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:  January 22, 2020

 

 

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:

• 2(d) Refusal – Likelihood of Confusion
• Specimen Refusal – No Use with Goods/Services
• Identification of Goods/Services Indefinite

 

 

SECTION 2(d) REFUSAL – LIKELIHOOD OF CONFUSION

 

Registration of the applied-for mark is refused because of a likelihood of confusion with the mark in U.S. Registration No. 5899852 (ONCOKDM and design).  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 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).

 

In this case, Applicant’s proposed mark is a design that resembles a brain, within which appear lines with dot notes and a hexagonal shape.  Registrant’s mark has a design identical in scale and shape, with all lines and nodes in identical locations, simply with the outer shape slightly more rounded and less angled, and with dots appearing in one brain’s hemisphere, as well as the additional term ONCOKDM.

 

Applicant has, in essence, merely removed a term from a registered mark and slightly harshened the lines creating the design itself. Indeed, the similarities between the two designs are uncanny, particularly the shape, location and angling of all node lines, including a bizarre short node horizontally through the center of the designs. See attachment showing designs at scale with one another.

 

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.

 

This is particularly the case where, as here, the mark applicant is applying for is just the image, and if this registrant chooses to likewise isolate their design from the wording in presentation, the marks would be almost indistinguishable save when side by side.

 

To that effect, the examiner notes that this is not how marks are compared for similarity. When comparing marks, “[t]he proper test is not a side-by-side comparison of the marks, but instead whether the marks are sufficiently similar in terms of their commercial impression such that [consumers] who encounter the marks would be likely to assume a connection between the parties.”  Cai v. Diamond Hong, Inc., __ F.3d __, 127 USPQ2d 1797, 1801 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (quoting Coach Servs., Inc. v. Triumph Learning LLC, 668 F.3d 1356, 1368, 101 USPQ2d 1713, 1721 (Fed. Cir. 2012)); TMEP §1207.01(b).  The proper focus is on the recollection of the average purchaser, who retains a general rather than specific impression of trademarks.  In re Inn at St. John’s, LLC, 126 USPQ2d 1742, 1746 (TTAB 2018) (citing In re St. Helena Hosp., 774 F.3d 747, 750-51, 113 USPQ2d 1082, 1085 (Fed. Cir. 2014); Geigy Chem. Corp. v. Atlas Chem. Indus., Inc., 438 F.2d 1005, 1007, 169 USPQ 39, 40 (CCPA 1971)); TMEP §1207.01(b).

 

When comparing designs, in paricular, the focus is on the overall commercial impression conveyed by such marks, not on specific differences.  See Grandpa Pidgeon’s of Mo., Inc. v. Borgsmiller, 477 F.2d at 587, 177 USPQ at 574; In re Triple R Mfg. Corp., 168 USPQ 447, 448 (TTAB 1970); TMEP §1207.01(c).

 

Therefore, the marks are confusingly similar for purposes of a likelihood of confusion analysis.

 

If the marks of the respective parties are highly similar, the inquiry must move to a consideration of the commercial relationship between the goods or services of the respective parties to determine whether there is a likelihood of confusion.

 

COMPARISON OF GOODS/SERVICES

 

Applicant’s goods and services at issue are:

 

Class 9:           Software for ensuring the security of electronic mail; electronic mail and messaging software; computer software for collection, storage, analysis and presentation of data for forensic analysis of security events and for security compliance; computer software for the administration, monitoring, management, assessment and quantification of security and data breach vulnerability risks

 

Class 38:         Secure email services

 

Class 42:         Computer services, namely, electronic mail protection and security services; Software as a service (SaaS) featuring software for use in the analysis and protection of the security of email and network communications and data; Platform as a service (PAAS) for use in the analysis and protection of the security of email and network communications and data; Email and messaging management services for others, namely, threat protection in the nature of computer virus protection services, monitoring of computer systems for detecting unauthorized access or data breach, and electronic storage of data and emails recorded in electronic media; Software as a service (SAAS) featuring software for use in the analysis and protection of the security of email and network communications and data, cybersecurity, email management virus protection, email archiving, and email continuity and email security; design and development of antivirus software; computer security consultancy

 

Registrant’s services at issue are:

 

Class 42:         data encryption services; design and development of downloadable mobile computer applications for computer devices; electronic data storage

 

Registrant’s “design and development of downloadable mobile computer applications for computer devices” is broad enough to include the design and development of antivirus software, as the latter is a form of downloadable software for computer devices.

 

Further, both applicant and registrant are offering identical electronic storage of data services.

 

Finally, applicant’s “electronic mail protection and security services” is broad enough to include such protections when achieved by data encryption, one of the registrant’s services. Indeed, as much of applicant’s software, email services, and Class 42 services are related to security, encryption services are likely a narrower form of many of these offerings. 

 

Therefore, the goods and services are confusingly similar for purposes of a likelihood of confusion analysis.

 

Registration of Applicant’s proposed mark is therefore refused registration under Section 2(d) as likely to cause confusion with a registered mark.

 

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

 

 

 

SPECIMEN REFUSAL – NO USE WITH GOODS/SERVICES IDENTIFIED

 

Registration is refused because the specimen does not show the applied-for mark in use in commerce in connection with any of the goods and services specified in International Class(es) 9 and 38 in the application or amendment to allege use.  Trademark Act Sections 1 and 45, 15 U.S.C. §§1051, 1127; 37 C.F.R. §§2.34(a)(1)(iv), 2.56(a); In re Keep A Breast Found., 123 USPQ2d 1869, 1876-79 (TTAB 2017); In re Graystone Consulting Assocs., Inc., 115 USPQ2d 2035, 2037-38 (TTAB 2015); TMEP §§904, 904.07(a), 1301.04(d), (g)(i). 

 

Specifically, as to Class 9, the screenshot does not show any of the acceptable forms of specimen for this class. It is a shot of a website, and does not show use with downloaded or recorded software. Applicant should note that their website, attached hereto, does not identify Class 9 software as a product anywhere on its pages.

 

Examples of specimens for downloadable software include instruction manuals and screen printouts from (1) web pages showing the mark in connection with ordering or purchasing information or information sufficient to download the software, (2) the actual program that shows the mark in the title bar of a software program on a device (such as a computer, phone or tablet), where the entire screen is visible as software and not a website platform, or (3) launch screens that show the mark in an introductory message box that appears after opening the program on such a device.  See TMEP §904.03(e), (i), (j).  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.  See In re Sones, 590 F.3d at 1286-89, 93 USPQ2d at 1122-24; In re Azteca Sys., Inc., 102 USPQ2d at 1957; TMEP §§904.03(i) et seq.

Applicant’s specimen does not meet these criteria, and is further blurred due to cropping out additional matter, making the image expand to fill the removed space and rendering it partly illegible, an additional issue.

 

As to Class 38, applicant’s specimens show use only with analyzing emails, not with a Class 38 service providing an email service themselves. The applicant is offering Class 42 security services, but they do not appear to be the email client, which is what is required for Class 38 email services.

 

An application based on Trademark Act Section 1(a) must include a specimen showing the applied-for mark in use in commerce for each international class of goods and/or services identified in the application or amendment to allege use.  15 U.S.C. §1051(a)(1); 37 C.F.R. §§2.34(a)(1)(iv), 2.56(a); TMEP §§904, 904.07(a). 

 

Examples of specimens for services include advertising and marketing materials, brochures, photographs of business signage and billboards, and webpages that show the mark used in the actual sale, rendering, or advertising of the services.  See TMEP §1301.04(a), (h)(iv)(C).  Specimens comprising advertising and promotional materials must show a direct association between the mark and the services.  TMEP §1301.04(f)(ii).

 

Applicant may respond to this refusal by satisfying one of the following for each applicable international class:

 

(1)        Submit a different specimen (a verified “substitute” specimen) that (a) was in actual use in commerce at least as early as the filing date of the application or prior to the filing of an amendment to allege use and (b) shows the mark in actual use in commerce for the goods and/or services identified in the application or amendment to allege use.  A “verified substitute specimen” is a specimen that is accompanied by the following statement made in a signed affidavit or supported by a declaration under 37 C.F.R. §2.20:  “The substitute (or new, or originally submitted, if appropriate) specimen(s) was/were in use in commerce at least as early as the filing date of the application or prior to the filing of the amendment to allege use.”  The substitute specimen cannot be accepted without this statement.

 

(2)        Amend the filing basis to intent to use under Section 1(b), for which no specimen is required.  This option will later necessitate additional fee(s) and filing requirements such as providing a specimen.

 

For an overview of both response options referenced above and instructions on how to satisfy either option online using the Trademark Electronic Application System (TEAS) form, please go to http://www.gov.uspto.report/trademarks/law/specimen.jsp.

 

IDENTIFICATION OF GOODS & SERVICES

 

The wording in the identification of goods and services is indefinite, overbroad, or does not sufficiently distinguish the form or function of the goods to be proper beneath the present guidelines of the Trademark Act. Thus, the language must be better-clarified where indicated below, in bold. Explanations for the reasoning behind the indefiniteness, and proper re-classification where applicable, is provided below within the identifications.

 

Applicant may therefore adopt the following identification(s), if accurate.  See TMEP §1402.01.

 

Class 9:           {specify downloadable or recorded} software for ensuring the security of electronic mail by {specify function of software; “ensuring” does not identify how the software functions or is used by the end consumer}; {specify downloadable or recorded} electronic mail and messaging software; {specify downloadable or recorded} computer software for collection, storage, analysis and presentation of data for forensic analysis of security events and for security compliance; {specify downloadable or recorded} computer software for the administration, monitoring, management, assessment and quantification of security and data breach vulnerability risks

 

Class 38:         Providing electronic transmission of secure e-mail

 

Class 42:         Computer services, namely, electronic mail protection and security services, namely, {specify actual service proper in Class 42}; Software as a service (SaaS) featuring software for use in the analysis and protection of the security of email and network communications and data; Platform as a service (PAAS) featuring computer software platforms for use in the analysis and protection of the security of email and network communications and data; Email and messaging management services for others, namely, threat protection in the nature of computer virus protection services, monitoring of computer systems for detecting unauthorized access or data breach, and electronic storage of data and emails recorded on electronic media; Software as a service (SAAS) featuring software for use in the analysis and protection of the security of email and network communications and data, cybersecurity, email management virus protection, email archiving, and email continuity, and email security; design and development of antivirus software; computer security consultancy

 

The applicant is advised that the above suggestions may not be a complete listing of amended specifications available to the applicant, but are instead provided only as suggestions. Given the extremely indefinite nature of some of the goods in part and given that the application is based on intent to use, the examiner is unable to suggest a more comprehensive amended identification for the applicant’s consideration and possible adoption in responding to this Office Action.  It is the applicant's duty and prerogative to identify the goods and services.  TMEP section 1402.01(d).

 

Applicant’s goods and/or services may be clarified or limited, but may not be expanded beyond those originally itemized in the application or as acceptably amended.  See 37 C.F.R. §2.71(a); TMEP §1402.06.  Applicant may clarify or limit the identification by inserting qualifying language or deleting items to result in a more specific identification; however, applicant may not substitute different goods and/or services or add goods and/or services not found or encompassed by those in the original application or as acceptably amended.  See TMEP §1402.06(a)-(b).  The scope of the goods and/or services sets the outer limit for any changes to the identification and is generally determined by the ordinary meaning of the wording in the identification.  TMEP §§1402.06(b), 1402.07(a)-(b).  Any acceptable changes to the goods and/or services will further limit scope, and once goods and/or services are deleted, they are not permitted to be reinserted.  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.

 

RESPONSE GUIDELINES

 

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.    

 

 

/Caitlin Watts-Fitzgerald/

Caitlin Watts-FitzGerald

Examining Attorney

Law Office 111

571-272-9015

Caitlin.Watts-Fitzgerald@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 January 22, 2020 for

U.S. Trademark Application Serial No. 88657465

 

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. 

 

 

/Caitlin Watts-Fitzgerald/

Caitlin Watts-FitzGerald

Examining Attorney

Law Office 111

571-272-9015

Caitlin.Watts-Fitzgerald@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 January 22, 2020, 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.”