To: | Atlantic Diamond Tools, Inc. (trademark@sencoretools.com) |
Subject: | U.S. Trademark Application Serial No. 90001275 - SENCORE - N/A |
Sent: | September 21, 2020 02:55:10 PM |
Sent As: | ecom125@uspto.gov |
Attachments: | Attachment - 1 Attachment - 2 Attachment - 3 |
United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO)
Office Action (Official Letter) About Applicant’s Trademark Application
U.S. Application Serial No. 90001275
Mark: SENCORE
|
|
Correspondence Address: |
|
Applicant: Atlantic Diamond Tools, Inc.
|
|
Reference/Docket No. N/A
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 partially 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: September 21, 2020
The referenced application has been reviewed by the assigned trademark examining attorney. Applicant must respond timely and completely to the issue 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
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. 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
The applied-for mark is SENCORE in standard characters.
The registered mark is SENCOR (Reg. No. 5763694) in standard characters.
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 this case, the applied-for and registered marks are each comprised of the nearly identical wording “SENCORE” and “SENCOR”. Marks may be confusingly similar in appearance where similar terms or phrases or similar parts of terms or phrases appear in the compared marks and create a similar overall commercial impression. See Crocker Nat’l Bank v. Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce, 228 USPQ 689, 690-91 (TTAB 1986), aff’d sub nom. Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce v. Wells Fargo Bank, Nat’l Ass’n, 811 F.2d 1490, 1495, 1 USPQ2d 1813, 1817 (Fed. Cir. 1987) (finding COMMCASH and COMMUNICASH confusingly similar); In re Corning Glass Works, 229 USPQ 65, 66 (TTAB 1985) (finding CONFIRM and CONFIRMCELLS confusingly similar); In re Pellerin Milnor Corp., 221 USPQ 558, 560 (TTAB 1983) (finding MILTRON and MILLTRONICS confusingly similar); TMEP §1207.01(b)(ii)-(iii).
The slight difference in spelling does not obviate the similarity of the marks. The marks are essentially phonetic equivalents and thus sound similar. Similarity in sound alone may be sufficient to support a finding that the marks are 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)(iv).
As a result, the marks are confusingly similar and share the same overall commercial impression.
COMPARISON OF GOODS
The applicant’s relevant goods are identified as “vacuum cleaners and parts therefor, namely, hoses, nozzles, tubes, dust bags and air filters” in Class 7.
The registrant’s relevant goods are identified as “vacuum cleaners; dust filters and bags for vacuum cleaners; vacuum cleaner attachments” in Class 7.
In this case, the application and registration have identified identical goods, in particular vacuum cleaners and dust bags and filters for vacuum cleaners. Therefore, it is presumed that the channels of trade and class(es) of purchasers are the same for these goods. See Cai v. Diamond Hong, Inc., 901 F.3d 1367, 1372, 127 USPQ2d 1797, 1801 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (quoting In re Viterra Inc., 671 F.3d 1358, 1362, 101 USPQ2d 1905, 1908 (Fed. Cir. 2012)). Moreover, the registrant’s broad identification for vacuum cleaner attachments encompasses the applicant’s narrower identifications for vacuum cleaner hoses, nozzles, and tubes, each of which are specific types of attachments for vacuum cleaners. 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 related.
In summary, applicant’s and registrant’s marks create the same commercial impression and their respective goods are sufficiently related such that consumers are likely to be confused by the use of similar marks on or in connection with these goods. Accordingly, registration must be refused under Section 2(d) of the Trademark Act.
PARTIAL REFUSAL RESPONSE OPTIONS
(1) Deleting the goods to which the refusal pertains;
(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 or services 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).; or
(3) Amending the basis for the goods identified in the refusal, if appropriate. TMEP §806.03(h). (The basis cannot be changed for applications filed under Trademark Act Section 66(a). TMEP §1904.01(a).)
PARTIAL ABANDONMENT ADVISORY
If applicant does not timely respond to this Office action, the following goods in International Class 7 will be deleted from the application:
Class 7: vacuum cleaners and parts therefor, namely, hoses, nozzles, tubes, dust bags and air filters
The application will then proceed with the following goods in International Class 7 only:
Class 7: Machines, namely, power-operated wood saws, power-operated concrete saws, blades for power-operated saws, saw blades for power saws; water pumps for use in motors and engines, power-operated wall saws, power-operated road saws, power-operated floor saws, power-operated tile and masonry saws, power cutters, namely, power-operated handheld cutting machines for cutting stone and concrete, core drilling machines, drill stands for machines, diamond pointed cutting tools, namely, segmented diamond power saw blades, continuous rim diamond power saw blades, diamond tipped power saw blades; power saw blades, namely, diamond wires for use in power saws and power cutters, diamond pointed core drilling bits; walk-behind power machines for cutting concrete and stone; power operated grinders; surface preparation equipment, namely, preparation, repair, polishing and grinding machines for concrete and terrazzo floors; grinding machines for grinding concrete and floors; power operated polishing machines; electric and petrol driven motors for machines; structural parts of electric motor parts and petrol driven motor for outdoor power products, namely, oil and fuel filters, nut flanges, bearing bushings, pins, fuel hoses, bearing covers, clutch covers, fly wheels, clutch drum assays, crank shafts; engines for outdoor power products not for land vehicles; plate compactor machines
See 37 C.F.R. §2.65(a)-(a)(1); TMEP §718.02(a).
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.
DOMESTIC PRO SE APPLICANT – COUNSEL SUGGESTED
Because of the legal technicalities and strict deadlines of the trademark application process, applicant is encouraged to hire a private attorney who specializes in trademark matters to assist in this process. The assigned trademark examining attorney can provide only limited assistance explaining the content of an Office action and the application process. USPTO staff cannot provide legal advice or statements about an applicant’s legal rights. TMEP §§705.02, 709.06. See Hiring a U.S.-licensed trademark attorney for more information.
ASSISTANCE
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.
Justin Miller
/Justin Miller/
Trademark Examining Attorney Law Office 125
(571) 272-6040
justin.miller@uspto.gov
RESPONSE GUIDANCE