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:  June 15, 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, 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 marks in U.S. Registration Nos. 3934723, 3938237, 4626969, 4626970, and 4722804.  Trademark Act Section 2(d), 15 U.S.C. §1052(d); see TMEP §§1207.01 et seq.  See the enclosed registrations.

 

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, 177 USPQ 563 (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.

 

The applicant applied to register RAPTOR for Machines and machine tools for the cutting and forming of materials.

 

The registered marks are:

 

RAPTOR and design for Power tools, namely, pneumatic nailers; cordless and electric tools, namely, right angle drills, reciprocating saws, chop saws and grinders; power drill accessories, namely, non-electrical extensions and power drill bits

 

RAPTOR for Power tools, namely, pneumatic nailers; cordless and electric tools, namely, right angle drills, reciprocating saws, chop saws and grinders; power drill accessories, namely, non-electrical extensions and power drill bits

 

RAPTOR for Machine tool fixtures for milling and turning machines, namely, clamping device used for precision clamping of work pieces, and parts therefor, namely, riser plates and adaptor plates used for connecting the clamping device onto the machine; Machine tools, namely, milling cutters

 

RWP RAPTOR WORKHOLDING PRODUCTS (stylized) for Machine tool fixtures for milling and turning machines, namely, clamping device used for precision clamping of work pieces, and parts therefor, namely, riser plates and adaptor plates used for connecting the clamping device onto the machine; Machine tools, namely, milling cutters

 

RAPTOR WORKHOLDING PRODUCTS (stylized) for Machine tool fixtures for milling and turning machines, namely, clamping device used for precision clamping of work pieces, and parts therefor, namely, riser plates and adaptor plates used for connecting the clamping device onto the machine; Machine tools, namely, milling cutters

 

 

Marks are compared in their entireties for similarities in appearance, sound, connotation, and commercial impression.  In re Viterra Inc., 671 F.3d 1358, 1362, 101 USPQ2d 1905, 1908 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (quoting In re E. I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., 476 F.2d 1357, 1361, 177 USPQ 563, 567 (C.C.P.A. 1973)); TMEP §1207.01(b)-(b)(v).  Similarity in any one of these elements may be sufficient to find the marks confusingly similar.  In re White Swan Ltd., 8 USPQ2d 1534, 1535 (TTAB 1988); see In re 1st USA Realty Prof’ls, Inc., 84 USPQ2d 1581, 1586 (TTAB 2007); 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 their entireties that confusion as to the source of the goods and/or services offered under applicant’s and registrant’s 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); Edom Labs., Inc. v. Lichter, 102 USPQ2d 1546, 1551 (TTAB 2012); TMEP §1207.01(b).  The focus is on the recollection of the average purchaser, who normally retains a general rather than specific impression of trademarks.  L’Oreal S.A. v. Marcon, 102 USPQ2d 1434, 1438 (TTAB 2012); Sealed Air Corp. v. Scott Paper Co., 190 USPQ 106, 108 (TTAB 1975); TMEP §1207.01(b).

 

 

Registration Nos. 3934723 and 3938237 – RAPTOR and design, and RAPTOR (Owned by same owner)

 

The applicant’s mark is RAPTOR, and the registered marks are RAPTOR and a design, and RAPTOR, respectively.  Thus, the literal elements of the applicant’s mark and the registered marks are identical. 

 

The lack of a design in the applicant’s mark does not obviate its similarity to the registered mark with the design.  For a composite mark containing both words and a design, the word portion may be more likely to be impressed upon a purchaser’s memory and to be used when requesting the goods and/or services.  Joel Gott Wines, LLC v. Rehoboth Von Gott, Inc., 107 USPQ2d 1424, 1431 (TTAB 2013) (citing In re Dakin’s Miniatures, Inc., 59 USPQ2d 1593, 1596 (TTAB 1999)); TMEP §1207.01(c)(ii); see In re Viterra Inc., 671 F.3d 1358, 1362, 101 USPQ2d 1905, 1908, 1911 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (citing CBS Inc. v. Morrow, 708 F. 2d 1579, 1581-82, 218 USPQ 198, 200 (Fed. Cir 1983)).  Thus, although such 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, 101 USPQ2d at 1911 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (citing Giant Food, Inc. v. Nation’s Foodservice, Inc., 710 F.2d 1565, 1570-71, 218 USPQ2d 390, 395 (Fed. Cir. 1983)). 

 

In addition, a mark in typed or standard characters may be displayed in any lettering style; the rights reside in the wording or other literal element and not in any particular display or rendition.  See In re Viterra Inc., 671 F.3d 1358, 1363, 101 USPQ2d 1905, 1909 (Fed. Cir. 2012); In re Mighty Leaf Tea, 601 F.3d 1342, 1348, 94 USPQ2d 1257, 1260 (Fed. Cir. 2010); 37 C.F.R. §2.52(a); TMEP §1207.01(c)(iii).  Thus, a mark presented in stylized characters and/or with a design element generally will not avoid likelihood of confusion with a mark in typed or standard characters because the word portion could be presented in the same manner of display.  See, e.g., In re Viterra Inc., 671 F.3d at 1363, 101 USPQ2d at 1909; Squirtco v. Tomy Corp., 697 F.2d 1038, 1041, 216 USPQ 937, 939 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (stating that “the argument concerning a difference in type style is not viable where one party asserts rights in no particular display”).

 

As for the goods identified by the marks, the applicant’s goods are machines and machine tools for the cutting and forming of materials.  The registrant’s goods are power tools in the nature of pneumatic nailers, cordless and electric tools in the nature of right angle drills, reciprocating saws, chops saw and grinders, and power drill accessories in the nature of non-electrical extensions and power drill bits.

 

In this case, the application uses broad wording to describe machines and machine tools for the cutting and forming of materials, which presumably encompasses all goods of the type described, including the registrant’s more narrow right angle drills, reciprocating saws, chops saws and grinders.  All of these power tools are machines that are used for cutting and forming materials. See attachments:

 

 

A right angle drill is “…the tool for the job when it comes down to serious wood chompin' time. Because the chuck is at a right angle to the body (hence the name), it is able to get into much smaller spaces, such as tight stud and joist bays, than a standard heavy-duty straight-line drill.”  http://www.google.com/search?source=hp&ei=Qq7nXtGoOcnAytMPu7K0uAk&q=right+angle+drill&oq=right+angle+drill&gs_lcp=CgZwc3ktYWIQARgAMgUIABCxAzICCAAyAggAMgIIADICCAAyAggAMgIIADICCAAyAggAMgIIADoOCAAQ6gIQtAIQmgEQ5QI6BAgAEAM6BQgAEIMBUI4JWNMXYNktaAFwAHgAgAFBiAG-BpIBAjE3mAEAoAEBqgEHZ3dzLXdperABBg&sclient=psy-ab#spf=1592241966465

 

A reciprocating saw is a type of machine-powered saw in which the cutting action is achieved through a push-and-pull ("reciprocating") motion of the blade. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reciprocating_saw

 

Also, a reciprocating saw is “a powered saw which moves the blade back and forth.”  http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/reciprocating_saw

 

A chop saw can refer to “A miter saw, typically used in woodworking, and an abrasive saw, typically used to cut hard materials, such as metals or ceramics.”  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chop_saw

 

A grinder is “a machine or device for grinding.”

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/grinder

 

See, e.g., In re Solid State Design Inc., 125 USPQ2d 1409, 1412-15 (TTAB 2018); Sw. Mgmt., Inc. v. Ocinomled, Ltd., 115 USPQ2d 1007, 1025 (TTAB 2015). 

 

Thus, applicant’s and registrant’s goods are legally identical.  See, e.g., In re i.am.symbolic, llc, 127 USPQ2d 1627, 1629 (TTAB 2018) (citing Tuxedo Monopoly, Inc. v. Gen. Mills Fun Grp., Inc., 648 F.2d 1335, 1336, 209 USPQ 986, 988 (C.C.P.A. 1981); Inter IKEA Sys. B.V. v. Akea, LLC, 110 USPQ2d 1734, 1745 (TTAB 2014); Baseball Am. Inc. v. Powerplay Sports Ltd., 71 USPQ2d 1844, 1847 n.9 (TTAB 2004)).

 

Additionally, the goods and/or services of the parties have no restrictions as to nature, type, channels of trade, or classes of purchasers and are “presumed to travel in the same channels of trade to the same class of purchasers.”  In re Viterra Inc., 671 F.3d 1358, 1362, 101 USPQ2d 1905, 1908 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (quoting Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Packard Press, Inc., 281 F.3d 1261, 1268, 62 USPQ2d 1001, 1005 (Fed. Cir. 2002)).  Thus, applicant’s and registrant’s goods and/or services are related.

 

 

Registration Nos. 4626969, 4626970 and 4722804 – RAPTOR, RAPTOR WORKHOLDING PRODUCTS and RWP RAPTOR WORKHOLDING PRODUCTS (Owned by same owner)

 

The applicant’s mark is RAPTOR, and the registered marks are RAPTOR, and RAPTOR WORKHOLDING PRODUCTS and RWP RAPTOR WORKHOLDING PRODUCTS.   Thus, the applicant’s mark is identical to one of the registered marks, and is very similar to the other two registered marks.

 

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 an applicant’s goods and/or services is typically less significant or less dominant when comparing marks.  See In re Dixie Rests., Inc., 105 F.3d 1405, 1407, 41 USPQ2d 1531, 1533-34 (Fed. Cir. 1997); In re Nat’l Data Corp., 753 F.2d at 1060, 224 USPQ at 752; TMEP §1207.01(b)(viii), (c)(ii).

 

In this case, the wording WORKHOLDING PRODUCTS is disclaimed in the latter two registrations. Although the third registered mark also contains the letters RWP, that is an abbreviation for RAPTOR WORKHOLDING PRODUCTS.  Thus, the dominant and salient elements of all the marks is the same, namely, RAPTOR.

 

Also, the fact that the applicant’s mark is not stylized does not obviate its similarity to the registered marks.  A mark in typed or standard characters may be displayed in any lettering style; the rights reside in the wording or other literal element and not in any particular display or rendition.  See In re Viterra Inc., 671 F.3d 1358, 1363, 101 USPQ2d 1905, 1909 (Fed. Cir. 2012); In re Mighty Leaf Tea, 601 F.3d 1342, 1348, 94 USPQ2d 1257, 1260 (Fed. Cir. 2010); 37 C.F.R. §2.52(a); TMEP §1207.01(c)(iii).  Thus, a mark presented in stylized characters and/or with a design element generally will not avoid likelihood of confusion with a mark in typed or standard characters because the marks could be presented in the same manner of display.  See, e.g., In re Viterra Inc., 671 F.3d at 1363, 101 USPQ2d at 1909; Squirtco v. Tomy Corp., 697 F.2d 1038, 1041, 216 USPQ 937, 939 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (stating that “the argument concerning a difference in type style is not viable where one party asserts rights in no particular display”).

 

As for the goods identified by the marks, the applicant’s mark and the registered marks all identify machine tools or machine tool fixtures.  The applicant’s identification of goods states that the goods are used for cutting and forming of materials, while the registrant’s identification of goods states that the goods are milling and turning machines, for precision clamping of work pieces, also machine tools in the nature of milling cutters.

 

Thus, the goods are the same, namely, machine tools and machine tool fixtures. 

 

 In all the cases, the similarities between the applicant’s mark and the registered marks, and the goods of the parties, are so great as to create a likelihood of confusion in the marketplace.  Consumers are likely to believe that the goods of the parties emanate from a common source.

 

The overriding concern is not only to prevent buyer confusion as to the source of the goods, 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 registrants.  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).

 

 

NOTE:  A declaration under Section 8 of the Trademark Act will be due in Registration Nos. 4626969 and 4626970 by 10/28/2020, and in Registration No. 4722804 by 4/21/2021.  The Office records do not show that the documents have been submitted.  If the documents are not submitted by the registrant, the registrations will be cancelled, and they will no longer be a bar to registration of this application.  Office policy requires waiting for nine months and five days after the due date before cancelling a registration. 

 

NOTE:  Registration No. 3934723 will be due for renewal by 3/22/2021 and Registration No. 3938237 will be due for renewal by 3/29/2021.  If the registrations are not renewed, the registrations will be cancelled, and they will no longer be a bar to registration of this application.  Office policy requires waiting for nine months and five days after the due date before cancelling a registration. 

 

Regardless of the disposition of the cited registrations, the applicant must respond to this Office action within six months of the mailing date. 

 

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

 

 

PRIOR-FILED APPLICATION(S)

 

The filing dates of pending U.S. Application Serial Nos. 79184575, 79268977, 88686455 and 88822836 precede applicant’s filing date.  See attached referenced applications.  If one or more of the marks in the referenced applications register, applicant’s mark may be refused registration under Trademark Act Section 2(d) because of a likelihood of confusion with the registered mark(s).  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 applications.

 

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 marks in the referenced applications.  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.

 

 

APPLICANT MAY WISH TO HIRE AN ATTORNEY

 

Because of the legal technicalities and strict deadlines involved in the USPTO application process, applicant may wish to hire a private attorney specializing in trademark matters to represent applicant in this process and provide legal advice.  Although the undersigned trademark examining attorney is permitted to help an applicant understand the contents of an Office action as well as the application process in general, no USPTO attorney or staff is permitted to give an applicant legal advice or statements about an applicant’s legal rights.  TMEP §§705.02, 709.06. 

 

For attorney referral information, applicant may consult the American Bar Association’s Consumers’ Guide to Legal Help at http://www.abanet.org/legalservices/findlegalhelp/home.cfm, an attorney referral service of a state or local bar association, or a local telephone directory.  The USPTO may not assist an applicant in the selection of a private attorney.  37 C.F.R. §2.11.

 

 

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

 

 

ANY QUESTIONS?

 

If applicant has questions regarding this Office action, please telephone or e-mail the assigned trademark examining attorney.  All relevant e-mail communications will be placed in the official application record; however, an e-mail communication will not be accepted as a response to this Office action and will not extend the deadline for filing a proper response.  See 37 C.F.R. §§2.62(c), 2.191; TMEP §§304.01-.02, 709.04-.05.  Further, although the trademark examining attorney may provide additional explanation pertaining to the refusal(s) and/or requirement(s) in this Office action, the trademark examining attorney may not provide legal advice or statements about applicant’s rights.  See TMEP §§705.02, 709.06.

 

 

 

/Esther A. Belenker/

Trademark Examining Attorney

Law Office 111

(571) 272-9125

Fax:  (571) 273-9125

esther.belenker@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 June 15, 2020 for

U.S. Trademark Application Serial No. 88843193

 

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. 

 

 

/Esther A. Belenker/

Trademark Examining Attorney

Law Office 111

(571) 272-9125

Fax:  (571) 273-9125

esther.belenker@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 June 15, 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.”