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 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:

 

• Failure to Function Refusal - Sections 1, 2, 3, and 45
• Section 2(d) Refusal – Likelihood of Confusion – This Refusal Applies Only to the Services Identified Therein

 

FAILURE TO FUNCTION REFUSAL - SECTIONS 1, 2, 3, AND 45

 

Registration is refused because the applied-for mark is a term that does not function as a service mark to indicate the source of applicant’s services and to identify and distinguish them from others.  Trademark Act Sections 1, 2, 3, and 45, 15 U.S.C. §§1051-1053, 1127.  In this case, the applied-for mark is a term that is commonly used by those in applicant’s particular trade or industry to merely convey information about applicant’s or similar services.  See In re Boston Beer Co., 198 F.3d 1370, 1372-74, 53 USPQ2d 1056, 1058-59 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (holding THE BEST BEER IN AMERICA for beer and ale a common claim of superiority and incapable of registration); In re Melville Corp., 228 USPQ 970, 971 (TTAB 1986) (holding BRAND NAMES FOR LESS for retail clothing store services a common promotional phrase and incapable of registration); TMEP §1202.04(a). 

 

Slogans and terms that are merely informational in nature, such as statements or laudatory phrases about goods and/or services ordinarily used in business or in a particular trade or industry, are not registrable.  See In re Eagle Crest, Inc., 96 USPQ2d 1227, 1229 (TTAB 2010).  Determining whether the slogan or term functions as a trademark or service mark depends on how it would be perceived by the relevant public.  In re Eagle Crest, Inc., 96 USPQ2d at 1229; In re Aerospace Optics, Inc., 78 USPQ2d at 1862; TMEP §1202.04.  “The more commonly a [slogan or term] is used, the less likely that the public will use it to identify only one source and the less likely that it will be recognized by purchasers as a trademark [or service mark].”  In re Hulting, 107 USPQ2d 1175, 1177 (TTAB 2013) (quoting In re Eagle Crest, Inc., 96 USPQ2d at 1229); TMEP §1202.04(b).

 

The attached evidence from Compunetix, Rother Machine, Compunetix, II-VI Marlow, Meta Fab Incorporated and Enercon Technologies shows that this slogan or term is commonly used by those in applicant’s particular trade or industry to indicate that they offer design, fabrication and sourcing services.  Because consumers are accustomed to seeing this slogan or term used in this manner, when it is applied to applicant’s goods and/or services, they would perceive it merely as informational matter indicating that applicant provides design as well as fabrication and production finishing services.  Thus, this slogan or term would not be perceived as a mark that identifies the source of applicant’s services.

 

An applicant may not overcome this refusal by amending the application to seek registration on the Supplemental Register or asserting a claim of acquired distinctiveness under Section 2(f).  TMEP §1202.04(d); see In re Eagle Crest, Inc., 96 USPQ2d at 1229.  Nor will submitting a substitute specimen overcome this refusal.  See TMEP §1202.04(d). 

 

SECTION 2(d) REFUSAL – LIKELIHOOD OF CONFUSION – THIS REFUSAL APPLIES ONLY TO THE SERVICES IDENTIFIED THEREIN

 

Registration of the applied-for mark CONCEPT TO COMPLETION is refused because of a likelihood of confusion with the mark FROM CONCEPT TO COMPLETION in U.S. Registration No. 2116122 for the services “Custom manufacture, fabrication, and production of medical products, technology products, and electronics; prototype fabrication of new products for others; assembly of products for others” and “Industrial design; custom design and development of medical products, technology products, and electronics; product development; product engineering services for others”.  Trademark Act Section 2(d), 15 U.S.C. §1052(d); see TMEP §§1207.01 et seq.  See the attached registration.

 

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.

 

COMPARISON 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).

 

The applied-for mark CONCEPT TO COMPLETION and the registered mark FROM CONCEPT TO COMPLETION make similar overall commercial impressions because the applied-for mark merely deletes the word “FROM” from the registered mark.  Although applicant’s mark does not contain the entirety of the registered mark, applicant’s mark is likely to appear to prospective purchasers as a shortened form of registrant’s mark.  See In re Mighty Leaf Tea, 601 F.3d 1342, 1348, 94 USPQ2d 1257, 1260 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (quoting United States Shoe Corp., 229 USPQ 707, 709 (TTAB 1985)).  Thus, merely omitting some of the wording from a registered mark may not overcome a likelihood of confusion.  See In re Mighty Leaf Tea, 601 F.3d 1342, 94 USPQ2d 1257; In re Optica Int’l, 196 USPQ 775, 778 (TTAB 1977); TMEP §1207.01(b)(ii)-(iii).  In this case, applicant’s mark does not create a distinct commercial impression from the registered mark because it contains some of the wording in the registered mark and does not add any wording that would distinguish it from that mark.

 

COMPARISON OF THE SERVICES

 

Applicant’s mark is for the services “Custom manufacture, fabrication, and production of medical products, technology products, and electronics; prototype fabrication of new products for others; assembly of products for others” and “Industrial design; custom design and development of medical products, technology products, and electronics; product development; product engineering services for others” while registrant’s mark is for the services “manufacture of plastic products to the order and specification of others”.

 

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).

 

Applicant’s manufacturing services include plastic products in the medical and technology field, as well as the prototype fabrication and assembly of plastic products.  Applicant’s design services in class 42 are closely related to the registered manufacturing services because custom manufacturing services and design and product development services are routinely offered together under the same mark.  Please see the attached evidence from Rabbit Product Design, Plastic Design & Manufacturing, E & C Custom Plastics and Murray Plastics showing third parties offering such services in association with each other.

 

In conclusion, because the applied-for mark and the registered mark make similar commercial impressions and because the services are closely related there is a likelihood of confusion between the two marks and the applied-for mark must be refused registration under Trademark Act Section 2(d) for the services identified above.

 

RESPONSE GUIDELINES

 

Although applicant’s mark has been refused registration, applicant may respond to the refusals by submitting evidence and arguments in support of registration.  How to respond.  Click to file a response to this nonfinal Office action  

 

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.

 

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.  

 

 

/David A. Brookshire/

Examining Attorney

Law Office 114

(571) 272-7991

David.Brookshire@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. 88599182

 

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. 

 

 

/David A. Brookshire/

Examining Attorney

Law Office 114

(571) 272-7991

David.Brookshire@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.”