Suspension Letter

United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO)

Office Action (Official Letter) About Applicant’s Trademark Application

 

 

 

SUSPENSION NOTICE

No Response Required

 

 

Issue date:  January 11, 2021

 

 

The application is suspended for the reason specified below.  See 37 C.F.R. §2.67; TMEP §§716 et seq. 

 

The pending application below has an earlier filing date or effective filing date than applicant’s application.  If the mark in the application(s) below registers, the USPTO may refuse registration of applicant’s mark under Section 2(d) because of a likelihood of confusion with the registered mark.  15 U.S.C. §1052(d); see 37 C.F.R. §2.83; TMEP §1208.02(c).  Action on this application is suspended until the prior-filed application below either registers or abandons.  37 C.F.R. §2.83(c).  Information relevant to the application below was sent previously.

 

            - U.S. Application Serial No. 88730537

 

Suspension process.  The USPTO will periodically check this application to determine if it should remain suspended.  See TMEP §716.04.  As needed, the trademark examining attorney will issue a letter to applicant to inquire about the status of the reason for the suspension.  TMEP §716.05. 

 

No response required.  Applicant may file a response, but is not required to do so. 

 

 

Please note that the amended identification of goods and services submitted is accepted. However, the Section 2(d) refusal is maintained and continued in that the respective marks, all AMP, are identical, and in that the respective software goods and services are either identical or highly related. In this regard, please note that the applicant’s software goods and services and the registrant’s software services in cited U.S. Registration 6044791 are all specifically for managing and sharing patient medical information/data and for tracking patient progress rendering confusion particularly likely in this regard.  Moreover, the applicant’s software goods and services for “controlling and managing patient medical information” are presumably software goods and services for use in database management of patient medical information for controlling and managing the same.  Accordingly, confusion is also highly likely regarding cited U.S. Registration Number 5299432 for software services for use in database management in the field of healthcare, presumably software services for use in database management of patient medical information in the field of healthcare. In any event, 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 services needed to support a finding of likelihood of confusion declines.  See In re Country Oven, Inc., 2019 USPQ2d 443903, at *5 (TTAB 2019) (citing In re i.am.symbolic, llc, 116 USPQ2d 1406, 1411 (TTAB 2015), aff’d, 866 F.3d 1315, 123 USPQ2d 1744 (Fed. Cir. 2017)); TMEP §1207.01(a); see also In re Shell Oil Co., 992 F.2d 1204, 1207, 26 USPQ2d 1687, 1689 (Fed. Cir. 1993).

 

 

Nonetheless, the applicant argues that confusion is unlikely in that the respective software goods and services are marketed to different consumers.  The examiner finds this argument unpersuasive in that neither the applicant’s goods and services, nor the registrants’ services, are limited to any particular channel of trade or consumer.  Please again note that where the respective goods and services of the parties have no restrictions as to nature, type, channels of trade, or classes of purchasers, as in this instance, they 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)). 

 

Finally, the applicant argues that confusion is unlikely due to the existence of other third-party marks featuring the term AMP or AMPS.  The examiner finds this argument unpersuasive in that the third-party marks referenced by the applicant are for different goods and services, such as software services for athlete management or testing and optimizing websites.  In any event, third-party registrations are entitled to little weight on the issue of confusing similarity because the registrations are “not evidence that the registered marks are actually in use or that the public is familiar with them.”  In re Midwest Gaming & Entm’t LLC, 106 USPQ2d 1163, 1167 n.5 (TTAB 2013) (citing In re Mighty Leaf Tea, 601 F.3d 1342, 1346, 94 USPQ2d 1257, 1259 (Fed. Cir. 2010)); see TMEP §1207.01(d)(iii).  Moreover, the existence on the register of other seemingly similar marks does not provide a basis for registrability for the applied-for mark.  AMF Inc. v. Am. Leisure Prods., Inc., 474 F.2d 1403, 1406, 177 USPQ 268, 269 (C.C.P.A. 1973); In re Total Quality Grp., Inc., 51 USPQ2d 1474, 1477 (TTAB 1999). Additionally, prior decisions and actions of other trademark examining attorneys in applications for other marks have little evidentiary value and are not binding upon the USPTO or the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board.  TMEP §1207.01(d)(vi); see In re USA Warriors Ice Hockey Program, Inc., 122 USPQ2d 1790, 1793 n.10 (TTAB 2017).  Each case is decided on its own facts, and each mark stands on its own merits.  In re Cordua Rests., Inc., 823 F.3d 594, 600, 118 USPQ2d 1632, 1635 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (citing In re Shinnecock Smoke Shop, 571 F.3d 1171, 1174, 91 USPQ2d 1218, 1221 (Fed. Cir. 2009); In re Nett Designs, Inc., 236 F.3d 1339, 1342, 57 USPQ2d 1564, 1566 (Fed. Cir. 2001)).

 

 

 

 

/Zhaleh Delaney/

Trademark Attorney

Trademark Law Office 116

(571) 272-9153

Zhaleh.Delaney@uspto.gov

 

 

 

United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO)

 

USPTO OFFICIAL NOTICE

 

Office Action (Official Letter) has issued

on January 11, 2021 for

U.S. Trademark Application Serial No. 88867306

 

Your trademark application has been reviewed by a trademark examining attorney.  As part of that review, the assigned attorney has issued an official letter.  Please follow the steps below.

 

(1)  Read the official letter.  No response is necessary.

 

(2)  Direct questions about the contents of the Office action to the assigned attorney below. 

 

/Zhaleh Delaney/

Trademark Attorney

Trademark Law Office 116

(571) 272-9153

Zhaleh.Delaney@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).

 

 

 

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.”