To: | Epson America, Inc. (trademarks@troutman.com) |
Subject: | U.S. Trademark Application Serial No. 88734303 - GOBOARD - 060664.52373 |
Sent: | March 28, 2020 02:07:28 PM |
Sent As: | ecom109@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 |
United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO)
Office Action (Official Letter) About Applicant’s Trademark Application
U.S. Application Serial No. 88734303
Mark: GOBOARD
|
|
Correspondence Address: 600 PEACHTREE ST. NE, SUITE 3000
|
|
Applicant: Epson America, Inc.
|
|
Reference/Docket No. 060664.52373
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: March 28, 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.
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. 4942822. 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 for the standard character mark having the literal element “GOBOARD” for goods identified as “Downloadable computer software for the transmission and sharing of data and information; file sharing software that allows multiple users to securely transmit, share, receive, download, display, edit, or annotate files, data, documents, images, video, audio, and other content being viewed via multimedia projectors or white boards with interactive display capabilities; software for operating interactive white boards; downloadable computer software for facilitating the saving and transmission of files, data, documents, images, video, audio, and other content.”
Registrant’s mark is “GOBOARD” in standard characters for services identified as “Providing online facilities for two or more users to communicate via video, chat, images, and content-specific tools in the field of education.”
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.
SIMILARITY OF THE MARKS
In the present case, applicant’s mark is “GOBOARD” and registrant’s mark is “GOBOARD.” These marks are identical in appearance, sound, and meaning, “and have the potential to be used . . . in exactly the same manner.” In re i.am.symbolic, llc, 116 USPQ2d 1406, 1411 (TTAB 2015), aff’d, 866 F.3d 1315, 123 USPQ2d 1744 (Fed. Cir. 2017). Additionally, because they are identical, these marks are likely to engender the same connotation and overall commercial impression when considered in connection with applicant’s and registrant’s respective goods and/or services. Id.
Therefore, the marks are confusingly similar.
RELATEDNESS OF THE GOODS AND SERVICES
In addition to the marks being identical, the services in this comparison are also related. It should also be noted that where the marks of the respective parties are identical or virtually 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).
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).
The attached Internet evidence, consisting of webpages from Smart Tech, Triumph Board, and Tango Touch, establishes that the same entity commonly produces and provides the relevant goods and/or services and markets the goods and/or services under the same mark, the relevant goods and/or services are sold or provided through the same trade channels and used by the same classes of consumers in the same fields of use, and the goods and/or services are similar or complementary in terms of purpose or function, namely, such software and provision of on-line facilities may be utilized for educational purposes as both in-class and virtual teaching resources. Thus, applicant’s and registrant’s goods and/or services are considered related for likelihood of confusion purposes. See, e.g., In re Davey Prods. Pty Ltd., 92 USPQ2d 1198, 1202-04 (TTAB 2009); In re Toshiba Med. Sys. Corp., 91 USPQ2d 1266, 1268-69, 1271-72 (TTAB 2009).In that regard, the evidence of record demonstrates that software for data transmission, file sharing, interactive white board operation commonly emanates from the same source and moves through the same channels of trade as the provision of online facilities for users to communicate via video, chat, images and other content in the field of education. Therefore, the use of identical marks in connection therewith, as in the present case, would cause consumers to mistakenly believe that applicant’s and registrant’s goods and services emanate from the same source.
Thus, the parties’ respective goods and services are related for likelihood of confusion purposes.
Upon encountering either applicant’s mark “GOBOARD” or registrant’s mark “GOBOARD” as used in connection with the parties’ respective goods and services, consumers are likely to be confused and mistakenly believe that the goods and services emanate from a single source. As such, applicant’s mark must be refused registration.
AMENDMENT TO THE IDENTIFICATION OF GOODS – PARTIAL
The following applies to only the entries identified below.
Full Suggested Identifications
In the recommendations below, the examining attorney sought to offer comprehensive proposals in instances where the identification of goods or recitations of services require clarification. Applicant is not required to accept these proposals, but any further changes must be within the scope of the identifications set out in the application. Please see below for a more thorough discussion.
Suggested amendments appear below. Please note that the suggestions are in bold, explanatory information is in brackets, suggested removal of language is in strikethrough typeface and notations are in italicized parentheses.
Additionally, where necessary, the examining attorney has indicated where applicant must supply additional information. In such cases, the wording is presented in bold print within brackets, for example, “Computer software for {specify the function of the programs, e.g., use in database management, use as a spreadsheet, word processing, etc., and if software is content- or field-specific, the content or field of use}.” In such case, applicant must supply the required information within the brackets and must remove the brackets from the identification of goods and/or services.
Applicant may substitute the following wording if acceptable and accurate:
In Class 9:
“Downloadable computer software for the transmission and sharing of data and information; downloadable file sharing software that allows multiple users to securely transmit, share, receive, download, display, edit, or annotate files, data, documents, images, video, audio, and other content being viewed via multimedia projectors or white boards with interactive display capabilities; downloadable software for operating interactive white boards; downloadable computer software for facilitating the saving and transmission of files, data, documents, images, video, audio, and other content”
In Class 42:
“providing on-line non-downloadable file sharing software that allows multiple users to securely transmit, share, receive, download, display, edit, or annotate files, data, documents, images, video, audio, and other content being viewed via multimedia projectors or white boards with interactive display capabilities; providing on-line non-downloadable software for operating interactive white boards”
Scope Advisory and Identification of Manual Reference
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.
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 2 classes; however, applicant submitted a fee(s) sufficient for only 1 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 37 C.F.R. §2.86(a); TMEP §§1403.01, 1403.02(c).
For an overview of the requirements for a Section 1(b) multiple-class application and how to satisfy the requirements online using the Trademark Electronic Application System (TEAS) form, see the Multiple-class Application webpage.
COMMUNICATIONS WITH THE TRADEMARK OFFICE
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.
/Lauren R. Roncoroni/
Lauren R. Roncoroni
Trademark Examining Attorney
Law Office 109
(571) 270-5661
Lauren.Roncoroni@uspto.gov
RESPONSE GUIDANCE