United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO)
Office Action (Official Letter) About Applicant’s Trademark Application
|
U.S. Application Serial No. 90073912
Mark: SWS
|
|
|
Correspondence Address: 508 W. DIVERSEY PARKWAY, UNIT PH4
|
|
|
Applicant: Vision Applications, 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 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 16, 2020
Summary of Issues Applicant Must Address
(1) Refusal under Trademark Act Section 2(d) – Likelihood of Confusion;
(2) Requirement to Amend Identification of Goods/Services; and
(3) Requirement to Disclose Meaning of Mark
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. 2839381. Trademark Act Section 2(d), 15 U.S.C. §1052(d); see TMEP §§1207.01 et seq. See the enclosed registration.
Trademark Act Section 2(d) bars registration of an applied-for mark that so resembles a registered mark that it is likely a potential consumer would be confused, mistaken, or deceived as to the source of the goods and services of the applicant and registrant. See 15 U.S.C. §1052(d). A determination of likelihood of confusion under Section 2(d) is made on a case-by case basis and the factors set forth in In re E. I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., 476 F.2d 1357, 177 USPQ 563 (C.C.P.A. 1973) aid in this determination. Citigroup Inc. v. Capital City Bank Grp., Inc., 637 F.3d 1344, 1349, 98 USPQ2d 1253, 1256 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (citing On-Line Careline, Inc. v. Am. Online, Inc., 229 F.3d 1080, 1085, 56 USPQ2d 1471, 1474 (Fed. Cir. 2000)). Not all the du Pont factors, however, are necessarily relevant or of equal weight, and any one of the factors may control in a given case, depending upon the evidence of record. Citigroup Inc. v. Capital City Bank Grp., Inc., 637 F.3d at 1355, 98 USPQ2d at 1260; In re Majestic Distilling Co., 315 F.3d 1311, 1315, 65 USPQ2d 1201, 1204 (Fed. Cir. 2003); see In re E. I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., 476 F.2d at 1361-62, 177 USPQ at 567.
In this case, the following factors are the most relevant: similarity of the marks, similarity and nature of the goods and services, and similarity of the trade channels of the goods and services. See In re Viterra Inc., 671 F.3d 1358, 1361-62, 101 USPQ2d 1905, 1908 (Fed. Cir. 2012); In re Dakin’s Miniatures Inc., 59 USPQ2d 1593, 1595-96 (TTAB 1999); TMEP §§1207.01 et seq.
A. Comparison of Marks
In this case, the applied-for mark SWS is identical to the registered mark SWS in sound, appearance and commercial impression.
B. Comparison of Goods and Services
Applicant’s “health and attendance screening software program for schools, universities, and businesses” is identical and closely related to the registrant’s “computers, computer hardware, computer and video monitors, computer workstations comprising computer hardware and computer software, computer memories, electrical controllers, computer keyboards, computer diskette storage drives, computer hard disks, internal and external backup drives for computers, mouse pads, computer printers, computer network hubs, switches, interface cards and routers, computer operating systems”, “scanners, electronic modules comprising assemblies of semiconductors, integrated circuits and printed circuit boards” and “computer software for operating or programming all of the aforementioned products” because they are computer software programs, including health and attendance screening software programs for schools, universities, and businesses and related computer/electronic products likely to travel through the same channels of trade to the same class of purchasers. For example, the goods are likely to be sold together in retail software and computer supply stores and advertised together in software and computer supply catalogs, directories and trade publications.
Furthermore, with respect to applicant’s and registrant’s goods and services, the question of likelihood of confusion is determined based on the description of the goods and services stated in the application and registration at issue, not on extrinsic evidence of actual use. See, e.g., Coach Servs., Inc. v. Triumph Learning LLC, 668 F.3d 1356, 1369-70, 101 USPQ2d 1713, 1722 (Fed. Cir. 2012); Octocom Sys. Inc. v. Hous. Computers Servs. Inc., 918 F.2d 937, 942, 16 USPQ2d 1783, 1787 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Absent restrictions in an application and/or registration, the identified goods and services 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)). Additionally, unrestricted and broad identifications are presumed to encompass all goods and services of the type described. See In re Jump Designs, LLC, 80 USPQ2d 1370, 1374 (TTAB 2006) (citing In re Elbaum, 211 USPQ 639, 640 (TTAB 1981)); In re Linkvest S.A., 24 USPQ2d 1716, 1716 (TTAB 1992).
In this case, the identifications set forth in the application and registration have no restrictions as to channels of trade or classes of purchasers. Therefore, it is presumed that these goods and services travel in all normal channels of trade and are available to the same class of purchasers.
Further, the registration uses broad wording to describe the goods and this wording is presumed to encompass all goods of the type described including (1) computer workstations comprising computer software for screening health and monitoring student and personnel attendance for use by schools, universities and businesses and (2) thermal scanners for screening health of students and personnel for use by schools, universities and businesses, which are identical and undeniably commercially-related to the applicant’s goods.
Notwithstanding the overlapping “computer software programs”, the trademark examining attorney has 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 goods as those of both applicant and registrant in this case. This evidence shows that the goods listed therein, namely, computer software, computer hardware and/or computers, including those relating to health and wellness, are of a kind that may emanate from a single source under a single mark. See In re Anderson, 101 USPQ2d 1912, 1919 (TTAB 2012); 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).
What’s more, where the marks of the respective parties are identical, the relationship between the relevant goods and services need not be as close to support a finding of likelihood of confusion. See In re Shell Oil Co., 992 F.2d 1204, 1207, 26 USPQ2d 1687, 1689 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Davey Prods. Pty Ltd., 92 USPQ2d 1198, 1202 (TTAB 2009); In re Thor Tech, Inc., 90 USPQ2d 1634, 1636 (TTAB 2009); TMEP §1207.01(a).
Finally, the overriding concern is not only to prevent buyer confusion as to the source of the goods and 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, 1025 (Fed. Cir. 1988).
Based on the foregoing remarks, because confusion as to source is likely, registration is refused under Trademark Act Section 2(d) based on a likelihood of confusion.
Although applicant’s mark has been refused registration, applicant may respond to the refusal by submitting evidence and arguments in support of registration.
If applicant responds to the refusal, applicant must also respond to the requirements set forth below.
The identification for “health and attendance screening software program” in International Class 42 is indefinite and too broad and must be amended to (1) clarify the purpose or function of the software; and (2) specify whether its format is downloadable, recorded, or online non-downloadable. See 37 C.F.R. §2.32(a)(6); TMEP §§1402.03(d), 1402.11(a). Downloadable and recorded goods are in International Class 9, whereas providing their temporary, online non-downloadable use is a service in International Class 42. See TMEP §§1402.03(d), 1402.11(a)(xii).
The USPTO requires such specificity in order for a trademark examining attorney to examine the application properly and make appropriate decisions concerning possible conflicts between the applicant’s mark and other marks. See In re N.A.D. Inc., 57 USPQ2d 1872, 1874 (TTAB 2000); TMEP §1402.03(d).
The applicant may adopt any or all of the following descriptions, if accurate:
“Downloadable and recorded computer software programs for screening health and monitoring student and personnel attendance for use by schools, universities and businesses”, in International Class 9; and/or
“Providing temporary use of on-line non-downloadable computer software programs for screening health and monitoring student and personnel attendance for use by schools, universities and businesses”, in International Class 42.
TMEP §1402.11.
For assistance with identifying and classifying goods and services in trademark applications, please see the online searchable Manual of Acceptable Identifications of Goods and Services at http://tess2.gov.uspto.report/netahtml/tidm.html. See TMEP §1402.04.
An applicant may only amend an identification to clarify or limit the goods and services, but not to add to or broaden the scope of the goods and services. 37 C.F.R. §2.71(a); see TMEP §§1402.06 et seq., 1402.07. Furthermore, any goods and services deleted by amendment may not be reinserted at a later point in prosecution. TMEP §1402.01(e).
(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 two classes; however, applicant submitted a fee sufficient for only one class. 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 fee for adding classes to a TEAS Standard application is $275 per class. See 37 C.F.R. §2.6(a)(1)(iii). For more information about adding classes to an application, see the Multiple-class Application webpage.
Significance of Mark
In this regard, upon information and belief, the lettering “SWS” in the applied-for mark stands for “School Wellness Screener”. See the attached sample Internet printout from applicant’s website.
Response Guidelines
For this application to proceed further, applicant must explicitly address each refusal and/or requirement raised in this Office action. If the action includes a refusal, applicant may provide arguments and/or evidence as to why the refusal should be withdrawn and the mark should register. Applicant may also have other options specified in this Office action for responding to a refusal and should consider those options carefully. To respond to requirements and certain refusal response options, applicant should set forth in writing the required changes or statements. For more information and general tips on responding to USPTO Office actions, response options, and how to file a response online, see “Responding to Office Actions” on the USPTO’s website.
If applicant does not respond to this Office action within six months of the issue/mailing date, or responds by expressly abandoning the application, the application process will end and the trademark will fail to register. See 15 U.S.C. §1062(b); 37 C.F.R. §§2.65(a), 2.68(a); TMEP §§718.01, 718.02. Additionally, the USPTO will not refund the application filing fee, which is a required processing fee. See 37 C.F.R. §§2.6(a)(1)(i)-(iv), 2.209(a); TMEP §405.04.
When an application has abandoned for failure to respond to an Office action, an applicant may timely file a petition to revive the application, which, if granted, would allow the application to return to active status. See 37 C.F.R. §2.66; TMEP §1714. The petition must be filed within two months of the date of issuance of the notice of abandonment and may be filed online via the Trademark Electronic Application System (TEAS) with a $100 fee. See 37 C.F.R. §§2.6(a)(15)(ii), 2.66(a)(1), (b)(1).
Advisory Regarding E-mail Communications
If applicant has questions regarding this Office action, please telephone or e-mail the assigned trademark examining attorney. All relevant e-mail communications will be placed in the official application record; however, an e-mail communication will not be accepted as a response to this Office action and will not extend the deadline for filing a proper response. See 37 C.F.R. §2.191; TMEP §§709.04-.05. Further, although the trademark examining attorney may provide additional explanation pertaining to the refusal(s) and/or requirement(s) in this Office action, the trademark examining attorney may not provide legal advice or statements about applicant’s rights. See TMEP §§705.02, 709.06.
Applicant May Wish to Seek Trademark Counsel
Because of the legal technicalities and strict deadlines involved in the USPTO application process, applicant may wish to hire a private attorney specializing in trademark matters to represent applicant in this process and provide legal advice. Although the undersigned trademark examining attorney is permitted to help an applicant understand the contents of an Office action as well as the application process in general, no USPTO attorney or staff is permitted to give an applicant legal advice or statements about an applicant’s legal rights. TMEP §§705.02, 709.06.
For attorney referral information, applicant may consult the American Bar Association’s Consumers’ Guide to Legal Help; an online directory of legal professionals, such as FindLaw®; or a local telephone directory. The USPTO, however, may not assist an applicant in the selection of a private attorney. 37 C.F.R. §2.11.
Miscellaneous
If applicant has questions about this application or needs assistance in responding to this Office action, please telephone the assigned trademark examining attorney directly at the number below.
How to respond. Click to file a response to this nonfinal Office action.
/David Yontef/
Trademark Examining Attorney
Law Office 118
(571) 272-8274
david.yontef@uspto.gov
RESPONSE GUIDANCE
