| To: | Gamma Telecom Limited (dstout@patlawyers.com) |
| Subject: | U.S. Trademark Application Serial No. 88647042 - GAMMA - TM-3124 |
| Sent: | January 20, 2020 06:54:20 PM |
| Sent As: | ecom101@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 Attachment - 30 Attachment - 31 Attachment - 32 Attachment - 33 Attachment - 34 Attachment - 35 Attachment - 36 Attachment - 37 Attachment - 38 Attachment - 39 Attachment - 40 Attachment - 41 |
United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO)
Office Action (Official Letter) About Applicant’s Trademark Application
|
U.S. Application Serial No. 88647042
Mark: GAMMA
|
|
|
Correspondence Address:
|
|
|
Applicant: Gamma Telecom Limited
|
|
|
Reference/Docket No. TM-3124
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: January 20, 2020
Summary of Issues:
Trademark Act Section 2(d) Refusal: Likelihood of Confusion
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.
As to U.S. Registration No. 5539695:
NOTE: This refusal applies only to the goods and services listed herein.
Registrant applies the mark GAMMABAI to “Data processing apparatus; Computer peripheral devices; Slide projectors; slide projectors and transparency projection apparatus; Projection screens; Computer and video Screens; Cases especially made for photographic apparatus and instruments; photographic Filters; Slide or photograph projection apparatus; tripods for cameras; Lens hoods; Cables, electric; Wires, electric; Video screens; 3D spectacles.” Applicant seeks to register the wording GAMMA plus design for, in pertinent part, “Telecommunications terminals; apparatus for capturing, recording, transmitting, reproducing and processing data, sound and images; equipment used in providing telecommunication services; computer software for providing connections to a telecommunications network or global computer network; hardware and software for use in communications networks; telecommunications apparatus, instruments, networks and circuitry for enabling, facilitating and routing connections to databases, global computer networks, the Internet and telecommunication networks; mobile telephones; mobile telephones with broadband and Internet capabilities; telecommunications software; all the aforesaid goods relating to telecommunications” and “the provision of e-commerce sites providing IP telephony products, mobile telephone products and broadband products.”
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).
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)).
Here, the marks are highly similar because the registered mark wholly encompasses the wording in the applied-for mark. Incorporating the entirety of one mark within another 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 Wella Corp. v. Cal. Concept Corp., 558 F.2d 1019, 1022, 194 USPQ 419, 422 (C.C.P.A. 1977) (finding CALIFORNIA CONCEPT and surfer design and CONCEPT confusingly similar); 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 LANCER and design and BENGAL confusingly similar); In re Integrated Embedded, 120 USPQ2d 1504, 1513 (TTAB 2016) (finding BARR GROUP and BARR confusingly similar); In re Mr. Recipe, LLC, 118 USPQ2d 1084, 1090 (TTAB 2016) (finding JAWS DEVOUR YOUR HUNGER and JAWS confusingly similar); TMEP §1207.01(b)(iii). In the present case, the marks are identical in part.
Thus, the marks are closely related.
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).
In this case, the goods are closely related because applicant’s broadly worded telecommunications terminals, apparatus for capturing data sound and images, and equipment used for telecommunications services could include registrant’s data processing apparatus, computer peripheral devices and electric wires and cables. Moreover, registrant’s peripheral devices and cables and wires would be used with applicant’s mobile telephones and telecommunications apparatus and circuitry.
In addition, applicant’s “provision of e-commerce sites providing IP telephony products, mobile telephone products and broadband products” could feature registrant’s goods. The use of similar marks on or in connection with both products and retail-store services has been held likely to cause confusion where the evidence showed that the retail-store services featured the same type of products. See In re Detroit Athletic Co., 903 F.3d 1297, 1307, 128 USPQ2d 1047, 1051 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (holding the use of similar marks for various clothing items, including athletic uniforms, and for retail shops featuring sports team related clothing and apparel likely to cause confusion); In re House Beer, LLC, 114 USPQ2d 1073, 1078 (TTAB 2015) (holding the use of identical marks for beer and for retail store services featuring beer likely to cause confusion); In re Thomas, 79 USPQ2d 1021, 1023 (TTAB 2006) (holding the use of similar marks for jewelry and for retail-jewelry and mineral-store services likely to cause confusion); TMEP §1207.01(a)(ii).
On balance, because the marks are highly similar and the goods and services are closely related, consumer confusion is likely.
As to U.S. Registration No. 5866111:
NOTE: This refusal applies only to the goods and services listed herein.
Registrant applies the mark GAMMA ELECTRONICS plus design to “Cable connectors; Cable jump leads; Cables, electric; Protective sheaths for fiber optical cables; Coaxial cables; Electric wire and cable; Electrical cables; Telecommunication cables; Telecommunications cables; Threaded cable connectors of metal.” Applicant seeks to register the wording GAMMA plus design for “Telecommunications terminals; apparatus for capturing, recording, transmitting, reproducing and processing data, sound and images; equipment used in providing telecommunication services; computer software for providing connections to a telecommunications network or global computer network; hardware and software for use in communications networks; telecommunications apparatus, instruments, networks and circuitry for enabling, facilitating and routing connections to databases, global computer networks, the Internet and telecommunication networks; mobile telephones; mobile telephones with broadband and Internet capabilities; telecommunications software; all the aforesaid goods relating to telecommunications” and “the provision of e-commerce sites providing IP telephony products, mobile telephone products and broadband products.”
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).
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)).
Here, the marks are highly similar because the registered mark wholly encompasses the wording in the applied-for mark. Incorporating the entirety of one mark within another 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 Wella Corp. v. Cal. Concept Corp., 558 F.2d 1019, 1022, 194 USPQ 419, 422 (C.C.P.A. 1977) (finding CALIFORNIA CONCEPT and surfer design and CONCEPT confusingly similar); 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 LANCER and design and BENGAL confusingly similar); In re Integrated Embedded, 120 USPQ2d 1504, 1513 (TTAB 2016) (finding BARR GROUP and BARR confusingly similar); In re Mr. Recipe, LLC, 118 USPQ2d 1084, 1090 (TTAB 2016) (finding JAWS DEVOUR YOUR HUNGER and JAWS confusingly similar); TMEP §1207.01(b)(iii). In the present case, the marks are identical in part.
Moreover, the first word in the registered mark is identical to the wording in the applied-for mark. 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”).
Finally, disclaimed matter that is descriptive of or generic for a party’s goods and/or services is typically less significant or less dominant when comparing marks. In re Detroit Athletic Co., 903 F.3d 1297, 1305, 128 USPQ2d 1047, 1050 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (citing In re Dixie Rests., Inc., 105 F.3d 1405, 1407, 41 USPQ2d 1531, 1533-34 (Fed. Cir. 1997)); TMEP §1207.01(b)(viii), (c)(ii). As registrant has disclaimed “electronics,” the term “GAMMA” is the dominant wording in the mark.
Thus, the marks are closely related.
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).
In this case, the goods are closely related because applicant’s broadly worded telecommunications terminals, apparatus for capturing data sound and images, equipment used for telecommunications services, mobile telephones and telecommunications apparatus and circuitry could include registrant’s include or be used with registrant’s various types of cables.
In addition, applicant’s “provision of e-commerce sites providing IP telephony products, mobile telephone products and broadband products” could feature registrant’s goods. The use of similar marks on or in connection with both products and retail-store services has been held likely to cause confusion where the evidence showed that the retail-store services featured the same type of products. See In re Detroit Athletic Co., 903 F.3d 1297, 1307, 128 USPQ2d 1047, 1051 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (holding the use of similar marks for various clothing items, including athletic uniforms, and for retail shops featuring sports team related clothing and apparel likely to cause confusion); In re House Beer, LLC, 114 USPQ2d 1073, 1078 (TTAB 2015) (holding the use of identical marks for beer and for retail store services featuring beer likely to cause confusion); In re Thomas, 79 USPQ2d 1021, 1023 (TTAB 2006) (holding the use of similar marks for jewelry and for retail-jewelry and mineral-store services likely to cause confusion); TMEP §1207.01(a)(ii).
On balance, because the marks are highly similar and the goods and services are closely related, consumer confusion is likely.
Accordingly, registration is refused under Trademark Act Section 2(d).
Advisory: Prior Pending 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.
Requirement: Clarification of Goods and Services:
The wording in the identification of goods and services is unacceptable because it is indefinite and too broad. The wording requires clarification and could include goods that are classified in more than one International Class. See TMEP §1402.01; 1402.03. Notations concerning unacceptable wording are specified in bold italics in the suggestion below.
As to International Class 009:
Telecommunications terminals, namely, {indicate the goods comprising the terminals, e.g., set-top boxes}; apparatus for capturing, recording, transmitting, reproducing and processing data, sound and images, namely, {indicate particular apparatus for capturing, e.g., scanners and digital cameras}; equipment used in providing telecommunication services; downloadable and recorded computer software for providing connections to a telecommunications network or global computer network; computer hardware and downloadable and recorded software for use in communications networks for {indicate the function of the software}; telecommunications apparatus, instruments, networks and circuitry for enabling, facilitating and routing connections to databases, global computer networks, the Internet and telecommunication networks, namely, {indicate the type of goods, e.g., wireless adapters used to link computers to a telecommunications network, network routers, electronic circuits, etc.}; mobile telephones; mobile telephones with broadband and Internet capabilities; downloadable and recorded telecommunications software for {indicate the function of the software}; all the aforesaid goods relating to telecommunications
As to International Class 035:
Business services, namely, {indicate particular business services, e.g., business management}; the provision of e-commerce sites {more clearly specify the type of “e-commerce,” e.g., on-line retail stores} providing IP telephony products, mobile telephone products
and broadband products; information, advisory and consultancy services relating to the aforesaid
As to International Class 038:
Telecommunications services, namely, {indicate specific telecommunications services, e.g., local and long distance transmission of voice,
data, graphics and video by means of broadband, copper and optical or wireless networks}; telecommunication gateway services; provision of telecommunications access and links to computer databases and the Internet and {indicate more clearly the meaning of “links”, e.g., providing
on-line communications links which transfer the web site user to other local and global web pages}; data communications, namely, {indicate the type of
services, e.g., electronic transmission of data and documents among users of computers}; transmission of messages, sound and images by {indicate mode of
transmission, e.g., satellite and cable}; hosted telephony services, namely, {indicate services more clearly, e.g., computer telephony services};
provision of telecommunications connections to the Internet, other global networks or databases; telecommunications portal services in the nature of {more clearly
indicate the type of services, e.g., providing on-line communications links which transfer the web site user to other local and global web pages}; broadband telecommunication services,
namely, {clarify the telecommunications services, e.g., providing internet access via broadband optical or wireless networks}; telephone services;
consultancy in the field of telecommunications; hire and rental of telecommunications apparatus, installations and instruments; rental of telecommunications lines,
namely, rental of telephone lines; the provision of IP telephony services, mobile telephone services, wireless broadband communication services and
telecommunications call solutions in the nature of {indicate “call solutions,” e.g., providing advanced calling services} by e-commerce sites and
applications; all the aforesaid relating to telecommunications
Class 035: telecommunications management, namely, operating a telecommunications network
As to International Class 042:
Applicant may substitute the following wording, if accurate:
Class 037: Ensuring faults in the network are rectified through maintenance and repair of telecommunications networking hardware
Class 042: Technical support services, namely, 24/7 monitoring of telecommunications network systems and notification of related events and alerts; Technical support, namely, monitoring technological functions of computer network systems for telecommunications purposes; Computer security services, namely, controlling access privileges of users of computing resources for cloud, mobile or network resources based on assigned credentials
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.
Advisory: Multiple Class Application Requirements
(1) List the goods and/or services by their international class number in consecutive numerical order, starting with the lowest numbered class.
(2) Submit a filing fee for each international class not covered by the fee(s) already paid (view the USPTO’s current fee schedule). The application identifies goods and/or services that are classified in at least five classes; however, applicant submitted a fee(s) sufficient for only four class(es). Applicant must either submit the filing fees for the classes not covered by the submitted fees or restrict the application to the number of classes covered by the fees already paid.
See 15 U.S.C. §§1051(b), 1112, 1126(e); 37 C.F.R. §§2.32(a)(6)-(7), 2.34(a)(2)-(3), 2.86(a); TMEP §§1403.01, 1403.02(c).
See an overview of the requirements for a Sections 1(b) and 44 multiple-class application and how to satisfy the requirements online using the Trademark Electronic Application System (TEAS) form.
Requirement: Clarification of Mark Description
The following description is suggested, if accurate: The mark consists of the word “Gamma” in the color blue. A spherical design comprised of shaded circles in the color purple appears to the left of the wording, with the largest circle in the middle and smaller circles radiating from the center, and with the circles arranged to create an illusion that the entire design is spheroidal in configuration.
TEAS Guidelines:
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.
/Justine D. Parker/
Justine D. Parker
Examining Attorney
Law Office 101
571-272-2488
justine.parker@uspto.gov
RESPONSE GUIDANCE
