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:  March 03, 2020

 

 

INTRODUCTION

 

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 PRESENTED IN THIS OFFICE ACTION:

·       Section 2(d) Refusal—Likelihood of Confusion

·       Mark Description Amendment Required

 

 

SECTION 2(d) REFUSAL—LIKELIHOOD OF CONFUSION

 

Registration of the applied-for mark is refused because of a likelihood of confusion with the marks in U.S. Registration Nos. 4033679 and 5625315.  Trademark Act Section 2(d), 15 U.S.C. §1052(d); see TMEP §§1207.01 et seq.  See the attached registrations.

 

Applicant’s mark is “SPECTRA” and design, for use with:

 

Class 10: Surgical headlights

 

The registered marks (same owner) are as follows:

 

U.S. Registration No. 5625315 “SPECTRA LEADING EDGE MEDICAL DEVICES” and design, for use with:

 

Class 10: Needles for medical use, namely, epidural needles, spinal needles, straight and non-coring huber and cannula needles, guide wire introducers for radio frequency needles, custom needles made to customer specification and coated needles, glass and plastic loss of resistance (LOR) syringes; medical and surgical instruments, namely, hypodermic tubing and wire, brass and steel metal fittings for needles; disposable surgical instruments, namely, scalpels, safety scalpels, and blades; surgical instruments for dental use; surgical sponge applicators; biohazard bags for medical waste and surgical plastic rulers in the nature of devices for measuring wounds

 

U.S. Registration No. 4033679 “SPECTRA MEDICAL DEVICES, INC.”, for use with:

 

Class 10: Needles for medical use, namely, epidural needles, spinal needles, straight and non-coring huber and cannula needles, guide wire introducers for radio frequency needles, custom needles (made to customer specification) and coated needles, glass and plastic loss of resistance (LOR) syringes; medical and surgical instruments, namely, hypodermic tubing and wire, brass and steel metal fittings for needles; disposable scalpels, blades and safety scalpels; surgical instruments for dental use; surgical sponge applicators; and surgical plastic rulers

 

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 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.  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. 

 

In this case, the following factors are the most relevant:  similarity of the marks, similarity and nature of the goods, and similarity of the trade channels of the goods.  See In re Viterra Inc., 671 F.3d 1358, 1361-62, 101 USPQ2d 1905, 1908 (Fed. Cir. 2012); In re Dakin’s Miniatures Inc., 59 USPQ2d 1593, 1595-96 (TTAB 1999); TMEP §§1207.01 et seq.

 

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)), aff’d per curiam, 777 F. App’x 516, 2019 BL 343921 (Fed. Cir. 2019); TMEP §1207.01(b).

 

As Compared to Registration No. 5625315

                                   

Applicant's mark is “SPECTRA” and design, and the registrant's mark is “SPECTRA LEADING EDGE MEDICAL DEVICES” and design. Note that 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.  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)). Thus, the word portions of the parties’ marks are more significant than the design elements because consumers will request the parties’ goods by using the wording in the marks.

 

Further, note that 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”).

 

In this case, the word “SPECTRA” is presented first in the registrant's mark and in large, prominent font. Thus, consumers will be more inclined to focus on this wording in the registrant's mark because it is more likely to be noticed by consumers first. Here, the entirety of the wording in applicant's mark is identical to this prominent, lead wording in the registrant's mark.

 

Because the dominant portions of applicant's and the registrant's marks are identical, the marks are confusingly similar.

 

 As Compared to Registration No. 4033679

 

Applicant's mark is “SPECTRA” and design, and the registrant's mark is “SPECTRA MEDICAL DEVICES, INC.” where the wording “MEDICAL DEVICES, INC.” is disclaimed. Although marks are compared in their entireties, one feature of a mark may be more significant or dominant in creating a commercial impression.  See In re Viterra Inc., 671 F.3d 1358, 1362, 101 USPQ2d 1905, 1908 (Fed. Cir. 2012); In re Nat’l Data Corp., 753 F.2d 1056, 1058, 224 USPQ 749, 751 (Fed. Cir. 1985); TMEP §1207.01(b)(viii), (c)(ii).  Disclaimed matter that is descriptive of or generic for a party’s goods 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). Thus, the wording “SPECTRA” is the dominant portion of the registrant's mark.

 

As discussed above, 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.  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.  As such, the word portion of applicant's mark is more significant than the design element because consumers will request the applicant's goods by using the wording in the mark.

 

Here, the dominant wording in both the applicant's and the registrant's marks is identical, namely the word “SPECTRA”. Because the parties’ marks share identical terms, the marks are confusingly similar.

 

Comparison of Goods

 

The goods 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 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).

 

Applicant's goods are surgical headlights, and the registrant's goods include surgical needles and cannula needles. Applicant's and the registrant's goods are related because the goods of the respective parties are of a type that are commonly provided by a single source under the same mark. See attached evidence from BR Surgical, Integra, and Stille showing surgical headlights, surgical needles, and cannula needles provided by a single source under the same mark. Therefore, consumers familiar with the registrant's goods will also expect applicant's goods to be provided by the registrant.

 

Conclusion

 

The relatedness of the goods here, coupled with the similar marks at issue, requires registration of the applied-for mark to be refused under Section 2(d) of the Trademark Act.

 

Although applicant’s mark has been refused registration, applicant may respond to the refusal(s) by submitting evidence and arguments in support of registration.  However, if applicant responds to the refusal(s), applicant must also respond to the requirement(s) set forth below.

 

 

MARK DESCRIPTION AMENDMENT REQUIRED

 

Applicant must submit an amended description of the mark because the current one uses broad, vague language that does not accurately describe the mark.  37 C.F.R. §2.37; see TMEP §§808.01, 808.02.  Descriptions must be accurate and identify all the literal and design elements in the mark.  See 37 C.F.R. §2.37; TMEP §808.02.  In this case, the description is vague because it makes unclear the literal and design elements in the mark and where they appear.

 

Further, aplicant must clarify whether color is being claimed as a feature of the mark.  See 37 C.F.R. §§2.37, 2.52(b)(1), 2.61(b); TMEP §§807.07(a) et seq.  Applicant submitted a black-and-white drawing of the mark; however, the description of the mark references colors other than or in addition to black and white.  The mark in the drawing and in the description must match.  See 37 C.F.R. §§2.37, 2.52(b)(1); TMEP §§807.07 et seq.

 

To clarify whether color is claimed as a feature of the mark, applicant may satisfy one of the following:

 

(1)       If color is not a feature of the mark, applicant must submit an amended description of the mark that omits any reference of color.  See TMEP §§807.07(a)(ii), 808.02.  The following is suggested, if accurate: 

 

The mark consists of a design having an overall circular shape that is comprised of columns of smaller shaded circles which extend outwards and decrease in size. Below this circular design is presented the stylized wording “SPECTRA”.

 

(2)       If color is a feature of the mark, applicant must (a) submit a new drawing showing the mark in color, (b) list all the colors that are a feature of the mark, and (c) amend the description, if appropriate, to specify where all the colors appear in the literal and design elements of the mark.  37 C.F.R. §§2.37, 2.52(b)(1); see TMEP §807.07(a)-(a)(ii).  Generic color names must be used to describe the colors in the mark, e.g., red, yellow, blue.  TMEP §807.07(a)(i)-(ii).  If black, white, and/or gray represent background, outlining, shading, and/or transparent areas and are not part of the mark, applicant must so specify in the description.  See TMEP §807.07(d). 

 

The following color claim and description are suggested, if accurate:

 

Color claim:  “The colors {indicate colors claimed} are claimed as a feature of the mark.”

 

Description:  “The mark consists of a design having an overall circular shape in the colors {indicate specific colors presented} that is comprised of columns of smaller shaded circles which extend outwards and decrease in size. Below this circular design is presented the stylized wording “SPECTRA” in the color {indicate color of font}.”’

 

Note: If applicant amends the application to claim color, applicant would need to amend its mark drawing to a corresponding color drawing.

 

For more information about drawings and instructions on how to submit a new drawing and a color claim and/or description online using the Trademark Electronic Application System (TEAS) form, see the Drawing webpage.

 

 

RESPONSE GUIDELINES

 

Please call or email the assigned trademark examining attorney with questions about this Office action.  Although an examining attorney cannot provide legal advice, the examining attorney can provide additional explanation about the refusal(s) and/or requirement(s) in this Office action.  See TMEP §§705.02, 709.06. 

 

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.    

 

 

/Justine N. Burke/

Justine N. Burke

Trademark Examining Attorney

Law Office 121

571-270-1631

Justine.Burke@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 March 03, 2020 for

U.S. Trademark Application Serial No. 88710581

 

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. 

 

 

/Justine N. Burke/

Justine N. Burke

Trademark Examining Attorney

Law Office 121

571-270-1631

Justine.Burke@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 March 03, 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.”