To: | ADC Solutions Auto, LLC (rbuyan@patlawyers.com) |
Subject: | U.S. Trademark Application Serial No. 90189600 - PROJUMP - ADCAU-022T |
Sent: | February 01, 2021 03:08:39 PM |
Sent As: | ecom108@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 |
United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO)
Office Action (Official Letter) About Applicant’s Trademark Application
U.S. Application Serial No. 90189600
Mark: PROJUMP
|
|
Correspondence Address: 23461 SOUTH POINTE DRIVE, SUITE 120
|
|
Applicant: ADC Solutions Auto, LLC
|
|
Reference/Docket No. ADCAU-022T
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: February 01, 2021
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.
SEARCH ADVISORY
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.
While applicant is not required to respond to the issue of the pending application, applicant must respond to the following refusals and the requirements within six months of the mailing date of this Office action to avoid abandonment.
SECTION 2(d) REFUSAL – LIKELIHOOD OF CONFUSION
Standard of Analysis for Section 2(d) Refusal
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.
Facts
Applicant has applied to register the mark PROJUMP for use on “Batteries and battery chargers; Battery charge devices; Battery chargers; Battery chargers for use with vehicle batteries, storage batteries and batteries for powering portable or hand held devices such as devices which receive power through USB, micro USB, mini USB, USB-A, and/or USB-C connections; computers; mobile phones; calculators; personal digital assistants; gaming consoles; camcorders; voice recorders; video players; cameras; electronic laser measuring devices; electronic wristwatches and timers; flashlights and lanterns; Battery charging devices for motor vehicles; Battery jump starters; Chargers for batteries; Chargers for electric batteries; Jumper cables; Carrying cases, holders, protective cases and stands featuring power supply connectors, adaptors, speakers and battery charging devices, specially adapted for use with handheld digital electronic devices, namely, devices which receive power through USB, micro USB, mini USB, USB-A, and/or USB-C connections; computers; mobile phones; calculators; personal digital assistants; gaming consoles; camcorders; voice recorders; video players; cameras; electronic laser measuring devices; electronic wristwatches and timers; Electrical storage batteries; Nickel-cadmium storage batteries; Rechargeable electric batteries” in International Class 09.
Registrant’s mark is THEPRO (in standard characters) for “Batteries and battery chargers; Battery charge devices; Battery chargers; Battery jump starters; Battery packs; Battery testers; Emergency auto kits comprised of a battery charger and a hand held spotlight; Power inverters; Rechargeable electric batteries; Renewable battery system to provide backup power” in International Class 09.
Similarity of 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).
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). Greater weight is often given to this dominant feature when determining whether marks are confusingly similar. See In re Detroit Athletic Co., 903 F.3d at 1305, 128 USPQ2d at 1050 (citing In re Dixie Rests., 105 F.3d at 1407, 41 USPQ2d at 1533-34).
In this case, applicant’s proposed mark is confusingly similar to the registered mark(s) because the marks share the dominant word PRO, which may be pronounced or displayed identically, thereby creating similarities in sound, appearance, and commercial impression.
While applicant’s proposed mark and registrant’s mark also contain additional wording, this wording does not obviate the similarities between the marks.
In the present case, the attached dictionary evidence shows that the wording JUMP in the applied-for mark is merely descriptive of or generic for the purpose or use for applicant’s goods, namely, batteries for a “jump-start of a motor vehicle.” Thus, this wording is less significant in terms of affecting the mark’s commercial impression, and renders the wording PRO the more dominant element of the mark.
Also, consumers are often known to use shortened forms of names, and it is highly likely that applicant’s and registrant’s mark would be referred to as the PRO range of goods. Cf. In re Abcor Development Corp., 588 F.2d 811, 200 USPQ 215, 219 (CCPA 1978) (Rich, J., concurring: “the users of language have a universal habit of shortening full names – from haste or laziness or just economy of words”).
Indeed, even if potential purchasers realize the apparent differences between the marks, they could still reasonably assume, due to the overall similarities in sound, appearance, connotation, and commercial impression in the respective marks, that applicant’s goods sold under the “PROJUMP” mark constitute a new or additional product line from the same source as the goods sold under the “THEPRO” mark with which they are acquainted or familiar, and that applicant’s proposed mark is merely a variation of registrant’s mark. See, e.g., SMS, Inc. v. Byn-Mar Inc., 228 USPQ 219, 220 (TTAB 1985) (applicant’s marks ALSO ANDREA and ANDREA SPORT were “likely to evoke an association by consumers with opposer’s preexisting mark [ANDREA SIMONE] for its established line of clothing.”).
Therefore, the marks are confusingly similar.
Relatedness of Goods
In this case, the goods in the application and registration(s) are identical as to “battery jump starters; battery chargers; battery charge devices.” 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)). Thus, applicant’s and registrant’s goods are related.
The registration also uses broad wording to describe “Batteries and battery chargers; Battery charge devices; Battery chargers; Battery packs; Battery testers; Emergency auto kits comprised of a battery charger and a hand held spotlight; Power inverters; Rechargeable electric batteries; Renewable battery system to provide backup power,” which presumably encompasses all goods of the type described, including applicant’s narrower “Battery chargers for use with vehicle batteries, storage batteries and batteries for powering portable or hand held devices such as devices which receive power through USB, micro USB, mini USB, USB-A, and/or USB-C connections; Battery charging devices for motor vehicles; Chargers for batteries; Chargers for electric batteries; Electrical storage batteries; Nickel-cadmium storage batteries; Rechargeable electric batteries.” 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 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 are related.
To the extent the evidence does not address all of applicant’s goods, relatedness does not have to be established for every good or service in an identification. It is sufficient for a finding of likelihood of confusion if relatedness is established for any or some item(s) encompassed by the identification within a particular class in an application. Tuxedo Monopoly, Inc. v. General Mills Fun Group, 648 F.2d 1335, 209 USPQ 986, 988 (CCPA 1981). In this case, relatedness has been established for many of the identified items, which is enough to show a likelihood of confusion.
In conclusion, because the marks are similar and the goods are related, there is a likelihood of confusion as to the source of applicant’s goods. Therefore, registration is refused pursuant to Section 2(d) of the Trademark Act.
CLASSIFICATION AND IDENTIFICATION OF GOODS AND SERVICES
Applicant has classified the following goods in International Class 09: “gaming consoles; flashlights and lanterns.” However, gaming apparatus is in Class 28 and lighting is in Class 11, respectively. Applicant will also need to modify the entries for “gaming console” and “lanterns” to make the exact type of good definite as shown below. See 37 C.F.R. §2.32(a)(6); TMEP §1402.01.
Applicant has also provided the application fee(s) for only one international class(es). Thus, not all international classes in the application are covered by the application fee(s). Because of this disparity, applicant must clarify the number of classes for which registration is sought. See 37 C.F.R. §§2.32(d), 2.86(a).
Applicant may respond by (1) adding one or more international class(es) to the application, and reclassifying the above goods accordingly; or (2) deleting from the application the goods for all but the number of international class(es) for which the application fee was submitted. See 37 C.F.R. §§2.86(a), 6.1; TMEP §§1403.02 et seq. If applicant adds one or more international classes to the application, applicant must comply with the multiple-class application requirements specified in this Office action.
If modifying one of the duplicate entries, applicant may amend it to clarify or limit the goods, but not to broaden or expand the goods beyond those in the original application or as acceptably amended. See 37 C.F.R. §2.71(a); TMEP §1402.06. Also, generally, any deleted goods may not later be reinserted. TMEP §1402.07(e).
Applicant may substitute the following wording, if accurate:
International Class 09: Batteries and battery chargers; Battery charge devices; Battery chargers; Battery chargers for use with vehicle batteries, electric storage batteries and batteries for powering portable or hand held devices, namely, devices which receive power through USB, micro USB, mini USB, USB-A, and/or USB-C connections in the nature of {specify exact type of devices}; computers; mobile phones; calculators; personal digital assistants; camcorders; digital voice recorders; video disc players; cameras; electronic laser measuring devices, namely, lasers for measuring; electronic wristwatches being smart watches and timers; Battery charging devices for motor vehicles; Battery jump starters; Chargers for batteries; Chargers for electric batteries; Jumper cables; Carrying cases, holders, protective cases and stands featuring power supply connectors, adaptors, speakers and battery charging devices, specially adapted for use with handheld digital electronic devices, namely, devices which receive power through USB, micro USB, mini USB, USB-A, and/or USB-C connections in the nature of {specify exact type of Class 09 devices [excluding gaming apparatus]}; Electrical storage batteries; Nickel-cadmium storage batteries; Rechargeable electric batteries
International Class 11: Flashlights and lanterns for lighting
International Class 28: {Specify type, e.g., video, handheld, etc.} gaming consoles;
Applicant should note that the above bolded language indicate the examining attorney’s suggestions, and the braces indicate where applicant must insert specific types of goods. The braces should not appear in the amended identification; only the specific goods indicated, as inserted by applicant. Applicant need not amend its identification other than where specified by bold font.
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.
MULTIPLE-CLASS APPLICATION REQUIREMENTS
(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(s) already paid (view the USPTO’s current fee schedule). The application identifies goods and/or services that are classified in at least three classes; however, applicant submitted a fee(s) sufficient for only one class(es). 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.
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.
/Salima Parmar Oestreicher/
Salima Parmar Oestreicher
Examining Attorney
Law Office 108
(571) 272-6786
Salima.Oestreicher@uspto.gov
RESPONSE GUIDANCE