United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO)
Office Action (Official Letter) About Applicant’s Trademark Application
U.S. Application Serial No. 88605729
Mark: CORTEX
|
|
Correspondence Address: |
|
Applicant: BluVector, Inc.
|
|
Reference/Docket No. 311450-5364
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: December 13, 2019
SUMMARY OF ISSUES
LIKELIHOOD OF CONFUSION – REFUSAL UNDER SECTION 2(d)
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
In the present case, applicant’s mark is CORTEX and registrant’s mark is CORTEX. These marks are identical in appearance, sound, and meaning, “and have the potential to be used . . . in exactly the same manner.” In re i.am.symbolic, llc, 116 USPQ2d 1406, 1411 (TTAB 2015), aff’d, 866 F.3d 1315, 123 USPQ2d 1744 (Fed. Cir. 2017). Additionally, because they are identical, these marks are likely to engender the same connotation and overall commercial impression when considered in connection with applicant’s and registrant’s respective goods and/or services. Id.
Therefore, the marks are confusingly similar.
Similarity of Goods and Services
Here, applicant’s goods and services are “A downloadable computer platform for use by operators of computer networks to detect, analyze, respond to and contain threats to computer networks; downloadable software for detecting, analyzing, responding to and containing threats to computer networks; software to detect, analyze, respond to and contain threats to computer networks” while registrant’s goods and services include “Downloadable computer software that performs system and process automation and orchestration activities; downloadable computer program used to perform analyses of IT and communications systems to help determine system performance and service quality for IT and communications platforms; downloadable computer program used for IT and communication system fault monitoring, measurement and rectification; downloadable asset management software enabling companies to manage their physical assets in relation to IT and communication systems; downloadable configuration software enabling companies to manage their physical assets in relation to IT and communication systems” and “Computer programming services related to the use, enhancement and customization of computer software that performs system and process automation and orchestration activities, computer programs used to perform analyses of IT and communications systems to help determine system performance and service quality for IT and communications platforms, computer programs used for IT and communication system fault monitoring, measurement and rectification, asset management software enabling companies to manage their physical assets in relation to IT and communication systems and configuration software enabling companies to manage their physical assets in relation to IT and communication systems; business technology software consultation services; providing computer program and software technical support, namely, help desk services related to computer software that performs system and process automation and orchestration activities, computer programs used to perform analyses of IT and communications systems to help determine system performance and service quality for IT and communications platforms, computer programs used for IT and communication system fault monitoring, measurement and rectification, asset management software enabling companies to manage their physical assets in relation to IT and communication systems and configuration software enabling companies to manage their physical assets in relation to IT and communication systems; and information, advisory and consultancy services in respect of all of the aforementioned.”
Also attached is Internet evidence, consisting of website screenshots from third parties, including ESET, NETSPARKER, ACUNETIX, and IJURA, which establish that the same entity commonly provides the relevant goods and/or services and markets the goods and/or services under the same mark to be provided through the same trade channels and used by the same classes of consumers in the same fields of use. Thus, applicant’s and registrant’s goods and/or 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 overriding concern is not only to prevent buyer confusion as to the source of the goods and/or services, but to protect the registrant from adverse commercial impact due to use of a similar mark by a newcomer. See In re Shell Oil Co., 992 F.2d 1204, 1208, 26 USPQ2d 1687, 1690 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Therefore, any doubt regarding a likelihood of confusion determination is resolved in favor of the registrant. TMEP §1207.01(d)(i); see Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Packard Press, Inc., 281 F.3d 1261, 1265, 62 USPQ2d 1001, 1003 (Fed. Cir. 2002); In re Hyper Shoppes (Ohio), Inc., 837 F.2d 463, 464-65, 6 USPQ2d 1025, 1026 (Fed. Cir. 1988).
Given the similarity of the marks and the relatedness of the goods and/or services, applicant’s mark must be refused under Section 2(d).
Applicant should note the following advisory
PRIOR PENDING APPLICATIONS – POTENTIAL REFUSAL UNDER SECTION 2(d)
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 should note the following requirement(s)
IDENTIFICATION OF GOODS AND SERVICES MUST BE CLARIFIED
The wording “software” in the identification of goods for International Class 9 must be clarified because it is too broad and could include goods and services in more than one international class. See 37 C.F.R. §2.32(a)(6); TMEP §§1402.01, 1402.03. In particular, this wording could encompass downloadable software in International Class 9 as well as online non-downloadable software in International Class 42. Downloadable and recorded goods are in International Class 9, whereas providing their temporary, online non-downloadable use is a service in International Class 42. See TMEP §1402.03(d).
Applicant may substitute the following wording, if accurate:
International Class 9: Downloadable computer software platform for use by operators of computer networks to detect, analyze, respond to and contain threats to computer networks; downloadable software for detecting, analyzing, responding to and containing threats to computer networks; downloadable software to detect, analyze, respond to and contain threats to computer networks
International Class 42: Providing temporary use of online non-downloadable software to detect, analyze, respond to, and contain threats to computer networks
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 REQUIREMENTS
(1) List the goods and/or services by their international class number in consecutive numerical order, starting with the lowest numbered class (for example, International Class 3: perfume; International Class 18: cosmetic bags sold empty).
(2) Submit a filing fee for each international class not covered by the fee(s) already paid (view the USPTO’s current fee schedule). Specifically, the application identifies goods and/or services based on use in commerce that are classified in at least two classes; however, applicant submitted a fee(s) sufficient for only one class(es). Applicant must either (a) submit the filing fees for the classes not covered by the submitted fees or (b) restrict the application to the number of classes covered by the fees already paid.
(3) Submit verified dates of first use of the mark anywhere and in commerce for each international class. See more information about verified dates of use.
(4) Submit a specimen for each international class. The current specimen is acceptable for class(es) 9 and 42, if the pages show use of the mark in commerce in connection with both downloadable and non-downloadable software. See more information about specimens.
Examples of specimens for goods include tags, labels, instruction manuals, containers, and photographs that show the mark on the actual goods or packaging, or displays associated with the actual goods at their point of sale. Webpages may also be specimens for goods when they include a picture or textual description of the goods associated with the mark and the means to order the goods.
Examples of specimens for services include advertising and marketing materials, brochures, photographs of business signage and billboards, and website printouts that show the mark used in the actual sale, rendering, or advertising of the services.
(5) Submit a verified statement that “The specimen was in use in commerce on or in connection with the goods and/or services listed in the application at least as early as the filing date of the application.” See more information about verification.
See 15 U.S.C. §§1051(a), 1112; 37 C.F.R. §§2.32(a)(6)-(7), 2.34(a)(1), 2.86(a); TMEP §§904, 1403.01, 1403.02(c).
See an overview of the requirements for a Section 1(a) multiple-class application and how to satisfy the requirements online using the Trademark Electronic Application System (TEAS) form.
RESPONSE
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.
/Miah Rosenberg LaMont/
Examining Attorney
Law Office 117
(571) 272-6170
miah.lamont@uspto.gov
RESPONSE GUIDANCE