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:  May 01, 2020

 

The referenced application has been reviewed by the assigned trademark examining attorney.  Applicant must respond timely and completely to the issues below.  15 U.S.C. §1062(b); 37 C.F.R. §§2.62(a), 2.65(a); TMEP §§711, 718.03.

 

SUMMARY OF ISSUES:

• Prior-Filed Application
• Section 2(d) Refusal – Likelihood of Confusion
• Identification of Goods and Services

 

PRIOR-FILED APPLICATION

 

The filing date of pending U.S. Application Serial No. 87253414 precedes applicant’s filing date.  See attached referenced application.  If the mark in the referenced application registers, applicant’s mark may be refused registration under Trademark Act Section 2(d) because of a likelihood of confusion between the two marks.  See 15 U.S.C. §1052(d); 37 C.F.R. §2.83; TMEP §§1208 et seq.  Therefore, upon receipt of applicant’s response to this Office action, action on this application may be suspended pending final disposition of the earlier-filed referenced application.

 

In response to this Office action, applicant may present arguments in support of registration by addressing the issue of the potential conflict between applicant’s mark and the mark in the referenced application.  Applicant’s election not to submit arguments at this time in no way limits applicant’s right to address this issue later if a refusal under Section 2(d) issues.

 

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. 4494419.  Trademark Act Section 2(d), 15 U.S.C. §1052(d); see TMEP §§1207.01 et seq.  See the attached registrations.

 

In the present case, the applicant seeks registration of LIMELIGHT in standard character form for:

·         “Downloadable computer software platform for providing data-driven insights into all aspects of the perioperative process, including capabilities for surgery scheduling, asset inventory management for tracking medical devices within and outside a medical facility, compliance adherence to hospital and regulatory policies, analytics and dashboard capabilities, and billing management; computer hardware in the nature of wireless transceivers; firmware for wireless transceivers; near field communication tags for storing information about medical devices that can be transmitted to wireless transceivers and software applications” in Class 9; and

·         “Providing temporary use of non-downloadable software for providing data-driven insights into all aspects of the perioperative process, including capabilities for surgery scheduling, asset inventory management for tracking medical devices within and outside a medical facility, compliance adherence to hospital and regulatory policies, analytics and dashboard capabilities, and billing management” in Class 42.

 

The cited registered mark is LIMELIGHT PERFORMANCE with a design element for “Computer application software for tablets/mobile phones, namely, software for measuring performance of a service sector” in Class 9.  

 

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 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).  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 and 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 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 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).

 

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., 901 F.3d 1367, 1373, 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 (C.C.P.A. 1971)), aff’d per curiam, 777 F. App’x 516, 2019 BL 343921 (Fed. Cir. 2019); TMEP §1207.01(b).

 

Here, applicant’s mark is LIMELIGHT in standard character form, and registrant’s mark is LIMELIGHT PERFORMANCE with a design element. In this case, the applied-for mark, LIMELIGHT, is identical in sound and highly similar in appearance and commercial impression to the dominant word portion of the registered mark, LIMELIGHT.

 

In this case, the registered mark contains a design element. 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 and services.  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)). Nothing about the design element changes the meaning or commercial impression of the shared wording, which is LIMELIGHT.

 

Further, the registered mark begins with the wording LIMELIGHT. 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”).

 

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 and services 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). Here, registrant disclaimed the wording “PERFORMANCE” apart from its mark as shown. Thus, the examining attorney must closely examine the dominant portion of the registered mark, LIMELIGHT, against the applied-for mark, LIMELIGHT.

 

The only differences between the respective marks are the descriptive wording “PERFORMANCE” and the design element in the registered mark. These differences do not change the identical nature in sound and highly similar nature in appearance and commercial impression between the applied-for mark, LIMELIGHT, and the dominant word portion of the registered mark, LIMELIGHT.

 

Considering the above, the marks are sufficiently similar to cause a likelihood of confusion under Trademark Act Section 2(d).

 

Relatedness of the Goods and Services

 

The compared goods and 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 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).

 

In this case, applicant’s mark is LIMELIGHT in standard character form for, inter alia:

·         “Downloadable computer software platform for providing data-driven insights into all aspects of the perioperative process” in Class 9; and

·         “Providing temporary use of non-downloadable software for providing data-driven insights into all aspects of the perioperative process” in Class 42.

 

The cited registered mark is LIMELIGHT PERFORMANCE with a design element for “Computer application software for tablets/mobile phones, namely, software for measuring performance of a service sector” in Class 9.  

 

Here, the respective goods and services are closely related because they travel through similar channels of trade to the same class of consumer. The examining attorney has attached Internet website evidence demonstrating that “Downloadable computer software platform for providing data-driven insights into all aspects of the perioperative process,” “Providing temporary use of non-downloadable software for providing data-driven insights into all aspects of the perioperative process,” and “Computer application software for tablets/mobile phones, namely, software for measuring performance of a service sector” are commonly provided together and commonly originate from the same source. The attached Internet evidence establishes that the same entity commonly produces and provides the relevant goods and services and markets the goods and services under the same mark and that the relevant goods and services are sold or provided through the same trade channels and used by the same classes of consumers in the same fields of use.  Thus, applicant’s and registrant’s goods and 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). See attached evidence from:

·         TMASYSTEMS:

o   http://tmasystems.com/industries/healthcare/;

o   http://tmasystems.com/services/tma-implementation-portal-iportal/

·         Tiger Connect:

o   http://get.tigerconnect.com/capterra-demo-page-step1/;

o   http://tigerconnect.com/newsroom/tigertext-ties-cloud-contact-software-provider/;

·         TeamDesk:

o   http://www.teamdesk.net/hospital_admissions?utm_medium=cpc&utm_campaign=hospital_management&utm_source=capterra; and

o   http://www.teamdesk.net/medical_practice_manager.

 

Thus, upon encountering LIMELIGHT for “Downloadable computer software platform for providing data-driven insights into all aspects of the perioperative process” and “Providing temporary use of non-downloadable software for providing data-driven insights into all aspects of the perioperative process,” and LIMELIGHT PERFORMANCE for “Computer application software for tablets/mobile phones, namely, software for measuring performance of a service sector,” consumers are likely to be confused and mistakenly believe that the respective goods and services emanate from a common source. As such, registration must be refused under Trademark Act Section 2(d).

 

The overriding concern is not only to prevent buyer confusion as to the source of the goods and services, but to protect the registrant from adverse commercial impact due to use of a similar mark by a newcomer.  See In re Shell Oil Co., 992 F.2d 1204, 1208, 26 USPQ2d 1687, 1690 (Fed. Cir. 1993).  Therefore, any doubt regarding a likelihood of confusion determination is resolved in favor of the registrant.  TMEP §1207.01(d)(i); see Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Packard Press, Inc., 281 F.3d 1261, 1265, 62 USPQ2d 1001, 1003 (Fed. Cir. 2002); In re Hyper Shoppes (Ohio), Inc., 837 F.2d 463, 464-65, 6 USPQ2d 1025, 1026 (Fed. Cir. 1988).

 

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

 

IDENTIFICATION OF GOODS AND SERVICES

 

The wording “including” in the identification of goods and services is indefinite and must be deleted and replaced with a definite term, such as “namely,” “consisting of,” “particularly,” or “in particular.”  See 37 C.F.R. §2.32(a)(6); TMEP §§1402.01, 1402.03(a).  The identification must be specific and all-inclusive.  This wording is an open-ended term (e.g., “including,” “such as”) that is not acceptable because it fails to identify specific goods or services.  See TMEP §1402.03(a). 

 

Further, the identification for firmware in International Class 9 is indefinite and too broad and must be clarified to specify (1) the purpose or function of the software and its content or field of use, if content- or field- specific; and (2) whether its format is downloadable, recorded, or online non-downloadable.  See 37 C.F.R. §2.32(a)(6); TMEP §§1402.03(d), 1402.11(a).  Downloadable and recorded goods are in International Class 9, whereas providing their temporary, online non-downloadable use is a service in International Class 42.  See TMEP §1402.03(d).   

 

The USPTO requires such specificity in order for a trademark examining attorney to examine the application properly and make appropriate decisions concerning possible conflicts between the applicant’s mark and other marks.  See In re N.A.D. Inc., 57 USPQ2d 1872, 1874 (TTAB 2000); TMEP §1402.03(d).

 

Finally, the following suggested identification contains further guidance in bold and/or brackets. Applicant may adopt any or all of the suggestions in bold and/or brackets so long as they are accurate. Applicant should note that the brackets indicate where applicant must insert specific types of goods or services. The brackets should NOT appear in the amended identification; only the specific goods or services inserted by applicant. Applicant need not amend identifications other than where specified.

 

Applicant may adopt the following wording, if accurate: 

 

Class 9: Downloadable computer software platform for providing data-driven insights into all aspects of the perioperative process, including namely, capabilities for surgery scheduling, asset inventory management for tracking medical devices within and outside a medical facility, compliance adherence to hospital and regulatory policies, analytics and dashboard capabilities, and billing management; computer hardware in the nature of wireless transceivers; [specify downloadable or recordable computer] firmware for [further clarify function of firmware, e.g., operating systems] for wireless transceivers; near field communication tags for storing information about medical devices that can be transmitted to wireless transceivers and software applications

 

Class 42: Providing temporary use of non-downloadable software for providing data-driven insights into all aspects of the perioperative process, including namely, capabilities for surgery scheduling, asset inventory management for tracking medical devices within and outside a medical facility, compliance adherence to hospital and regulatory policies, analytics and dashboard capabilities, and billing management; Providing temporary use of on-line non-downloadable firmware for [further clarify function of firmware, e.g., operating systems] for wireless transceivers

 

Applicant may amend the identification to clarify or limit the goods and services, but not to broaden or expand the goods and services beyond those in the original application or as acceptably amended.  See 37 C.F.R. §2.71(a); TMEP §1402.06.  Generally, any deleted goods and services may not later be reinserted.  See 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.

 

QUESTIONS

 

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 and requirement 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.    

 

 

/Andrew Crowder-Schaefer/

Trademark Examining Attorney

Law Office 104

(571) 272-0087

andrew.crowderschaefer@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 May 01, 2020 for

U.S. Trademark Application Serial No. 88780207

 

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. 

 

 

/Andrew Crowder-Schaefer/

Trademark Examining Attorney

Law Office 104

(571) 272-0087

andrew.crowderschaefer@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 May 01, 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.”