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:  November 09, 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:

 

·       Section 2(d) Refusal – Likelihood of Confusion

·       Specimen Does Not Show Use in Commerce

·       Information About Specimen Required

·       Amend Mark Description

 

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. 5148150. 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 SENTRY for “Biometric identity cards; Cards encoded with security features for identification purposes; Encoded electronic chip cards containing programming used to Interact with downloadable software, namely, software for use in remotely accessing biometric fingerprint reader stations and systems, interact with short-range wireless and near field communications technology, and Interact with access systems and controls, including both physical and logical security systems; Encoded electronic chip cards for Use as secure proof of identity and access keys for use with computers, hand-held devices, mobile phone devices, wireless devices, wearables, blue-tooth enabled devices, and tablets, all enabled to store identification, biometrics, security, encryption, and access control data; Encoded identity cards; Radio frequency identification (RFID) credentials, namely, cards and tags, and readers for radio frequency identification credentials” in class 9.

 

Registrant’s mark is E SENTRY CONNECT for “near field communication (NFC) tags” in class 9.

 

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 goods 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 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 and differences in the marks.”); TMEP §1207.01.

 

Comparison of the 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 this case, the marks are similar because the entire literal element of the applied-for mark, SENTRY, is incorporated within the registered mark, E SENTRY CONNECT. Incorporating the entirety of one mark within another, as in the present case, does not obviate the similarity between the compared marks, nor does it overcome a likelihood of confusion under Section 2(d). See Wella Corp. v. Cal. Concept Corp., 558 F.2d 1019, 1022, 194 USPQ 419, 422 (C.C.P.A. 1977) (finding CALIFORNIA CONCEPT and surfer design and CONCEPT confusingly similar); Coca-Cola Bottling Co. v. Jos. E. Seagram & Sons, Inc., 526 F.2d 556, 557, 188 USPQ 105, 106 (C.C.P.A. 1975) (finding BENGAL LANCER and design and BENGAL confusingly similar); In re Integrated Embedded, 120 USPQ2d 1504, 1513 (TTAB 2016) (finding BARR GROUP and BARR confusingly similar); In re Mr. Recipe, LLC, 118 USPQ2d 1084, 1090 (TTAB 2016) (finding JAWS DEVOUR YOUR HUNGER and JAWS confusingly similar); TMEP §1207.01(b)(iii). In the present case, the marks are identical in part.

 

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). Disclaimed matter that is descriptive of or generic for a party’s goods 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 the present case, the disclaimer shows that the wording “E” and “CONNECT” in the registered mark is merely descriptive of or generic for the registrant’s goods. Thus, this wording is less significant in terms of affecting the mark’s commercial impression, and renders the wording SENTRY the more dominant element of the registered mark.

 

Similarly, 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 goods. 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)). In this case, therefore, SENTRY is the dominant portion of the applied-for mark.

 

Comparison of the Goods

 

The goods 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 determination of the likelihood of confusion is based on the description of the goods stated in the application and registration at issue, not on extrinsic evidence of actual use. See In re Detroit Athletic Co., 903 F.3d 1297, 1307, 128 USPQ2d 1047, 1052 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (citing In re i.am.symbolic, llc, 866 F.3d 1315, 1325, 123 USPQ2d 1744, 1749 (Fed. Cir. 2017)).

 

In this case, the application uses broad wording to describe “Radio frequency identification (RFID) credentials, namely, cards and tags,” which presumably encompasses all goods of the type described, including the registrant’s more specific “near field communication (NFC) tags.” 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). As the attached articles from How Stuf Works and Blue Bite demonstrate, NFC technology is a subset of RFID technology. 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 overlapping goods are related.

 

The attached evidence, which demonstrates the use of the marks NXP and HID Global on various types of electronic chip cards and tags, establishes that the same entity commonly produces the relevant goods and markets them under a single mark. Thus, applicant’s and registrant’s goods 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).

 

Therefore, upon encountering the relevant marks used in connection with the relevant goods, consumers are likely to be confused and mistakenly believe that the respective goods emanate from a common source. Consequently, registration is refused under Section 2(d).

 

Applicant should note the following additional ground for refusal.

 

Specimen Does Not Show Use in Commerce

 

Registration is refused because the specimen appears to consist of a digitally created or altered image or a mockup of a depiction of the mark on the goods or their packaging and does not show the applied-for mark as actually used in commerce. Trademark Act Sections 1 and 45, 15 U.S.C. §§1051, 1127; 37 C.F.R. §§2.34(a)(1)(iv), 2.56(a), (c); TMEP §§904.04(a), 904.07(a).

 

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. 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, the product image lacks definition and has unusually sharp edges, in the manner of a digital rendering. Therefore, the submitted specimen cannot be accepted.

 

Applicant may respond to the specimen refusal by satisfying one of the following options for each applicable international class: 

 

(1)       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 and (b) shows the mark in actual use in commerce for the goods identified in the application. 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 specimen(s) was/were in use in commerce at least as early as the filing date of the application.” 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.

 

(2)       Amend the filing basis to intent to use under Section 1(b), for which no specimen is required before publication. This option will later necessitate additional fee(s) and filing requirements, including a specimen.

 

If applicant submits an acceptable verified substitute specimen or amends to Section 1(b), the requirement below for additional information/documentation about the original specimen will be withdrawn. The requirement below as to the original specimen will be made final if applicant submits a substitute specimen that is not acceptable or does not amend to Section 1(b), and also does not respond completely to the requirement below.

 

Although applicant’s mark has been refused registration, applicant may respond to the refusals by submitting evidence and arguments in support of registration. However, if applicant responds to the refusals, applicant must also respond to the requirements set forth below.

 

Information About Specimen Required

 

To permit proper examination of the application record for compliance with use in commerce requirements, applicant must respond to the following requests for information and documentation about the specimen(s). See 37 C.F.R. §2.61(b); TMEP §814. A specimen must show the mark as actually used in commerce, which means use in the ordinary course of trade, and not merely to reserve a right in the trademark. 15 U.S.C. §§1051, 1052, 1127. Because the specimen of record appears to be digitally created or altered, or is a mockup, further information is necessary to determine whether the specimen is in actual use in commerce.

 

Answer for each specimen/photograph/image previously provided. For any website source, provide a digital copy of the entire webpage from top to bottom, as rendered in an Internet browser, that includes the URL and access or print date. TMEP §710.01(b) (citing In re I-Coat Co., 126 USPQ2d 1730, 1733 (TTAB 2018)).

 

(1)             Identify the particular good(s) listed in the application for which the specimen(s) was submitted to show use of the mark.

 

(2)             Explain whether the specimen was created for submission with this application. If so, specify the date each specimen was created. If applicant used the image(s) of the goods shown in the specimen(s) from a third-party website, provide the URL of the website and a digital copy of relevant webpage(s) for each image.

 

(3)             For the goods pictured in the specimen, provide documentation that shows payment or other consideration made for the goods (preferably dating prior to the application filing date), redacting personal or private information of buyers as necessary.

 

(4)             Provide information about and examples of how applicant’s goods appear in the actual sales environment. For each source, specify when the goods were first available for sale and if the goods are still available for sale in that environment.

 

(a)             If sold in stores, provide a representative sample of the name(s) of the stores and of photographs showing the goods for sale in the named stores, such as photographs of the sales displays or goods on shelves with the mark.

 

(b)             If sold online, provide a representative sample of the name(s) of the online retailers, the website URL(s) for each named retailer, and a digital copy of the webpages showing the goods for sale on the named website.

 

(c)             If sold in another type of sales environment (e.g., catalogs, trade shows), identify the environment and provide photographs and/or documentation showing the goods for sale in that environment.

 

If any of the information or documentation listed above is unavailable to applicant, please provide an explanation of the circumstances resulting in such unavailability and, to the best of applicant’s ability, a summary or description of the required information or documentation. In re Planalytics, Inc., 70 USPQ2d 1453, 1457 n.2 (TTAB 2004).

 

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).

 

Mark Description

 

Applicant must submit an amended description of the mark because the current one is incomplete and does not describe all the significant aspects of 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 et seq. 

 

The following description is suggested, if accurate: “The mark consists of a hexagon design followed by the wording “SENTRY”. The hexagon is made up of chevron shapes, which are intertwined around a blank hexagonal negative space, to make a vortex-like image.”

 

Advisory – Responding to a Non-Final Office Action

 

For this application to proceed, applicant must explicitly address each refusal and/or requirement in this Office action.

 

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(s) and/or requirement(s) 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.

 

Click to file a response to this nonfinal Office action.    

 

 

/Sara Anne Helmers/

Sara Helmers (she/her)

Trademark Examining Attorney

Law Office 126

571-270-3639

Sara.Helmers@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 November 09, 2020 for

U.S. Trademark Application Serial No. 90069863

 

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. 

 

 

/Sara Anne Helmers/

Sara Helmers (she/her)

Trademark Examining Attorney

Law Office 126

571-270-3639

Sara.Helmers@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 November 09, 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.”