To: | Microsoft Corporation (karen.gaunt@dinsmore.com) |
Subject: | U.S. Trademark Application Serial No. 90304112 - TROVE - 128291-4 |
Sent: | March 14, 2021 10:26:12 AM |
Sent As: | ecom101@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 Attachment - 17 Attachment - 18 Attachment - 19 Attachment - 20 Attachment - 21 Attachment - 22 Attachment - 23 Attachment - 24 Attachment - 25 Attachment - 26 Attachment - 27 Attachment - 28 Attachment - 29 Attachment - 30 Attachment - 31 Attachment - 32 Attachment - 33 Attachment - 34 Attachment - 35 Attachment - 36 Attachment - 37 |
United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO)
Office Action (Official Letter) About Applicant’s Trademark Application
U.S. Application Serial No. 90304112
Mark: TROVE
|
|
Correspondence Address: |
|
Applicant: Microsoft Corporation
|
|
Reference/Docket No. 128291-4
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: March 14, 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.
SECTION 2(d) REFUSAL – 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. 6197791; 5322964; 4607248; 4646746; 4646074; 4795723. Trademark Act Section 2(d), 15 U.S.C. §1052(d); see TMEP §§1207.01 et seq. See the enclosed registrations. Please note that because the identification of goods and services is so indefinite and broad, any possible registration or application that may be confusingly similar has been listed. It is possible that the limitations on the goods and services may result in removal of many of these citations.
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/or 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/or services, and similarity of the trade channels of the goods and/or 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.
In any likelihood of confusion determination, two key considerations are similarity of the marks and similarity or relatedness of the goods and/or services. See Federated Foods, Inc. v. Fort Howard Paper Co., 544 F.2d 1098, 1103, 192 USPQ 24, 29 (C.C.P.A. 1976); In re Iolo Techs., LLC, 95 USPQ2d 1498, 1499 (TTAB 2010); TMEP §1207.01; see also In re Dixie Rests. Inc., 105 F.3d 1405, 1406-07, 41 USPQ2d 1531, 1533 (Fed. Cir. 1997). That is, the marks are compared in their entireties for similarities in appearance, sound, connotation, and commercial impression. In re Viterra Inc., 671 F.3d 1358, 1362, 101 USPQ2d 1905, 1908 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (quoting In re E. I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., 476 F.2d 1357, 1361, 177 USPQ 563, 567 (C.C.P.A. 1973)); TMEP §1207.01(b)-(b)(v). Additionally, the goods and/or services are compared to determine whether they are similar or 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, (a)(vi).
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 AND SERVICES
The identification of goods and services is indefinite and must be clarified. See TMEP §1402.01. Anything in bold requires deletion, clarification or reclassification.
Class 9: computer software; downloadable computer software for use in connection with buying, selling, sharing, searching, downloading, customizing, integrating and reviewing information, data, images, and digital files; computer software for user data capture, storage and analysis; computer software allowing users to perform electronic business transactions via a global computer network; computer software for generating coupon codes, payment processing, payment fraud detection, and creating, using and managing virtual currency
Applicant must specify if the computer software is downloadable which is in Class 9 or non-downloadable in Class 42. The purpose and function of the software must also be specified as computer software could be anything.
Class 35: on-line marketplace services; on-line marketplace services, namely, operating an on-line marketplace featuring information, data, images, and digital files
Operating on-line marketplaces for sellers and buyers of goods and/or services is acceptable.
Class 38: telecommunications
Telecommunications broad and indefinite. Applicant must specify what the services are by common commercial name.
Class 42: software as a service (saas) services; platform as a service (paas) services; software as a service (saas) services featuring non-downloadable software for use in connection with buying, selling, sharing, searching, downloading, customizing, integrating and reviewing information, data, images, and digital files; platform as a service (paas) services featuring non-downloadable computer software platforms for use in connection with buying, selling, sharing, searching, downloading, customizing, integrating and reviewing information, data, images, and digital files; software as a service (saas) services featuring non-downloadable computer software used for user data capture, storage and analysis; platform as a service (paas) featuring non-downloadable computer software platforms used for user data capture, storage and analysis; software as a service (saas) services featuring non-downloadable computer software allowing users to perform electronic business transactions via a global computer network; platform as a service (paas) services featuring non-downloadable computer software platforms allowing users to perform electronic business transactions via a global computer network; software as a service (saas) services featuring non-downloadable computer software used for generating coupon codes, payment processing, payment fraud detection, and creating, using and managing virtual currency; platform as a service (paas) services featuring computer software platforms used for generating coupon codes, payment processing, payment fraud detection, and creating, using and managing virtual currency; providing a website featuring information in the field of transactions involving information, data, images and digital files; providing a website featuring technology that enables users access to and information about transactions involving information, data, images, and digital files
Applicant’s goods may be clarified or limited, but may not be expanded beyond those originally itemized in the application or as acceptably amended. See 37 C.F.R. §2.71(a); TMEP §1402.06. Applicant may clarify or limit the identification by inserting qualifying language or deleting items to result in a more specific identification; however, applicant may not substitute different goods or add goods not found or encompassed by those in the original application or as acceptably amended. See TMEP §1402.06(a)-(b). The scope of the goods sets the outer limit for any changes to the identification and is generally determined by the ordinary meaning of the wording in the identification. TMEP §§1402.06(b), 1402.07(a)-(b). Any acceptable changes to the goods will further limit scope, and once goods are deleted, they are not permitted to be reinserted. 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.
FOREIGN REGISTRATION CERTIFICATE REQUIRED
A copy of a foreign registration must consist of a document issued to an applicant by, or certified by, the intellectual property office in the applicant’s country of origin. TMEP §1004.01. If an applicant’s country of origin does not issue registrations or Madrid Protocol certificates of extension of protection, the applicant may submit a copy of the Madrid Protocol international registration that shows that protection of the international registration has been extended to the applicant’s country of origin. TMEP §1016.
Therefore, applicant must provide a copy of the foreign registration from applicant’s country of origin. If the foreign registration is not written in English, applicant must also provide an English translation. 37 C.F.R. §2.34(a)(3)(ii); TMEP §1004.01(a)-(b). The translation should be signed by the translator. TMEP §1004.01(b).
How to respond. Click to file a response to this nonfinal Office action.
/Jacqueline Abrams/
Examining Attorney LO 101
(571) 272-9185
United States Patent and Trademark Office
jacky.abrams@USPTO.gov (INFORMAL ONLY)
RESPONSE GUIDANCE