To: | Proprio, Inc. (IP@foster.com) |
Subject: | U.S. Trademark Application Serial No. 90072799 - PRISM - 24774-62003 |
Sent: | November 10, 2020 04:25:54 PM |
Sent As: | ecom130@uspto.gov |
Attachments: | Attachment - 1 Attachment - 2 Attachment - 3 Attachment - 4 Attachment - 5 Attachment - 6 Attachment - 7 Attachment - 8 Attachment - 9 Attachment - 10 Attachment - 11 Attachment - 12 Attachment - 13 Attachment - 14 Attachment - 15 Attachment - 16 Attachment - 17 Attachment - 18 Attachment - 19 Attachment - 20 Attachment - 21 Attachment - 22 Attachment - 23 Attachment - 24 Attachment - 25 Attachment - 26 Attachment - 27 Attachment - 28 Attachment - 29 Attachment - 30 Attachment - 31 Attachment - 32 |
United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO)
Office Action (Official Letter) About Applicant’s Trademark Application
U.S. Application Serial No. 90072799
Mark: PRISM
|
|
Correspondence Address:
|
|
Applicant: Proprio, Inc.
|
|
Reference/Docket No. 24774-62003
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: November 10, 2020
The referenced application has been reviewed by the assigned trademark examining attorney. Applicant must respond timely and completely to the issue(s) below. 15 U.S.C. §1062(b); 37 C.F.R. §§2.62(a), 2.65(a); TMEP §§711, 718.03.
Summary of Issues that Applicant Must Address
Refusal under Section 2(d) – Likelihood of Confusion
Registration of the applied-for mark is refused because of a likelihood of confusion with the marks in U.S. Registration Nos. 4682035, 5126515, 4101398, 4419769, 3327821, 3327820, 3327749, and 3543128. Trademark Act Section 2(d), 15 U.S.C. §1052(d); see TMEP §§1207.01 et seq. See the attached registrations.
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 and/or 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 goods and/or 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.
Applicant seeks to register the proposed mark PRISM. The cited registrations are for the marks PRISM, PRISM ACQUIRE, PRISM PROCESS, PRISM VIEW, PRISM TOUCH, PRISM FLOW, PRISMVIEW, and PRIZMIA. These marks are quite similar because they share the term PRISM and they create confusingly similar commercial impressions.
Applicant seeks to register its mark for “3D scanners; scanners; camera hardware system for scanning comprised of video cameras, display monitors, image sensors, 3D scanners, computers; 3D scanning equipment, namely, display monitors, computers, image sensors, video cameras, and operating system and application software for scanning 3D images, video capture and playback, providing virtual and mixed reality display, and data registration and integration; virtual reality headsets,” and “Optical apparatus and instruments, medical, dental and surgical Medical imaging apparatus in the nature of apparatus for imaging and 3D scanning for medical, dental, and surgical purposes.” Registrants’ goods are “Medical computer software for diagnostic imaging equipment, namely, for acquiring and processing radiologic images,” “Medical software for diagnostic imaging equipment, namely for interpreting the results of radiologic images,” “Mobile device applications for the healthcare industry, namely, computer application software for medical image acquisition, processing, and display; mobile device applications for the healthcare industry, namely, computer application software for providing patient education, medical education and clinical reference materials in the field of medical imaging,” “Medical software for controlling and interpreting radiological images, reports, and studies, and for transmitting and receiving radiological information between computer users,” “Digital signage display panels; digital signage monitors; mobile telephones; digital cameras; portable media players; portable computers; rechargeable batteries; battery chargers; tablet computers; television receivers; set-top boxes; DVD players; light emitting diode displays; computer monitors; television monitors; touchscreen monitors; 3D spectacles; computers; printers for computers; semiconductors,” and “Downloadable software for use with mobile electronic devices for the purpose of photo and video capturing and editing; Downloadable software in the nature of a mobile application for photo and video capturing and editing.” These goods are closely related because applicant imaging software and devices are overly broad and may include imaging software similar to the imaging software provided by the registrants and the imaging devices provided by one of the registrants.
In this case, the application uses broad wording to describe imaging software and devices, which presumably encompasses all goods and/or services of the type described, including registrants’ more narrow list of imaging software and devices. 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 and/or services 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 and/or services are related.
The overriding concern is not only to prevent buyer confusion as to the source of the goods and/or services, but to protect the registrant from adverse commercial impact due to use of a similar mark by a newcomer. See In re Shell Oil Co., 992 F.2d 1204, 1208, 26 USPQ2d 1687, 1690 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Therefore, any doubt regarding a likelihood of confusion determination is resolved in favor of the registrant. TMEP §1207.01(d)(i); see Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Packard Press, Inc., 281 F.3d 1261, 1265, 62 USPQ2d 1001, 1003 (Fed. Cir. 2002); In re Hyper Shoppes (Ohio), Inc., 837 F.2d 463, 464-65, 6 USPQ2d 1025, 1026 (Fed. Cir. 1988).
Although applicant’s mark has been refused registration, applicant may respond to the refusal(s) by submitting evidence and arguments in support of registration.
Prior Pending Applications
In response to this Office action, applicant may present arguments in support of registration by addressing the issue of the potential conflict between applicant’s mark and the marks in the referenced applications. Applicant’s election not to submit arguments at this time in no way limits applicant’s right to address this issue later if a refusal under Section 2(d) issues.
Identifications of Goods
The identifications of goods are indefinite and must be clarified because the applicant must specify that the software or programs are recorded or downloadable to maintain the items as goods in CLASS 9, and the optical apparatus and instruments in CLASS 10 requires additional information. See 37 C.F.R. §2.32(a)(6); TMEP §1402.01. Applicant must amend the identification to specify the common commercial or generic name of the goods. See TMEP §1402.01. If the goods have no common commercial or generic name, applicant must describe the product, its main purpose, and its intended uses. See id.
The following substitute wording is suggested, if appropriate: (Note that proposed changes have been placed in bold type. Some items require applicant to include more complete information. These have been designated with braces{ } and/or bold type. The information in the braces is suggested as an example for applicant to follow and should not be merely “cut and pasted.”):
· 3D scanners; scanners; camera hardware system for scanning comprised of video cameras, display monitors, image sensors, 3D scanners, computers; 3D scanning equipment, namely, display monitors, computers, image sensors, video cameras, and recorded operating system and recorded application software for scanning 3D images, video capture and playback, providing virtual and mixed reality display, and data registration and integration; virtual reality headsets, in INT. CLASS 9
· Optical apparatus and instruments for medical, dental and surgical purposes, namely, {specify device by common commercial name, e.g., Electromagnetic medical diagnostic imaging apparatus}; Medical imaging apparatus in the nature of apparatus for imaging and 3D scanning for medical, dental, and surgical purposes, in INT. CLASS 10.
Applicant may amend the identification to clarify or limit the goods and/or services, but not to broaden or expand the goods and/or 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/or 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.
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.
/Curtis W. French/
Curtis W. French
Trademark Examining Attorney
Law Office 130
571-272-9472
curtis.french@uspto.gov
RESPONSE GUIDANCE