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 15, 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.

 

 

 

SECTION 2(d) LIKELIHOOD OF CONFUSION REFUSAL

 

 

Registration of the applied-for mark is refused because of a likelihood of confusion with the mark in U.S. Registration No. 5095050.  Trademark Act Section 2(d), 15 U.S.C. §1052(d); see TMEP §§1207.01 et seq.  See the attached registration.

 

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. 

 

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).

 

 

Applicant’s mark is GREENROOM for Downloadable mobile applications for enabling individual users to take part in a live-produced video stream or produce a live video stream from a remote location to internet-based destinations and outlets and software as a service (SAAS) services featuring software for enabling individual users and others to self-produce and self-manage live stream video events to internet-based destinations and outlets; Software as a service (SAAS) services featuring software for enabling individual users and others to self-produce and self-manage live streamed video meetings and conferences to internet-based destinations and outlets; Software as a service (SAAS) services featuring software for enabling individual users to take part in a live-produced video stream from a remote location; Software as a service (SAAS) services featuring software for enabling individual users to produce live streamed video content with a mix of on-location participants and remote participants.   Registrant’s mark is GREENROOM, U.S. Registration No. 5095050 for Advertising services, public relations and marketing services, namely, promoting and marketing the goods and services of others through all public communication means; Advertising and marketing consultancy; Advertising and marketing services provided by means of indirect methods of marketing communications, namely, social media, search engine marketing, inquiry marketing, internet marketing, mobile marketing, blogging and other forms of passive, sharable or viral communications channels; Advertising and marketing services, namely, promoting the goods and services of others; Advertising, marketing and promotion services; Cooperative advertising and marketing; Cooperative advertising and marketing services by way of solicitation, customer service and providing marketing information via web sites on a global computer network; Creative marketing design services; Development of marketing strategies and concepts; Development of marketing strategies, concepts and tactics, namely, audience development, brand awareness, online community building and digital word of mouth communications; Direct marketing services; Marketing plan development; Marketing research; Marketing and branding services, namely, providing customized communication programs to obtain consumer insights and develop branding strategies; Marketing the goods and services of others; On-line customer-based social media brand marketing services; Preparing audiovisual presentations for use in advertising; Preparing audiovisual presentations for use in marketing; Preparing speeches and oral presentations for others for use in advertising; Preparing speeches and oral presentations for others for use in marketing; Promoting, advertising and marketing on-line web sites of others; Promotional marketing services using audiovisual media; Providing information in the field of marketing and on-line marketing media via the Internet; Providing marketing consulting in the field of social media; Social media strategy and marketing consultancy focusing on helping clients create and extend their product and brand strategies by building virally engaging marketing solutions; Web site optimization and for Training courses in strategic planning relating to advertising, promotion, marketing and business; Training in the field of design, advertising and communication technologies; Video editing; Video production services; Film and video production; Media production services, namely, video and film production; Post-production editing services in the field of music, videos and film; Production of humorous videos for the Internet.

 

The applicant’s mark is made up of part of the registered mark, namely, GREENROOM.  Although applicant’s mark does not contain the entirety of the registered mark, applicant’s mark is likely to appear to prospective purchasers as a shortened form of registrant’s mark.  See In re Mighty Leaf Tea, 601 F.3d 1342, 1348, 94 USPQ2d 1257, 1260 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (quoting United States Shoe Corp., 229 USPQ 707, 709 (TTAB 1985)).  Thus, merely omitting some of the wording from a registered mark may not overcome a likelihood of confusion.  See In re Mighty Leaf Tea, 601 F.3d 1342, 94 USPQ2d 1257; In re Optica Int’l, 196 USPQ 775, 778 (TTAB 1977); TMEP §1207.01(b)(ii)-(iii).  In this case, applicant’s mark does not create a distinct commercial impression from the registered mark because it contains some of the wording in the registered mark and does not add any wording that would distinguish it from that mark.

 

Additionally, the applicant’s software as a service services are likely to be offered side by side with video production services. The goods and services of the parties in question are likely to travel through the same channels of trade and they are likely to be encountered by the same consumers.  Those consumers when coming across the goods and services of the two parties are likely to believe that they derive from the same and not from different sources.   Therefore, likelihood of confusion may occur.

 

The examining attorney attaches evidence in the nature of Trademark Registrations featuring the services in question that are offered together in connection with same marks.   The evidence is intended to support a section 2(d) refusal.

 

 

Therefore, for the reasons listed above registration is refused under section 2(d) of the Trademarks Act.

 

 

How to respond.  Click to file a response to this nonfinal Office action.    

 

 

/Blandu, Florentina/

Examining Attorney

U.S. Patent & Trademark Office

L.O.117

Florentina.Blandu@uspto.gov

Tel 571-272-9128

Fax 571-273-9128

 

 

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 15, 2020 for

U.S. Trademark Application Serial No. 90175444

 

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. 

 

 

/Blandu, Florentina/

Examining Attorney

U.S. Patent & Trademark Office

L.O.117

Florentina.Blandu@uspto.gov

Tel 571-272-9128

Fax 571-273-9128

 

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 15, 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.”