To: | Lincare Licensing Inc. (frijouf@frijouf.com) |
Subject: | U.S. Trademark Application Serial No. 88617384 - PREMIER - LNCR.18002 |
Sent: | May 12, 2020 04:49:54 PM |
Sent As: | ecom127@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 Attachment - 17 Attachment - 18 Attachment - 19 Attachment - 20 Attachment - 21 Attachment - 22 Attachment - 23 Attachment - 24 Attachment - 25 Attachment - 26 Attachment - 27 Attachment - 28 Attachment - 29 |
United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO)
Office Action (Official Letter) About Applicant’s Trademark Application
U.S. Application Serial No. 88617384
Mark: PREMIER
|
|
Correspondence Address:
|
|
Applicant: Lincare Licensing Inc.
|
|
Reference/Docket No. LNCR.18002
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: May 12, 2020
This Office action is supplemental to and supersedes the previous Office action issued on November 14, 2019 in connection with this application. The assigned trademark examining attorney inadvertently omitted a refusal of registration relevant to the mark in the subject application. See TMEP §§706, 711.02. Specifically, the examining attorney omitted a Section 2(d) Refusal as to Class 44.
The trademark examining attorney apologizes for any inconvenience caused by the delay in raising this issue.
The issues raised in the previous November 14, 2019 Office action were as follow: Section 2(d) Refusal – Likelihood of Confusion as to Class 41, Prior-Pending Applications, Section 2(e)(1) Refusal – Merely Descriptive, and Sections 1 and 45 Specimen Refusal – as to Classes 35 and 39.
Based on applicant’s April 16, 2020 response, the following refusals requirement have been satisfied/obviated/withdrawn: Section 2(d) Refusal – Likelihood of Confusion as to Class 41, Prior-Pending Applications, Section 2(e)(1) Refusal – Merely Descriptive, and Sections 1 and 45 Specimen Refusal – as to Classes 35 and 39.
The following is a SUMMARY OF ISSUES that applicant must address:
• NEW ISSUE: Section 2(d) Refusal – Likelihood of Confusion – As to Class 44 Only
Applicant must respond to all issues raised in this Office action within six (6) months of the date of issuance of this Office action. 37 C.F.R. §2.62(a); see TMEP §711.02. If applicant does not respond within this time limit, the application will be abandoned. 37 C.F.R. §2.65(a).
SECTION 2(d) REFUSAL – LIKELIHOOD OF CONFUSION
AS TO CLASS 44 ONLY
Registration of the applied-for mark is refused because of a likelihood of confusion with the marks in U.S. Registration Nos. 3597964, 4332034, 4593459, and 5779211, all owned by Registrant Premier Healthcare Alliance. 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). Any evidence of record related to those factors need be considered; however, “not all of the DuPont factors are relevant or of similar weight in every case.” In re Guild Mortg. Co., 912 F.3d 1376, 1379, 129 USPQ2d 1160, 1162 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (quoting In re Dixie Rests., Inc., 105 F.3d 1405, 1406, 41 USPQ2d 1531, 1533 (Fed. Cir. 1997)).
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 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)), aff’d per curiam, 777 F. App’x 516, 2019 BL 343921 (Fed. Cir. 2019); TMEP §1207.01(b).
In this case, the marks create substantially similar commercial impressions because the all share the word PREMIER.
The likelihood of confusion is not negated even though the marks in Registration Nos. 4332034, 4593459, and 5779211 contain design elements. When evaluating a composite mark consisting of words and a design, the word portion is normally accorded greater weight because it is likely to make a greater impression upon purchasers, be remembered by them, and be used by them to refer to or request the goods and/or services. In re Aquitaine Wine USA, LLC, 126 USPQ2d 1181, 1184 (TTAB 2018) (citing In re Viterra Inc., 671 F.3d 1358, 1362, 101 USPQ2d 1905, 1908 (Fed. Cir. 2012)); TMEP §1207.01(c)(ii). Thus, although marks must be compared in their entireties, the word portion is often considered the dominant feature and is accorded greater weight in determining whether marks are confusingly similar, even where the word portion has been disclaimed. In re Viterra Inc., 671 F.3d at 1366-67, 101 USPQ2d at 1911 (citing Giant Food, Inc. v. Nation’s Foodservice, Inc., 710 F.2d 1565, 1570-71, 218 USPQ2d 390, 395 (Fed. Cir. 1983)).
Therefore, the marks are confusingly similar.
Similarity of the Services
The 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).
Determining likelihood of confusion is based on the description of the services stated in the application and registration at issue, not on extrinsic evidence of actual use. See In re Detroit Athletic Co., 903 F.3d 1297, 1307, 128 USPQ2d 1047, 1052 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (citing In re i.am.symbolic, llc, 866 F.3d 1315, 1325, 123 USPQ2d 1744, 1749 (Fed. Cir. 2017)).
Here, applicant’s Class 44 services are recited as “Home health care services; health care services, namely, respiratory health care services, ventilation health care services, and medical clinic services associated with the foregoing; rental and leasing of medical equipment and supplies; providing a website featuring information in the field of health care”.
Registrant’s services are recited as, in relevant part, “Consulting services in the field of healthcare information; Providing an online computer database in the fields of health care information and clinical and operational comparative patient, syndrome, health systems performance, and patient satisfaction data; Medical information services, namely, acquiring, analyzing and furnishing clinical data for medical counseling purposes”.
Therefore, upon encountering the applied-for mark and the registrant’s mark for substantially similar services, consumers are likely to be confused and mistakenly believe that the applicant’s services and the registrant’s services emanate from a common source or are otherwise connected in some way. Accordingly, registration of the applied-for mark is refused under Section 2(d) because of a likelihood of confusion.
Although applicant’s mark has been refused registration, applicant may respond to the refusal by submitting evidence and arguments in support of registration.
GUIDELINES FOR RESPONDING TO THIS OFFICE ACTION
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.
The USPTO does not accept emails as responses to Office actions; however, emails can be used for informal communications and are included in the application record. See 37 C.F.R. §§2.62(c), 2.191; TMEP §§304.01-.02, 709.04-.05.
How to respond. Click to file a response to this nonfinal Office action.
/Luke Cash Browning/
Luke Cash Browning
Trademark Examining Attorney
Law Office 127 | (571) 270-5767
Luke.Browning@USPTO.gov
RESPONSE GUIDANCE