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 03, 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:

• Refusal - Merely Descriptive
• Refusal – Likelihood of Confusion
• Earlier Filed Conflicting Applications
• Description of the Mark
• Identification of Goods

 

SECTION 2(e)(1) REFUSAL - MERELY DESCRIPTIVE

Registration is refused because the applied-for mark merely describes the character of applicant’s goods.  Trademark Act Section 2(e)(1), 15 U.S.C. §1052(e)(1); see TMEP §§1209.01(b), 1209.03 et seq.

 

A mark is merely descriptive if it describes an ingredient, quality, characteristic, function, feature, purpose, or use of an applicant’s goods and/or services.  TMEP §1209.01(b); see, e.g., In re TriVita, Inc., 783 F.3d 872, 874, 114 USPQ2d 1574, 1575 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (quoting In re Oppedahl & Larson LLP, 373 F.3d 1171, 1173, 71 USPQ2d 1370, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2004)); In re Steelbuilding.com, 415 F.3d 1293, 1297, 75 USPQ2d 1420, 1421 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (citing Estate of P.D. Beckwith, Inc. v. Comm’r of Patents, 252 U.S. 538, 543 (1920)). 

 

The determination of whether a mark is merely descriptive is made in relation to an applicant’s goods and/or services, not in the abstract.  DuoProSS Meditech Corp. v. Inviro Med. Devices, Ltd., 695 F.3d 1247, 1254, 103 USPQ2d 1753, 1757 (Fed. Cir. 2012); In re The Chamber of Commerce of the U.S., 675 F.3d 1297, 1300, 102 USPQ2d 1217, 1219 (Fed. Cir. 2012); TMEP §1209.01(b); see, e.g., In re Polo Int’l Inc., 51 USPQ2d 1061, 1062-63 (TTAB 1999) (finding DOC in DOC-CONTROL would refer to the “documents” managed by applicant’s software rather than the term “doctor” shown in a dictionary definition); In re Digital Research Inc., 4 USPQ2d 1242, 1243-44 (TTAB 1987) (finding CONCURRENT PC-DOS and CONCURRENT DOS merely descriptive of “computer programs recorded on disk” where the relevant trade used the denomination “concurrent” as a descriptor of a particular type of operating system). 

 

“Whether consumers could guess what the product [or service] is from consideration of the mark alone is not the test.”  In re Am. Greetings Corp., 226 USPQ 365, 366 (TTAB 1985).

 

The proposed mark is POWERBOX and Design for:

 

IC 009: hardwired power strips, under cabinet outlets, power outlet strips, power bars, plug strips, outlet strips, power taps, power outlets, power extension, power distribution units, electrical sockets, electric plugs

 

POWER is defined as:

 

6a : a source or means of supplying energy

especially : electricity

 

“power” Merriam-Webster (2019) http://www.merriam-webster.com/.  Retrieved December 3, 2019.  See attachment.

 

BOX is defined as:

 

4 : a box or boxlike container and its contents: such as

 

a : a usually self-contained piece of electronic equipment

 

“box” Merriam-Webster (2019) http://www.merriam-webster.com/.  Retrieved December 3, 2019.  See attachment.

 

A term that describes the shape or form of a product is merely descriptive.  In re Metcal Inc., 1 USPQ2d 1334 (TTAB 1986) (holding SOLDER STRAP merely descriptive of self regulating heaters in the form of flexible bands or straps); In re H.U.D.D.L.E., 216 USPQ 358 (TTAB 1982) (holding TOOBS merely descriptive of bathroom and kitchen fixtures in the shape of tubes).

 

The wording POWERBOX describes the goods, which are in the form of a box for providing power.

 

In this case, the rectangle does not add distinctiveness to the mark, as it is a common geometric shape.  Background designs in composite marks consisting of common geometric shapes, such as circles, ovals, squares, triangles, diamonds, and other geometric designs, are generally not regarded as marks for goods and/or services absent a showing of distinctiveness in the design alone.  In re Anton/Bauer Inc., 7 USPQ2d 1380, 1381 (TTAB 1988) (citing In re Raytheon Co., 202 USPQ 317 (TTAB 1979)); TMEP §1202.11; see also Seabrook Foods, Inc. v. Bar-Well Foods Ltd., 568 F.2d 1342, 1344, 196 USPQ 289, 291 (C.C.P.A. 1977).

 

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 marks in U.S. Registration Nos. 4685500; 4000167; 2181821.  Trademark Act Section 2(d), 15 U.S.C. §1052(d); see TMEP §§1207.01 et seq.  See the attached registrations.

 

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.

 

CONFUSION BASED ON REGISTRATION NO. 4685500

 

The proposed mark is POWERBOX and Design for:

 

IC 009: hardwired power strips, under cabinet outlets, power outlet strips, power bars, plug strips, outlet strips, power taps, power outlets, power extension, power distribution units, electrical sockets, electric plugs

 

The registered mark is POWERBOX in standard characters for:

 

IC 009: chargers for USB mobile devices; Rechargeable batteries integrated into a protective case or housing with an electrical connector for use with mobile electronic devices, namely, mobile phones, smartphones, electronic book readers, tablet computers, MP3 players, wireless headsets for use with cellular phones and computers, digital audio and video players, handheld computers, personal digital assistants, electronic organizers, electronic notepads, and cameras.

 

The marks are similar and create the same general impression due to the identical term POWERBOX in the marks.  In addition, both marks contain the wording POWERBOX inside a rectangle, adding to the similarity of the marks.

 

The parties provide related electrical power goods.

 

Consumers who encounter the parties’ similar marks used on their related goods are likely to be confused about the source of the goods.

 

 

CONFUSION BASED ON REGISTRATION NO. 4000167

 

The proposed mark is POWERBOX and Design for:

 

IC 009: hardwired power strips, under cabinet outlets, power outlet strips, power bars, plug strips, outlet strips, power taps, power outlets, power extension, power distribution units, electrical sockets, electric plugs

 

The registered mark is POWERBOX and design for:

 

IC 009: Circuit breaker panel boards; Connecting electrical cables; Electric cables; Electric control panels; Electrical cables for use in connections; Electrical distribution boxes; Electrical distribution systems, namely, power distribution panels; Electrical power distribution units; Electronic timers; Power distributing boxes; Timers

 

The marks are similar and create the same general impression due to the identical term POWERBOX in the marks.  In addition, both marks contain the wording POWERBOX inside a rectangle, adding to the similarity of the marks.

 

The parties provide identical and related electrical power goods.

 

Consumers who encounter the parties’ similar marks used on their identical and related goods are likely to be confused about the source of the goods.

 

 

CONFUSION BASED ON REGISTRATION NO. 2181821

 

The proposed mark is POWERBOX and Design for:

 

IC 009: hardwired power strips, under cabinet outlets, power outlet strips, power bars, plug strips, outlet strips, power taps, power outlets, power extension, power distribution units, electrical sockets, electric plugs

 

The registered mark is POWERBOX in typed form for:

 

 IC 009: electrical power supplies, convertors, invertors and parts therefor, electronic instrument cases, electronic instrument cabinets, electronic instrument racks

 

The marks are similar and create the same general impression due to the identical term POWERBOX in the marks.

 

The parties provide identical and related electrical power goods.

 

Consumers who encounter the parties’ similar marks used on their identical and related goods are likely to be confused about the source of the goods.

 

 

EARLIER FILED CONFLICTING APPLICATIONS

 

The filing dates of pending U.S. Application Serial Nos. 87856837 and 87435664 precede applicant’s filing date.  See attached referenced applications.  If one or more of the marks in the referenced applications register, applicant’s mark may be refused registration under Trademark Act Section 2(d) because of a likelihood of confusion with the registered mark(s).  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 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.

 

Although applicant’s mark has been refused registration, applicant may respond to the refusal(s) by submitting evidence and arguments in support of registration.

 

If applicant responds to the refusal(s), applicant must also respond to the requirement(s) set forth below.

 

 

DESCRIPTION OF THE MARK

 

Applicant must submit an amended description of the mark that agrees with the mark on the drawing.  37 C.F.R. §2.37; see TMEP §§808.01, 808.02.  The current description is inconsistent with the mark on the drawing and thus is inaccurate.  37 C.F.R. §2.37; see TMEP §§808.01, 808.02.  Descriptions must be accurate and identify only those literal and design elements appearing in the mark.  See 37 C.F.R. §2.37; TMEP §§808.02, 808.03(d). 

 

The following description is suggested, if accurate:

 

The mark consists of the stylized wording “POWERBOX” inside a black rectangle, with “POWER” in black, “BOX” in green, and the background of the rectangle in white.

 

IDENTIFICATION OF GOODS

 

 

The identification of goods is unacceptable and must be clarified because the applicant has not listed the common commercial name of each device.  See 37 C.F.R. §2.32(a)(6); TMEP §1402.01.

 

SUGGESTED IDENTIFICATION OF GOODS

 

Applicant may substitute the following wording, if accurate: 

 

IC 009: Electrical power devices, namely, hardwired power strips, under cabinet electrical outlets, power electrical outlet strips, electrical power strip bars, electrical plug strips, electrical outlet strips, electrical power taps, electrical power outlets, electrical power extension cords, electrical power distribution units, electrical sockets, and electric plugs

 

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.

 

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.    

 

 

 

/Ellen Awrich/

Trademark Examining Attorney

Law Office 116

571-272-9123

ellen.awrich@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 03, 2019 for

U.S. Trademark Application Serial No. 88597278

 

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. 

 

 

 

/Ellen Awrich/

Trademark Examining Attorney

Law Office 116

571-272-9123

ellen.awrich@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 03, 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.”