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:  March 12, 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:

 

• Partial Section 2(d) Refusal – Likelihood of Confusion
• Partial Refusal Advisory – Section 2(d) Refusal
• Amended Description of Mark Required
• Amended Identification of Goods and Services Required
• Multiple-Class Application Requirements

 

 

PARTIAL SECTION 2(d) REFUSAL – LIKELIHOOD OF CONFUSION

 

THIS PARTIAL REFUSAL APPLIES ONLY TO THE CLASS SPECIFIED THEREIN

 

Applicant has applied for the mark TITAN (in special form) for “Oil and gas well stimulation equipment, namely, equipment for hydraulic fracturing of oil and gas wells; oil and gas well equipment for hydraulic fracturing of oil and gas wells, namely, a mobile oil and gas well stimulation system having a turbine and a coupled fluid pump for supplying fracturing fluid to oil and gas wells” in International Class 7; and “Oil and gas well stimulation services, namely, hydraulic fracturing; oil and gas well stimulation services, namely, supplying fracturing fluid to oil and gas wells using mobile modules having a turbine and a coupled fluid pump” in International Class 37.

 

Please note that the stated refusal refers to “Oil and gas well stimulation services, namely, hydraulic fracturing; oil and gas well stimulation services, namely, supplying fracturing fluid to oil and gas wells using mobile modules having a turbine and a coupled fluid pump” in International Class 37 only and does not bar registration for the goods in International Class 7.

 

Registration of the applied-for mark is refused because of a likelihood of confusion with the marks in U.S. Registration Nos. 2757326, 3422177, and 3422489.  Trademark Act Section 2(d), 15 U.S.C. §1052(d); see TMEP §§1207.01 et seq.  See the attached registrations.

 

Registrant’s marks are:

 

1. TITAN (U.S. Registration No. 2757326) (in typed form) for “Oil well treatment, namely, oil recovery from geogenic reservoirs” in International Class 40 (“Cited Registration No. 1”);

 

2. TITAN OIL RECOVERY, INC. (U.S. Registration No. 3422177) (in special form) with “OIL RECOVERY, INC.” disclaimed for “Oil and gas well treatment; Oil production services” in International Class 40 (“Cited Registration No. 2”); and

 

3. TITAN PROCESS (U.S. Registration No. 3422489) (in standard character form) with “PROCESS” disclaimed for “Oil and gas well treatment; Oil production services” in International Class 40 (“Cited Registration No. 3”).

 

Cited Registration Nos. 1, 2 and 3 are owned by Titan Oil Recover, Inc, a Delaware corporation.

 

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 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 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 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).

 

In the present case, applicant’s mark is TITAN, Cited Registration No. 1 is TITAN, Cited Registration No. 2 is TITAN OIL RECOVERY, INC., and Cited Registration No. 3 is TITAN PROCESS.  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 Detroit Athletic Co., 903 F.3d 1297, 1305, 128 USPQ2d 1047, 1050 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (citing In re Dixie Rests., 105 F.3d 1405, 1407, 41 USPQ2d 1531, 1533-34 (Fed. Cir. 1997)); TMEP §1207.01(b)(viii), (c)(ii).  Greater weight is often given to this dominant feature when determining whether marks are confusingly similar.  See In re Detroit Athletic Co., 903 F.3d at 1305, 128 USPQ2d at 1050 (citing In re Dixie Rests., 105 F.3d at 1407, 41 USPQ2d at 1533-34).  In this case, the literal element of applicant’s mark is identical to the mark in Cited Registration No. 1.

 

Further, 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”).  In this case, the first word of Cited Registration Nos. 2 and 3 are “TITAN”, which is identical to the literal element of applicant’s mark.

 

Although Cited Registration Nos. 2 and 3 contain additional wording, disclaimed matter that is descriptive of or generic for a party’s 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).  In this case, Cited Registration No. 2 has disclaimed “OIL RECOVERY, INC.” and Cited Registration No. 3 has disclaimed “PROCESS”.  Thus, the wording “TITAN” is dominant for purposes of the likelihood of confusion analysis for each of these marks.

 

Although applicant’s mark and Cited Registration No. 2 contain design elements, 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 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)).  Thus, the literal element of applicant’s mark, “TITAN”, and the literal element of Cited Registration No. 2, “TITAN OIL RECOVERY, INC.” is more dominant than the design for purposes of the likelihood of confusion analysis.

 

Additionally, Cited Registration Nos. 1 and 3 are in typed and standard character form, which 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, such as applicant’s mark, generally will not avoid likelihood of confusion with a mark in typed and standard character form, such as Cited Registration Nos. 1 and 2, 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”).

 

Therefore, applicant’s mark and registrant’s marks share the same commercial impression and are confusingly similar.

 

Comparison of Services

 

The services are compared to determine whether they are similar, commercially related, or travel in the same trade channels.  See Coach Servs., Inc. v. Triumph Learning LLC, 668 F.3d 1356, 1369-71, 101 USPQ2d 1713, 1722-23 (Fed. Cir. 2012); Herbko Int’l, Inc. v. Kappa Books, Inc., 308 F.3d 1156, 1165, 64 USPQ2d 1375, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2002); TMEP §§1207.01, 1207.01(a)(vi).

 

The compared 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 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 from Halliburton, Schlumberger, and Superior establishes that the same entity commonly or provides the relevant services and markets the services under the same mark.  Thus, applicant’s and registrant’s 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).

 

The trademark examining attorney has also attached evidence from the USPTO’s X-Search database consisting of a number of third-party marks registered for use in connection with the same or similar services as those of both applicant and registrant in this case.  This evidence shows that the services listed therein, namely, well stimulation and fracturing services, well treatment and oil production services, are of a kind that may emanate from a single source under a single mark.  See In re I-Coat Co., 126 USPQ2d 1730, 1737 (TTAB 2018) (citing In re Infinity Broad. Corp., 60 USPQ2d 1214, 1217-18 (TTAB 2001); In re Albert Trostel & Sons Co.,29 USPQ2d 1783, 1785-86 (TTAB 1993); In re Mucky Duck Mustard Co., 6 USPQ2d 1467, 1470 n.6 (TTAB 1988)); TMEP §1207.01(d)(iii).

 

Since the marks are similar and the services are related, there is a likelihood of confusion as to the source of the services.  Therefore, applicant’s mark is refused registration under Section 2(d) of the Trademark Act.

 

Partial Refusal Advisory – Section 2(d) Refusal

 

The stated refusal refers to the following services and does not bar registration for the goods:  “Oil and gas well stimulation services, namely, hydraulic fracturing; oil and gas well stimulation services, namely, supplying fracturing fluid to oil and gas wells using mobile modules having a turbine and a coupled fluid pump” in International Class 37.

 

Applicant may respond to the stated refusal by submitting evidence and arguments against the refusal.  In addition, applicant may respond by doing one of the following:

 

(1)  Deleting the services to which the refusal pertains; or

 

(2)  Filing a Request to Divide Application form (form #3) to divide out the goods that have not been refused registration, so that the mark may proceed toward publication for opposition for those goods to which the refusal does not pertain.  See 37 C.F.R. §2.87.  See generally TMEP §§1110 et seq. (regarding the requirements for filing a request to divide).  If applicant files a request to divide, then to avoid abandonment, applicant must also file a timely response to all outstanding issues in this Office action, including the refusal.  37 C.F.R. §2.87(e).

 

 

If applicant responds to the refusal, applicant must also respond to the requirements set forth below.

 

 

AMENDED DESCRIPTION OF MARK REQUIRED

 

Applicant must submit an amended description of the mark because the current one uses broad, vague language that does not accurately describe the mark.  37 C.F.R. §2.37; see TMEP §§808.01, 808.02.  Descriptions must be accurate and identify all the literal and design elements in the mark.  See 37 C.F.R. §2.37; TMEP §808.02.  In this case, the wording “where there is a partial cut-out beginning at the bottom and extending upward in the leaf” is vague because this language may also be a reference to the border of the leaf.  Applicant may delete this wording because it does not appear to be necessary for the mark description. 

 

The following description is suggested, if accurate: 

 

The mark consists of the stylized word “TITAN” with a stylized leaf design extending outwardly from within the upper right portion of the letter “N” in “TITAN”.

 

 

AMENDED IDENTIFICATION OF GOODS AND SERVICES REQUIRED

 

The wording in the identification of goods and services must be clarified as indicated below.  See 37 C.F.R. §2.32(a)(6); TMEP §§1402.01, 1402.03. 

 

First, the wording “oil and gas well stimulation equipment, namely, equipment for hydraulic fracturing of oil and gas wells” in International Class 7 is indefinite and too broad.  The wording must be clarified because the nature of the goods are not clear and could identify goods in more than one international class.  See 37 C.F.R. §2.32(a)(6); TMEP §§1402.01, 1402.03, 1904.02(c), (c)(ii).  For example, “high-pressure pumps for use in oil or gas well hydraulic fracturing operations” is in International Class 7, but “bridge plugs and fracturing plugs composed of plastic and synthetic rubber for controlling pressure or fluids downhole” is in International Class 20. 

 

Second, the identification for “oil and gas well equipment for hydraulic fracturing of oil and gas wells, namely, a mobile oil and gas well stimulation system having a turbine and a coupled fluid pump for supplying fracturing fluid to oil and gas wells” in International Class 7 is indefinite and too broad and must be clarified because the wording does not make clear the nature of the specific systems and could identify goods in more than one international class.  See 37 C.F.R. §2.32(a)(6); TMEP §1401.05(d).  For “systems,” applicants must (1) describe the nature, purpose, or use of the system; and (2) list system’s parts or components, using common generic terms and referencing the primary parts or components of the system first.  See 37 C.F.R. §2.32(a)(6); TMEP §§1401.05(d), 1402.01, 1402.03(a).  Additionally, “systems” are classified in the same international class as the primary parts or components of the system.  See TMEP §1401.05(d).  For example, “lawn-care systems comprised of herbicides, pesticides, and lawn sprinklers” are in International Class 5, and “lawn-care systems comprised of lawn mowers and herbicides” are in International Class 7.  In this case, applicant has identified the system as “having a turbine and a coupled fluid pump for supplying fracturing fluid to oil and gas wells.”  Thus, it is not clear if the system has additional components.  Applicant should replace the wording “having” with “comprised of” and list the system’s parts or components, using common generic terms and referencing the primary parts or components of the system first.

 

Applicant may substitute the following wording, if accurate (suggested language in bold): 

 

International Class 7:  Oil and gas well stimulation equipment in the nature of equipment for hydraulic fracturing of oil and gas wells, namely, {identify specific types of equipment used for hydraulic fracturing of oil and gas wells in Class 7, e.g., high-pressure pumps for use in oil or gas well hydraulic fracturing operations, slurry blender machines for use in oil or gas well hydraulic fracturing operations}; oil and gas well equipment for hydraulic fracturing of oil and gas wells, namely, a mobile oil and gas well stimulation system comprised of a {list all components of system} turbine and a coupled fluid pump for supplying fracturing fluid to oil and gas wells

 

International Class 20: Oil and gas well stimulation equipment in the nature of equipment for hydraulic fracturing of oil and gas wells, namely, {identify specific types of equipment used for hydraulic fracturing of oil and gas wells in Class 20, e.g.,  bridge plugs and fracturing plugs composed of plastic and synthetic rubber for controlling pressure or fluids downhole}

 

International Class 37:  Oil and gas well stimulation services, namely, hydraulic fracturing; oil and gas well stimulation services, namely, supplying fracturing fluid to oil and gas wells using mobile modules having a turbine and a coupled fluid pump

 

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.

 

 

MULTIPLE-CLASS APPLICATION REQUIREMENTS

 

The application identifies goods and services in more than one international class; therefore, applicant must satisfy all the requirements below for each international class based on Trademark Act Section 1(b):

 

(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 already paid (view the USPTO’s current fee schedule).  The application identifies goods and services that are classified in at least three (3) classes; however, applicant submitted fees sufficient for only two (2) classes.  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.

 

The USPTO changed the federal trademark rules to eliminate the TEAS RF application, which is now considered a “TEAS Standard” application.  See 37 C.F.R. §2.6(a)(iii).  The fee for adding classes to a TEAS Standard application is $275 per class.  See id.  For more information about these changes, see the Mandatory Electronic Filing webpage.

 

 

RESPONSE GUIDELINES

 

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 requirements 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.    

 

 

/Pauline Ha/

Examining Attorney

Law Office 115

(571) 272-5005

pauline.ha@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 March 12, 2020 for

U.S. Trademark Application Serial No. 88721058

 

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. 

 

 

/Pauline Ha/

Examining Attorney

Law Office 115

(571) 272-5005

pauline.ha@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 March 12, 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.”