To: | Robert Bosch Tool Corporation (tc@pattishall.com) |
Subject: | U.S. Trademark Application Serial No. 88676985 - BLUEHOUND - 98700-615 |
Sent: | December 04, 2019 02:07:54 PM |
Sent As: | ecom102@uspto.gov |
Attachments: | Attachment - 1 Attachment - 2 Attachment - 3 |
United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO)
Office Action (Official Letter) About Applicant’s Trademark Application
U.S. Application Serial No. 88676985
Mark: BLUEHOUND
|
|
Correspondence Address: PATTISHALL, MCAULIFFE, NEWBURY, HILLIARD 200 SOUTH WACKER DRIVE, SUITE 2900
|
|
Applicant: Robert Bosch Tool Corporation
|
|
Reference/Docket No. 98700-615
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 04, 2019
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
1) Likelihood of Confusion Refusal.
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.
The applicant has applied for registration of the proposed mark, BLUEHOUND. The registrant’s mark is also BLUEHOUND.
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 the present case, the respective marks are identical in appearance, sound, commercial impression and connotation. Where the marks of the respective parties are identical, as in this case, the degree of similarity or relatedness between the goods and/or services needed to support a finding of likelihood of confusion declines. See In re i.am.symbolic, llc, 116 USPQ2d 1406, 1411 (TTAB 2015) (citing In re Shell Oil Co., 992 F.2d 1204, 1207, 26 USPQ2d 1687, 1689 (Fed. Cir. 1993)), aff’d, 866 F.3d 1315, 123 USPQ2d 1744 (Fed. Cir. 2017); TMEP §1207.01(a).
With respect to the similarities of the goods/services of the parties, the goods and services of the applicant are identified as “downloadable cloud-based software for tracking the location, purchase, delivery, service, and repair of assets; downloadable cloud-based software for assigning tasks to employees and tools and equipment to jobsites; downloadable cloud-based software for location tracking and providing directions within buildings or jobsites; downloadable cloud-based software for asset telematics; electronic devices that can be attached to assets for tracking purposes,” “providing electronic tracking of physical assets for business purposes” and “providing temporary use of non-downloadable cloud-based software for tracking the location, purchase, delivery, service, and repair of assets; providing temporary use of non-downloadable cloud-based software for assigning tasks to employees and tools and equipment to jobsites; providing temporary use of non-downloadable cloud-based software for location tracking and providing directions within buildings or jobsites; providing temporary use of non-downloadable cloud-based software for asset telematics.” The goods and services of Registration No. 5802014 are identified as “electronic devices for locating and tracking pallets and trailers using radio frequency, global positioning systems, and cellular telecommunications networks” and “providing tracking services and information concerning tracking of assets in transit, namely, pallets, trailers, cargo, and delivery containers for business purposes.”
In the present case, the goods and services of the parties could well be presumed to be from the same source inasmuch as the goods and services of the parties relate to electronic devices and related services for use in the location and tracking of assets. Consequently, the goods and services of the present parties clearly move in the same normal channels of trade, are available to all potential customers and may be utilized for the same or similar (i.e., related) purposes by the same classes of purchasers.
Accordingly, based on the identical nature of the marks and the similarity of the goods and services of the parties, there is a likelihood of confusion under Section 2(d) of the Trademark Act.
Although the examining attorney has refused registration, the applicant may respond to the refusal to register by submitting evidence and arguments in support of registration.
RESPONSE GUIDELINES AND ABANDONMENT ADVISORY – FULL REFUSAL
For this application to proceed further, 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.
In addition, because applicant filed a TEAS RF application, applicant must respond online using the Trademark Electronic Application System (TEAS) to avoid incurring an additional fee. See 37 C.F.R. §2.23(b)(1), (c).
How to respond. Click to file a response to this nonfinal Office action.
/Howard Smiga/
Examining Attorney
Law Office 102
571-272-9220
Howard.Smiga@uspto.gov
RESPONSE GUIDANCE