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 04, 2020

 

The assigned examining attorney has reviewed the referenced application and determined the following.

 

 

SUMMARY OF ISSUES:

 

•           Likelihood of confusion

•           Foreign registration required

•           Identification of goods 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. 4169365.  Trademark Act Section 2(d), 15 U.S.C. §1052(d); see TMEP §§1207.01 et seq.  See the attached registration.

 

The applicant has applied to register VECTOR for “Traffic detection hardware and systems namely, transponders, tolling detection, high occupancy tolling and vehicle occupancy detection.”

 

The registered mark is VANTAGE VECTOR for “Electronic traffic detection systems and equipment comprised of analog or digital cameras and radar detection systems, processors and input/output ports to detect the presence and motion characteristics of vehicles and traffic on roadways and intersections, and to provide outputs to traffic signal controllers, traffic management systems, or traffic information systems.”

 

Trademark Act Section 2(d) bars registration of an applied-for mark that so resembles a registered mark that it is likely a potential consumer would be confused, mistaken, or deceived as to the source of the goods and/or services of the applicant and registrant.  See 15 U.S.C. §1052(d).  A determination of likelihood of confusion under Section 2(d) is made on a case-by case basis and 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) aid in this determination.  Citigroup Inc. v. Capital City Bank Grp., Inc., 637 F.3d 1344, 1349, 98 USPQ2d 1253, 1256 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (citing On-Line Careline, Inc. v. Am. Online, Inc., 229 F.3d 1080, 1085, 56 USPQ2d 1471, 1474 (Fed. Cir. 2000)).  Not all the du Pont factors, however, are necessarily relevant or of equal weight, and any one of the factors may control in a given case, depending upon the evidence of record.  Citigroup Inc. v. Capital City Bank Grp., Inc., 637 F.3d at 1355, 98 USPQ2d at 1260; In re Majestic Distilling Co., 315 F.3d 1311, 1315, 65 USPQ2d 1201, 1204 (Fed. Cir. 2003); see In re E. I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., 476 F.2d at 1361-62, 177 USPQ at 567.

 

In this case, the following factors are the most relevant:  similarity of the marks, similarity and nature of the goods and/or services, and similarity of the trade channels of the goods and/or services.  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 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 Davia, 110 USPQ2d 1810, 1812 (TTAB 2014) (citing In re 1st USA Realty Prof’ls, Inc., 84 USPQ2d 1581, 1586 (TTAB 2007)); In re White Swan Ltd., 8 USPQ2d 1534, 1535 (TTAB 1988)); TMEP §1207.01(b).

 

When comparing marks, the test is not whether the marks can be distinguished in a side-by-side comparison, but rather whether the marks are sufficiently similar in terms of their overall commercial impression that confusion as to the source of the goods and/or services offered under the respective marks is likely to result.  Midwestern Pet Foods, Inc. v. Societe des Produits Nestle S.A., 685 F.3d 1046, 1053, 103 USPQ2d 1435, 1440 (Fed. Cir. 2012); In re Davia, 110 USPQ2d 1810, 1813 (TTAB 2014); 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.  United Global Media Grp., Inc. v. Tseng, 112 USPQ2d 1039, 1049, (TTAB 2014); L’Oreal S.A. v. Marcon, 102 USPQ2d 1434, 1438 (TTAB 2012); TMEP §1207.01(b).

 

In the present case, applicant’s mark is similar to the registered mark in sound, appearance and connotation.  Applicant’s mark is identical to the VECTOR portion of the cited registration.  VECATOR is also a strong, distinctive term in the field of traffic detection systems.   Overall, the marks have the same commercial impression.

 

Although the registered mark includes the house mark VANTAGE, adding a house mark to an otherwise confusingly similar mark will not obviate a likelihood of confusion under Section 2(d).  See In re Fiesta Palms LLC, 85 USPQ2d 1360, 1366-67 (TTAB 2007) (finding CLUB PALMS MVP and MVP confusingly similar); In re Christian Dior, S.A., 225 USPQ 533, 534 (TTAB 1985) (finding LE CACHET DE DIOR and CACHET confusingly similar); TMEP §1207.01(b)(iii).  It is likely that goods and/or services sold under these marks would be attributed to the same source.  See In re Chica, Inc., 84 USPQ2d 1845, 1848-49 (TTAB 2007).  Accordingly, in the present case, the marks are confusingly similar.

 

It is clear from the attached press release that VANTAGE is registrant’s house mark.  The release begins “Iteris, Inc. (NYSE Amex: ITI), a leader in traffic management solutions, announced the introduction of Vantage Vector™, the latest addition to its portfolio of Vantage® vehicle detection solutions,” and the subhead says “Vantage Vector Extends the Depth of the Market Leading Vantage Detection Family.”  (See attachment; emphasis added.)

 

 

Comparison of the Goods/Services

 

The goods are identical, at least in part, as both applicant and registrant make traffic detection systems.  Accordingly, the goods would be sold to the same class of purchasers and encountered under circumstances leading one to mistakenly believe the goods originate from the same source.

 

Where the goods and/or services of an applicant and registrant are “similar in kind and/or closely related,” the degree of similarity between the marks required to support a finding of likelihood of confusion is not as great as in the case of diverse goods and/or services.  In re J.M. Originals Inc., 6 USPQ2d 1393, 1394 (TTAB 1987); see Shen Mfg. Co. v. Ritz Hotel Ltd., 393 F.3d 1238, 1242, 73 USPQ2d 1350, 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2004); TMEP §1207.01(b).

 

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

 

 

APPLICATIONS PURSUANT TO SECTIONS 1(b) AND 44(d)

 

The application specifies both an intent to use basis under Trademark Act Section 1(b) and a claim of priority under Section 44(d) based on a foreign application.  See 15 U.S.C. §§1051(b), 1126(d); 37 C.F.R. §2.34(a)(2), (a)(4).  However, no copy of a foreign registration has been provided even though the application indicates applicant’s intent to rely on Section 44(e) as an additional basis for registration.  See 15 U.S.C. §1126(e).

 

An application with a Section 44(e) basis must include a true copy, photocopy, certification, or certified copy of a foreign registration from an applicant’s country of origin.  15 U.S.C. §1126(e); 37 C.F.R. §2.34(a)(3)(ii); TMEP §§1004, 1004.01, 1016.  In addition, an applicant’s country of origin must be a party to a convention or treaty relating to trademarks to which the United States is also a party, or must extend reciprocal registration rights to nationals of the United States by law.  15 U.S.C. §1126(b); TMEP §§1002.01, 1004.

 

Therefore, applicant must provide a copy of the foreign registration from applicant’s country of origin when it becomes available.  TMEP §1003.04(a).  A copy of a foreign registration must consist of a document issued to an applicant by, or certified by, the intellectual property office in applicant’s country of origin.  TMEP §1004.01.  If applicant’s country of origin does not issue registrations or Madrid Protocol certificates of extension of protection, applicant may submit a copy of the Madrid Protocol international registration that shows that protection of the international registration has been extended to applicant’s country of origin.  TMEP §1016.  In addition, applicant must also provide an English translation if the foreign registration is not written in English.  37 C.F.R. §2.34(a)(3)(ii); TMEP §1004.01(a)-(b).  The translation should be signed by the translator.  TMEP §1004.01(b).

 

If the foreign registration has not yet issued, or applicant requires additional time to procure a copy of the foreign registration (and English translation, as appropriate), applicant should so inform the trademark examining attorney and request that the U.S. application be suspended until a copy of the foreign registration is available.  TMEP §§716.02(b), 1003.04(b).

 

If applicant cannot satisfy the requirements of a Section 44(e) basis, applicant may request that the mark be approved for publication based solely on the Section 1(b) basis.  See 15 U.S.C. §§1051(b), 1126(e); 37 C.F.R. §2.35(b)(1); TMEP §§806.02(f), 806.04(b), 1003.04(b).  Although the mark may be approved for publication on the Section 1(b) basis, it will not register until an acceptable allegation of use has been filed.  See 15 U.S.C. §1051(c)-(d); 37 C.F.R. §§2.76, 2.88; TMEP §1103.  Please note that, if the U.S. application satisfied the requirements of Section 44(d) as of the U.S. application filing date, applicant may retain the priority filing date under Section 44(d) without perfecting the Section 44(e) basis, provided there is a continuing valid basis for registration.  See 37 C.F.R. §2.35(b)(3)-(4); TMEP §§806.02(f), 806.04(b). 

 

Alternatively, applicant has the option to amend the application to rely solely on the Section 44(e) basis and request deletion of the Section 1(b) basis.  See 37 C.F.R. §2.35(b)(1); TMEP §806.04.  The foreign registration alone may serve as the basis for obtaining a U.S. registration.  See 37 C.F.R. §2.34(a)(3); TMEP §806.01(d).

 

 

IDENTIFICATION OF GOODS/SERVICES

 

The identification of goods is indefinite and must be clarified as explained below.  See 37 C.F.R. §2.32(a)(6); TMEP §1402.01.  The USPTO has the discretion to determine the degree of particularity needed to clearly identify goods and/or services covered by a mark.  In re Fiat Grp. Mktg. & Corp. Commc’ns S.p.A, 109 USPQ2d 1593, 1597 (TTAB 2014) (citing In re Omega SA, 494 F.3d 1362, 1365, 83 USPQ2d 1541, 1543-44 (Fed. Cir. 2007)).  Accordingly, the USPTO requires the description of goods and/or services in a U.S. application to be specific, definite, clear, accurate, and concise.  TMEP §1402.01; see In re Fiat Grp. Mktg. & Corp. Commc’ns S.p.A, 109 USPQ2d at 1597-98; Cal. Spray-Chem. Corp. v. Osmose Wood Pres. Co. of Am., 102 USPQ 321, 322 (Comm’r Pats. 1954). 

 

Applicant must list the components which make up the “system,” and clarify the wording “tolling detection, high occupancy tolling and vehicle occupancy detection” which sounds like services, not goods.  Applicant may substitute the following wording, if accurate: 

 

Traffic detection hardware and TRAFFIC DETECTION systems namely, COMPRISED OF transponders AND ELECTRONIC TERMINALS FOR tolling detection, high occupancy tolling and vehicle occupancy detection (Class 9).

 

Applicant’s goods and/or services may be clarified or limited, but may not be expanded beyond those originally itemized in the U.S. 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 in or encompassed by those in the original U.S. 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).  Additionally, for U.S. applications filed under Trademark Act Section 44(e), the scope of the identification for purposes of permissible amendments may not exceed the scope of the goods and/or services identified in the foreign registration.  37 C.F.R. §2.32(a)(6); Marmark, Ltd. v. Nutrexpa, S.A., 12 USPQ2d 1843, 1845 (TTAB 1989) (citing In re Löwenbräu München, 175 USPQ 178, 181 (TTAB 1972)); TMEP §§1012, 1402.01(b).

 

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.

 

 

How to respond.  Click to file a response to this nonfinal Office action.    

 

 

 

/James T. Griffin/

Examining Attorney, Law Office 103

United States Patent & Trademark Office

571-272-9169

jim.griffin@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 04, 2020 for

U.S. Trademark Application Serial No. 88715923

 

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. 

 

 

/James T. Griffin/

Examining Attorney, Law Office 103

United States Patent & Trademark Office

571-272-9169

jim.griffin@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 04, 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.”