Class 7 (the class for “power-driven saws”).

For kits that make a particular product, the identification must specify the product being made using the following format:  “kits for making [specify item] comprising [specify components]” or “kits for making [specify item] comprised of [specify components].”  See id.  Generally, this type of kit is classified in the international class of the product being made.  For example, “kits for making wine consisting of fresh grapes and chemicals for fermenting wine” are classified in International Class 33 (the class for “wine”).

For examples of other acceptable identifications for kits (e.g., sewing kits, face painting kits), please see the USPTO’s U.S. Acceptable Identification of Goods and Services Manual (ID Manual).

Applicant may adopt the following wording, if accurate: 

Class 9:  loudspeakers; woofers; fuses; amplifiers; electrical power distribution blocks; electric cables, wires, conductors and connection fittings therefor; audio speaker kits comprised of speaker enclosures, {specify common commercial names of specific goods intended by “templates”}, electric speaker wires, electric speaker cables, electrical connectors for speakers.

Applicant may amend the identification to clarify or limit the goods and/or services, but not to broaden or expand the goods and/or services beyond those in the original application or as acceptably amended.  See 37 C.F.R. §2.71(a); TMEP §1402.06.  Generally, any deleted goods and/or services may not later be reinserted.  See TMEP §1402.07(e).

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.

RESPONSE GUIDELINES

Response guidelines.  For this application to proceed, applicant must explicitly address each refusal and/or requirement in this Office action.  For a refusal, applicant may provide written arguments and evidence against the refusal, and may have other response options if specified above.  For a requirement, applicant should set forth the changes or statements.  Please see “Responding to Office Actions” and the informational video “Response to Office Action” for more information and tips on responding.

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(s) and/or requirement(s) 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. 

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.    

/Marta Stadeli/

Examining Attorney

Law Office 123

(571) 272-6747

marta.stadeli@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 December 09, 2019 for

U.S. Trademark Application Serial No. 88596510

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. 

/Marta Stadeli/

Examining Attorney

Law Office 123

(571) 272-6747

marta.stadeli@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 December 09, 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.”