| To: | XU, Lei (yi.wan@tbchadwick.com) |
| Subject: | U.S. Trademark Application Serial No. 88860455 - MM - BSF0040213 |
| Sent: | May 18, 2020 03:39:05 PM |
| Sent As: | ecom103@uspto.gov |
| Attachments: | Attachment - 1 Attachment - 2 Attachment - 3 Attachment - 4 Attachment - 5 Attachment - 6 |
United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO)
Office Action (Official Letter) About Applicant’s Trademark Application
|
U.S. Application Serial No. 88860455
Mark: MM
|
|
|
Correspondence Address: |
|
|
Applicant: XU, Lei
|
|
|
Reference/Docket No. BSF0040213
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: May 18, 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.
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. 3754571. Trademark Act Section 2(d), 15 U.S.C. §1052(d); see TMEP §§1207.01 et seq. See the attached registration.
Applicant’s mark is M cube design for use with “Downloadable computer application software for mobile phones, namely, software for use in database management, use in electronic storage of data; Downloadable computer game software; Downloadable computer game software for use on mobile and cellular phones; Downloadable computer software for application and database integration; Downloadable electronic game software for use on mobile and cellular phones, handheld computers; Downloadable emoticons for mobile phones” in International Class 9.
Registrant’s mark is M cube design for use with “Computer software, namely, utility software for data recovery, and for testing, diagnosing, repairing, and maintaining hard drives and other principal computer components, booting computers, finding viruses, identifying device and system conflicts, optimizing and defragmenting hard drive volumes, rebuilding volume directories, repartitioning hard drives, and running other utilities” in International Class 9.
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 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 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.
Similarity of the Marks
In the present case, applicant’s mark is a cube design comprised of letters “M” and registrant’s mark is the same cube design comprised of letters “M”. 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. Id.
Therefore, the marks are confusingly similar.
Relatedness of the Goods
The goods of the parties 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) (“[E]ven if the goods in question are different from, and thus not related to, one another in kind, the same goods can be related in the mind of the consuming public as to the origin of the goods.”); TMEP §1207.01(a)(i).
The respective goods need only be “related in some manner and/or if the circumstances surrounding their marketing [be] 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).
In this case, the application uses broad wording to describe “Downloadable computer application software for mobile phones, namely, software for use in database management, use in electronic storage of data; Downloadable computer software for application and database integration,” which presumably encompasses all goods of the type described, including registrant’s more narrow “Computer software, namely, utility software for data recovery, and for testing, diagnosing, repairing, and maintaining hard drives and other principal computer components, booting computers, finding viruses, identifying device and system conflicts, optimizing and defragmenting hard drive volumes, rebuilding volume directories, repartitioning hard drives, and running other utilities.” 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 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 are related.
Conclusion
Because the marks are confusingly similar and the goods are related, registration is refused under Section 2(d) of the Trademark Act.
Response to Section 2(d) Refusal
MOCK-UP SPECIMEN DOES NOT SHOW USE IN COMMERCE – SUBSTITUTE SPECIMEN REQUIRED
An application based on Trademark Act Section 1(a) must include a specimen showing the applied-for mark as actually used in commerce for each international class of goods identified in the application or amendment to allege use. 15 U.S.C. §1051(a)(1); 37 C.F.R. §§2.34(a)(1)(iv), 2.56(a); TMEP §§904, 904.07(a). “Use in commerce” means (1) a bona fide use of the applied-for mark in the ordinary course of trade (and not merely to reserve a right in the mark), (2) the mark is placed in any manner on the goods, packaging, tags or labels affixed to the goods, or displays that directly associate the mark with the goods and have a point-of-sale nature, and (3) the goods are actually sold or transported in commerce. See 15 U.S.C. §1127.
An image of a product or packaging that has been digitally created or altered to include the mark or a mockup of how the mark may be displayed on the product or packaging is not a proper specimen for goods because it does not show actual use of the mark in commerce. See 15 U.S.C. §1127; 37 C.F.R. §2.56(c); TMEP §904.04(a).
In this case, applicant has submitted several applications all utilizing the identical webpage showing the same video game (known as Pac Man) with only the name of the game changed on each page to correspond with the mark in the relevant applications. This indicates that these pages were merely created for use as a specimen and do not show the marks used in commerce with the identified goods. Therefore, the specimen does not show actual use of the mark in commerce.
Applicant may respond to the specimen refusal by satisfying one of the following for each applicable international class:
(1) Submit the additional information/documentation referenced above establishing that the original specimen was actually used in commerce as of the filing date of the application or prior to the filing of the amendment to allege use.
(2) Submit a different specimen (a verified “substitute” specimen) that (a) was in actual use in commerce at least as early as the filing date of the application or prior to the filing of an amendment to allege use and (b) shows the mark in actual use in commerce for the goods identified in the application or amendment to allege use. A “verified substitute specimen” is a specimen that is accompanied by the following statement made in a signed affidavit or supported by a declaration under 37 C.F.R. §2.20: “The substitute (or new, or originally submitted, if appropriate) specimen(s) was/were in use in commerce at least as early as the filing date of the application or prior to the filing of the amendment to allege use.” The substitute specimen cannot be accepted without this statement. For instructions on how to submit a different specimen using the online Trademark Electronic Application System (TEAS) form, see the Specimen webpage.
Applicant must also fully respond to the requirement for additional information and documentation referenced above for any different specimen provided. Failure to comply with a requirement to furnish information is grounds for refusing registration. In re Harley, 119 USPQ2d 1755, 1757-58 (TTAB 2016); TMEP §814. Merely stating that information is available on applicant’s or a third party website or providing a hyperlink of such a website is an insufficient response and will not make the additional information or materials of record. See In re Planalytics, Inc., 70 USPQ2d 1453, 1457-58 (TTAB 2004).
(3) Amend the filing basis to intent to use under Section 1(b) (which includes withdrawing an amendment to allege use, if one was filed), as no specimen is required before publication. This option will later necessitate additional fee(s) and filing requirements, including a specimen.
If applicant amends the basis, the requirement for additional information and documentation referenced below will be withdrawn.
INFORMATION ABOUT SPECIMEN AND USE IN U.S. COMMERCE REQUIRED
A specimen must show the mark as used in commerce, which means use in the ordinary course of trade (not merely to reserve a right in the mark). 15 U.S.C. §§1051, 1052, 1127. A specimen shows a mark used in commerce for goods only if it shows the mark placed on the goods, packaging, tags or labels affixed to the goods, or displays of the goods, and the goods are actually sold or transported for sale in commerce. 15 U.S.C. §1127.
Based on the record evidence and analysis, no existing specimen submission appears to show the mark in actual use in commerce. Therefore, to permit proper examination of the application, applicant must respond to the following questions and submit additional information for the record about the specimen(s) and how the mark as shown on the specimen(s) is in use in commerce with applicant’s goods. See 37 C.F.R. § 2.61(b); TMEP § 814. This information is needed to determine if all of the goods have been “sold or transported in commerce” as required by the relevant provisions of the Trademark Act and to ascertain if the application is void. 15 U.S.C. §1127; 37 C.F.R. §2.71(d); see TMEP 1201.02(b). Applicant must provide a full translation of any submitted material that is not in English. 37 C.F.R. § 2.61(b).
(1) Applicant must describe how the specimen submission or submissions were selected or obtained in order to be used as specimens of use in the filing of this application.
(2) Applicant must submit, redacting the personal or private information of any buyer, copies of invoices, bills of sale, or other documentation of sales in U.S. commerce of (a) the goods bearing the proposed mark as provided as specimen submissions and (b) other listed goods in this application that also bear the proposed mark to be provided as specimen submissions in responding to the Request for Additional Specimen Submissions.
(3) Applicant must state whether the signatory of the initial filing of this application personally reviewed the initial filing of this application, and specifically, whether applicant reviewed any and all specimens before submitted.
(4) Applicant must specifically state whether the specimen or specimens show the applicant’s products, including the manner and placement of the proposed mark, as they are currently being sold to consumers in U.S. commerce.
(5) Applicant must state whether it markets the identical game under multiple trademarks.
(6) If the goods shown in the specimen or specimens with the proposed mark are sold in physical stores, applicant must provide unedited digital images or photographs showing the goods bearing the proposed mark in store locations, the time and date taken, and the address of the store location. If these goods are sold in another type of sales environment, applicant must provide evidence showing the goods for sale in that environment, and provide the address of any physical location.
(7) If the information in the previous question about how the goods appear in the actual sales environment is not available to applicant, then please describe how applicant’s goods are transported for sale and provide photos and other documentation showing how applicant’s mark appears on the goods and/or its packaging when the goods are being transported for sale.
(8) If these goods are available for sale online, applicant must provide images of websites showing the goods for sale in direct association with the proposed mark, including the complete URL address of the website shown so that it can be accessed by the USPTO to permit proper and complete examination of this application.
(9) Applicant must specifically state for the record whether it has used its proposed mark continuously in commerce regulated by the U.S. Congress since the application filing date.
See 37 C.F.R. §2.61(b); TMEP §814. For each webpage submission, either as a specimen or as supporting evidence, applicant must provide a digital copy of the entire webpages (including URL) from top to bottom, as rendered in an Internet browser, to permit proper and complete examination of this application and an accurate record of the entirety of the webpage submission.
Failure to comply with a request for information is grounds for refusing registration. In re Harley, 119 USPQ2d 1755, 1757-58 (TTAB 2016); TMEP §814. Merely stating that evidence is available on applicant’s or a third party website or providing a hyperlink of such a website is an insufficient response and will not make the relevant information or the additional specimens of record. See In re Planalytics, Inc., 70 USPQ2d 1453, 1457-58 (TTAB 2004).
REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL SPECIMENS
Given the wide variety and range of unrelated goods that applicant has listed in the application, applicant must submit additional specimens to allow for a complete and accurate examination of the application and assessment of the registrability of the subject mark, in accordance with Rule 2.61(b). 37 C.F.R. § 2.61(b); see TMEP § 904.01(a). Moreover, applicant must also support with verifiable evidence proper actual use in commerce of the mark for all goods requested here. 15 U.S.C. §§ 1051(a), 1127; 37 C.F.R. §§ 2.34(a)(1)(iv), 2.56; TMEP §§ 904, 904.07(a); cf. Grand Canyon W. Ranch LLC v. Hualapai Tribe, 78 USPQ2d 1696, 1698 (TTAB 2006) (“an applicant who bases its application on Section 1(a) (use in commerce) but who did not use the mark on some or all of the goods or services identified in the application may "cure" this problem by amending its basis to Section 1(b)”). The Trademark Act defines “commerce” as commerce that may be lawfully regulated by the U.S. Congress. See 15 U.S.C. §1127. “Use in commerce” means (1) the bona fide use of a mark in the ordinary course of trade (and not merely to reserve a right in the mark), (2) the mark is placed in any manner on the goods, packaging, tags or labels, or displays of the goods at their point of sale, and (3) the goods are actually sold or transported in commerce. See 15 U.S.C. §1127.
Please note that for every specimen submitted, applicant must clearly provide the common commercial name for the goods to which such specimen relates in order to permit proper examination of the goods.
Applicant should submit specimens demonstrating use of the mark on all of the following goods:
1. Downloadable computer application software for mobile phones, namely, software for use in database management, use in electronic storage of data;
2. Downloadable computer game software; Downloadable computer game software for use on mobile and cellular phones; Downloadable electronic game software for use on mobile and cellular phones, handheld computers;
3. Downloadable computer software for application and database integration;
4. Downloadable emoticons for mobile phones.
If applicant is unable to provide specimens to support use of these items, applicant must delete these entries, or amend the filing basis for those goods that were not in proper use as of the application filing date to an intent to use basis under Section 1(b). This option will later necessitate additional fees and filing requirements such as providing a specimen for these goods at a subsequent date.
RESPONSE GUIDELINES
For this application to proceed, applicant must explicitly address each refusal and/or requirement in this Office action. For a refusal, applicant may provide written arguments and evidence against the refusal, and may have other response options if specified above. For a requirement, applicant should set forth the changes or statements. Please see “Responding to Office Actions” and the informational video “Response to Office Action” for more information and tips on responding.
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.
/Jacob Vigil/
Trademark Examining Attorney
Law Office 103
571-270-3586
jacob.vigil@uspto.gov
RESPONSE GUIDANCE
