To: | Rajant Corporation (trademarks@blankrome.com) |
Subject: | U.S. Trademark Application Serial No. 90303184 - CARDINAL - 117922.00224 |
Sent: | April 21, 2021 09:43:55 AM |
Sent As: | ecom107@uspto.gov |
Attachments: | Attachment - 1 Attachment - 2 Attachment - 3 |
United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO)
Office Action (Official Letter) About Applicant’s Trademark Application
U.S. Application Serial No. 90303184
Mark: CARDINAL
|
|
Correspondence Address:
|
|
Applicant: Rajant Corporation
|
|
Reference/Docket No. 117922.00224
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: April 21, 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.
Summary of Issues
· Section 2(d) Refusal – Likelihood of Confusion
· Identification of Goods Requires Amendment
Section 2(d) 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. 4350697. Trademark Act Section 2(d), 15 U.S.C. §1052(d); see TMEP §§1207.01 et seq. See the attached registration.
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 has applied to register the mark “CARDINAL” in standard characters for use in connection with “communications devices” in International Class 9.
Registrant’s mark is “CARDINAL HOSTED LOGISTICS” in standard characters for use in connection with “Handheld personal computers for logistics management, order management, supply chain management, transportation, warehousing, storage and delivery of freight; Handheld personal computers for logistics management containing radio frequency identification tag readers and scanners; Handheld personal computers for logistics management featuring status updates, electronic signature capture, exception code logging, GPS and cell phone communication capability” in International Class 9.
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 this case, applicant’s mark is “CARDINAL” and the registrant’s mark is “CARDINAL HOSTED LOGISTICS”.
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 Viterra Inc., 671 F.3d 1358, 1362, 101 USPQ2d 1905, 1908 (Fed. Cir. 2012); In re Nat’l Data Corp., 753 F.2d 1056, 1058, 224 USPQ 749, 751 (Fed. Cir. 1985); TMEP §1207.01(b)(viii), (c)(ii). Disclaimed matter that is descriptive of or generic for a party’s goods and/or services is typically less significant or less dominant when comparing marks. In re Detroit Athletic Co., 903 F.3d 1297, 1305, 128 USPQ2d 1047, 1050 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (citing In re Dixie Rests., Inc., 105 F.3d 1405, 1407, 41 USPQ2d 1531, 1533-34 (Fed. Cir. 1997)); TMEP §1207.01(b)(viii), (c)(ii). In this case, the registrant has disclaimed the wording “LOGISTICS” leaving the dominant wording “CARDINAL HOSTED.”
Because the marks in this case look similar and create the same commercial impression, the marks are considered similar for likelihood of confusion purposes.
Comparison of the Goods
The applicant’s relevant goods include “communications devices” in International Class 9.
The registrant’s relevant goods include “Handheld personal computers for logistics management, order management, supply chain management, transportation, warehousing, storage and delivery of freight; Handheld personal computers for logistics management containing radio frequency identification tag readers and scanners; Handheld personal computers for logistics management featuring status updates, electronic signature capture, exception code logging, GPS and cell phone communication capability” in International Class 9.
Determining likelihood of confusion is based on the description of the goods and/or services stated in the application and registration at issue, not on extrinsic evidence of actual use. See In re Detroit Athletic Co., 903 F.3d 1297, 1307, 128 USPQ2d 1047, 1052 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (citing In re i.am.symbolic, llc, 866 F.3d 1315, 1325, 123 USPQ2d 1744, 1749 (Fed. Cir. 2017)).
In this case, the application uses broad wording to describe “communications devices,” which presumably encompasses all goods of the type described, including registrant’s more narrow “Handheld personal computers for logistics management, order management, supply chain management, transportation, warehousing, storage and delivery of freight; Handheld personal computers for logistics management containing radio frequency identification tag readers and scanners; Handheld personal computers for logistics management featuring status updates, electronic signature capture, exception code logging, GPS and cell phone communication capability.” 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.
Because the marks are similar and the goods are legally identical, there is a likelihood of confusion as to the source of applicant’s goods. Therefore, applicant’s mark is not entitled to registration.
Although applicant’s mark has been refused registration, applicant may respond to the refusal by submitting evidence and arguments in support of registration. However, if applicant responds to the refusal, applicant must also respond to the requirements set forth below.
Identification of Goods Requires Amendment
Applicant submitted the following identification of goods with the application:
International Class 9
Communications devices
The above bolded wording in the identification of goods requires amendment because it does not identify the goods with enough specificity to make clear the scope of the goods offered by applicant. See 37 C.F.R. §2.32(a)(6); TMEP §§1402.01, 1402.03.
Therefore, the identification of goods as submitted with the application requires the following amendments.
International Class 9
The wording “communications devices” is indefinite as written and requires additional wording to clarify the specific type of goods being offered (e.g., communications devices, namely, cell phones).
Applicant may adopt the following identification of goods, if accurate:
International Class 9
Communications devices, namely, {indicate specific goods being offered}
Applicant may amend the identification to clarify or limit the goods or services, but not to broaden or expand the goods 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 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.
Comments
Please call or 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 refusal(s) and/or requirement(s) 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.
/Faucette, Max/
Trademark Examining Attorney
Law Office 107
(571)270-5655
max.faucette@uspto.gov
RESPONSE GUIDANCE