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:  January 19, 2021

 

 

INTRODUCTION

 

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) – Likelihood of Confusion
• Prior-filed Applications
• Identification of Goods
• Significance
• Response Guidelines

 

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. 3254990, 3775647, 4714608, and 5326987.  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 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 [or services] and differences in the marks.”); TMEP §1207.01. 

 

The applicant seeks registration of the mark “ARC” for “Smartphones; Mobile phones; Computers; Tablet computers; Data processing apparatus; TV receivers; Monitors, namely, TV monitors and computer monitors; Cases for smartphones; LED displays for mobile phones, computers and televisions; OLED displays for mobile phones, computers and televisions; Cases adapted for smartphones; Downloadable and recorded application software for display management function,” in International Class 009. 

 

Registrants marks are “ARC” and the respective goods are as follows:

 

The goods in U.S. Registration No. 3254990 are “Computer hardware, namely, customizable high-performance microprocessor cores, and computer software for integrating microprocessor with embedded systems applications, and computer software development tools,” in International Class 009.

 

The goods in U.S. Registration No. 3775647 are “computer mice,” in International Class 009.

 

The goods in U.S. Registration No. 4714608 are “Computer hardware, namely, customizable high-performance microprocessor cores, and computer software for integrating microprocessor with embedded systems applications, and computer software development tools; semiconductor intellectual property (SIP) architecture; SIP cores; configurable SIP cores; SIP cores for video and audio encoding, decoding, and transcoding; software for processing digital audio; software for electronic design automation,” in International Class 009.

 

The goods in U.S. Registration No. 5326987 include “Computer application software for mobile phones, portable media players, handheld computers, namely, software for the use and transmission and sharing of data, content and information in the fields of religion, church planting services, Christian ministry services and leadership training; Digital materials, namely, CDs, DVDs, downloadable audio and video files featuring religion, church planting services, Christian ministry services, leadership training; Downloadable electronic newsletters in the field of religion, church planting services, Christian ministry services, leadership training; Downloadable podcasts in the field of religion, church planting services, Christian ministry services, leadership training; Downloadable webcasts in the field of religion, church planting services, Christian ministry services, leadership training,” in International Class 009.

 

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 the current case, applicant’s mark is “ARC” and registrants’ marks are “ARC”. These marks are identical in appearance, sound, and meaning, “and have the potential to be used . . . in exactly the same manner.”  In re i.am.symbolic, llc, 116 USPQ2d 1406, 1411 (TTAB 2015), aff’d, 866 F.3d 1315, 123 USPQ2d 1744 (Fed. Cir. 2017).  Additionally, because they are identical, these marks are likely to engender the same connotation and overall commercial impression when considered in connection with applicant’s and registrant’s respective goods.  Id. 

Although the mark in U.S. Registration No. 3254990 contains design elements, that does not obviate the similarity between the marks, because 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 “ARC” is 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)).

 

Because the wording “ARC” in the marks is identical and the dominant feature of the marks, the marks are confusingly similar.

 

Relatedness 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 goods of the parties need not be identical or even competitive to find a likelihood of confusion.  See On-line Careline Inc. v. Am. Online Inc., 229 F.3d 1080, 1086, 56 USPQ2d 1471, 1475 (Fed. Cir. 2000); Recot, Inc. v. Becton, 214 F.3d 1322, 1329, 54 USPQ2d 1894, 1898 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (“[E]ven if the goods in question are different from, and thus not related to, one another in kind, the same goods can be related in the mind of the consuming public as to the origin of the goods.”); TMEP §1207.01(a)(i). 

 

The respective goods need only be “related in some manner and/or if the circumstances surrounding their marketing [be] such that they could give rise to the mistaken belief that [the goods] emanate from the same source.”  Coach Servs., Inc. v. Triumph Learning LLC, 668 F.3d 1356, 1369, 101 USPQ2d 1713, 1722 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (quoting 7-Eleven Inc. v. Wechsler, 83 USPQ2d 1715, 1724 (TTAB 2007)); Gen. Mills Inc. v. Fage Dairy Processing Indus. SA, 100 USPQ2d 1584, 1597 (TTAB 2011); TMEP §1207.01(a)(i).

 

In this case, applicant’s goods are “Smartphones; Mobile phones; Computers; Tablet computers; Data processing apparatus; TV receivers; Monitors, namely, TV monitors and computer monitors; Cases for smartphones; LED displays for mobile phones, computers and televisions; OLED displays for mobile phones, computers and televisions; Cases adapted for smartphones; Downloadable and recorded application software for display management function.” Registrant’s goods include computer hardware including computer mice and processors and computer operating software, computer software for use with mobile phones, and computer software development tools. 

 

The attached Internet evidence, consisting of online webpages from Samsung.com, hp.com, Microsoft.com, apple.com, and intel.com establishes that the same entity commonly manufactures, produces, or provides the relevant goods and markets the goods under the same 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).

 

Because the marks are confusingly similar and because the marks refer to closely related goods, consumers would be likely to mistakenly believe that the goods emanate from a single source. Accordingly, registration is refused under Trademark Section 2(d).

 

Although applicant’s mark has been refused registration, applicant may respond to the refusals by submitting evidence and arguments in support of registration.

 

PRIOR-FILED APPLICATIONS

 

The effective filing dates of pending U.S. Application Serial Nos. 87982894 and 90059331 precede applicant’s filing date.  See attached referenced applications.  If one or more of the marks in the referenced applications register, applicant’s mark may be refused registration under Trademark Act Section 2(d) because of a likelihood of confusion with the registered mark(s).  See 15 U.S.C. §1052(d); 37 C.F.R. §2.83; TMEP §§1208 et seq.  Therefore, upon receipt of applicant’s response to this Office action, action on this application may be suspended pending final disposition of the earlier-filed referenced 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.

 

IDENTIFICATION OF GOODS

 

The identification of goods and services is indefinite and must be clarified according to the explanations and suggestions below.  See TMEP §1402.01.  The USPTO has the discretion to determine the degree of particularity needed to clearly identify goods covered by a mark.  In re Fiat Grp. Mktg. & Corp. Commc’ns S.p.A, 109 USPQ2d 1593, 1597 (TTAB 2014) (citing In re Omega SA, 494 F.3d 1362, 1365, 83 USPQ2d 1541, 1543-44 (Fed. Cir. 2007)).  Accordingly, the USPTO requires the description of goods in a U.S. application to be specific, definite, clear, accurate, and concise.  TMEP §1402.01; see In re Fiat Grp. Mktg. & Corp. Commc’ns S.p.A, 109 USPQ2d at 1597-98; Cal. Spray-Chem. Corp. v. Osmose Wood Pres. Co. of Am., 102 USPQ 321, 322 (Comm’r Pats. 1954).  

 

The identification for software in International Class 009 is indefinite and must be clarified to specify the purpose or function of the software and its content or field of use, if content- or field- specific.  See 37 C.F.R. §2.32(a)(6); TMEP §§1402.03(d), 1402.11(a).  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).

 

Applicant may adopt the following for its identification of goods, if accurate, providing additional specificity where indicated.

 

“Smartphones; Mobile phones; Computers; Tablet computers; Data processing apparatus; TV receivers; Monitors, namely, TV monitors and computer monitors; Cases for smartphones; LED displays for mobile phones, computers and televisions; OLED displays for mobile phones, computers and televisions; Cases adapted for smartphones; Downloadable and recorded application software for {Specify function of software, e.g. “managing display functions”},” in International Class 009.

 

Applicant may amend the identification 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.  Generally, any deleted goods may not later be reinserted.  See TMEP §1402.07(e).

 

For assistance with identifying and classifying goods in trademark applications, please see the USPTO’s online searchable U.S. Acceptable Identification of Goods and Services Manual.  See TMEP §1402.04.

 

SIGNIFICANCE

 

To permit proper examination of the application, applicant must provide the following information:

 

(1)  Explain whether the wording “ARC” in the mark has any meaning or significance in the industry in which the goods and/or services are manufactured/provided, any meaning or significance as applied to applicant’s goods, or if such wording is a term of art within applicant’s industry. 

 

(2)  Explain whether this wording identifies a geographic place or has any meaning in a foreign language. 

 

(3)  Respond to the following questions:

Does the wording “ARC” serve as an abbreviation for “Audio Return Channel”?

 

See 37 C.F.R. §§2.32(a)(9)-(a)(10), 2.61(b); TMEP §§809-809.03, 814. 

 

Failure to comply with a request for information is grounds for refusing registration.  In re Harley, 119 USPQ2d 1755, 1757-58 (TTAB 2016); TMEP §814.

 

RESPONSE GUIDELINES

 

Please 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 refusals and requirements 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. 

 

 

 

 

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

 

 

Davis, Marc

/Marc S. Davis/

Examining Attorney, Law Office 122

(571) 270 - 0973

marc.davis@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 January 19, 2021 for

U.S. Trademark Application Serial No. 90210174

 

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. 

 

 

Davis, Marc

/Marc S. Davis/

Examining Attorney, Law Office 122

(571) 270 - 0973

marc.davis@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 January 19, 2021, 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.”