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:  May 12, 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:

 

1. Refusal—Section 2(d), Likelihood of Confusion—Limited to Class 7
2. Refusal—Section 2(e)(1), Merely Descriptive
3. Requirement to Provide Information about the Goods & Services
4. Requirement to Amend the Identification of Goods & Services

 

I.       SECTION 2(d) REFUSAL – LIKELIHOOD OF CONFUSION—LIMITED TO CLASS 7

Registration of the applied-for mark is refused because of a likelihood of confusion with the mark in U.S. Registration No. 4251326.  Trademark Act Section 2(d), 15 U.S.C. §1052(d); see TMEP §§1207.01 et seq.  See the attached registration.

 

The applicant’s proposed mark is “PLASMON PHOLED” (standard character) used in connection with:

 

            Class 7: Manufacturing machines and equipment for electronic devices, media, and components

 

The registrant’s mark is “PLASMON” (standard character) used in connection with:

 

Class 7: Semiconductor wafer processing equipment; Semiconductor wafer processing machines

 

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.  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. 

 

A.    Similarity 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). Here, the proposed mark is confusingly similar to the registered mark because “PLASMON” is identical.

 

Incorporating the entirety of one mark within another does not obviate the similarity between the compared marks, as in the present case, nor does it overcome a likelihood of confusion under Section 2(d).  See Wella Corp. v. Cal. Concept Corp., 558 F.2d 1019, 1022, 194 USPQ 419, 422 (C.C.P.A. 1977) (finding CALIFORNIA CONCEPT and surfer design and CONCEPT confusingly similar); Coca-Cola Bottling Co. v. Jos. E. Seagram & Sons, Inc., 526 F.2d 556, 557, 188 USPQ 105, 106 (C.C.P.A. 1975) (finding BENGAL LANCER and design and BENGAL confusingly similar); In re Integrated Embedded, 120 USPQ2d 1504, 1513 (TTAB 2016) (finding BARR GROUP and BARR confusingly similar); In re Mr. Recipe, LLC, 118 USPQ2d 1084, 1090 (TTAB 2016) (finding JAWS DEVOUR YOUR HUNGER and JAWS confusingly similar); TMEP §1207.01(b)(iii).  In the present case, the marks are identical in part. Because the compared marks are identical in part, they are confusingly similar.

 

For these reasons, the marks are similar.

 

B.     Relatedness of the Goods

 

The compared goods 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); TMEP §1207.01(a)(i).  They need only be “related in some manner and/or if the circumstances surrounding their marketing are such that they could give rise to the mistaken belief that [the goods and/or services] 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)); TMEP §1207.01(a)(i).

 

The goods at issue in the application are:

 

            Class 7: Manufacturing machines and equipment for electronic devices, media, and components

 

The goods at issue in the registration are:

 

Class 7: Semiconductor wafer processing equipment; Semiconductor wafer processing machines

 

In this case, the application use(s) broad wording to describe electronics manufacturing machines, which presumably encompasses all goods of the type described, including registrant’s more narrow semiconductor wafer processing equipment.  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.

 

For these reasons, the goods are related.

 

C.    Doubt Resolved in Favor of the Registrant

 

The overriding concern is not only to prevent buyer confusion as to the source of the goods, 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).

 

For the foregoing reasons, the applicant’s proposed mark is refused registration on the Principal Register under Section 2(d) of the Trademark Act.

 

Applicant should note the following additional ground for refusal.

 

II.                SECTION 2(e)(1) REFUSAL - MERELY DESCRIPTIVE

 

Registration is refused because the applied-for mark merely describes a feature of applicant’s goods and/or services.  Trademark Act Section 2(e)(1), 15 U.S.C. §1052(e)(1); see TMEP §§1209.01(b), 1209.03 et seq.

 

A mark is merely descriptive if it describes an ingredient, quality, characteristic, function, feature, purpose, or use of an applicant’s goods and/or services.  TMEP §1209.01(b); see, e.g., In re TriVita, Inc., 783 F.3d 872, 874, 114 USPQ2d 1574, 1575 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (quoting In re Oppedahl & Larson LLP, 373 F.3d 1171, 1173, 71 USPQ2d 1370, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2004)); In re Steelbuilding.com, 415 F.3d 1293, 1297, 75 USPQ2d 1420, 1421 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (citing Estate of P.D. Beckwith, Inc. v. Comm’r of Patents, 252 U.S. 538, 543 (1920)). 

 

The applicant has applied to register “PLASMON PHOLED” (standard character) in connection with:

 

Class 7: Manufacturing machines and equipment for electronic devices, media, and components

 

Class 9: Light emitting diode displays for use in information or communication devices, media, and equipment

 

Class 40: Manufacturing services for others in the field of electronic devices, media, and components; manufacturing process consulting in the field of electronic devices, media, and components

 

Generally, if the individual components of a mark retain their descriptive meaning in relation to the goods and/or services, the combination results in a composite mark that is itself descriptive and not registrable.  In re Fat Boys Water Sports LLC, 118 USPQ2d 1511, 1516 (TTAB 2016) (citing In re Tower Tech, Inc., 64 USPQ2d 1314, 1317-18 (TTAB (2002)); TMEP §1209.03(d); see, e.g., Apollo Med. Extrusion Techs., Inc. v. Med. Extrusion Techs., Inc., 123 USPQ2d 1844, 1851 (TTAB 2017) (holding MEDICAL EXTRUSION TECHNOLOGIES merely descriptive of medical extrusion goods produced by employing medical extrusion technologies); In re Cannon Safe, Inc., 116 USPQ2d 1348, 1351 (TTAB 2015) (holding SMART SERIES merely descriptive of metal gun safes); In re King Koil Licensing Co., 79 USPQ2d 1048, 1052 (TTAB 2006) (holding THE BREATHABLE MATTRESS merely descriptive of beds, mattresses, box springs, and pillows). 

 

Only where the combination of descriptive terms creates a unitary mark with a unique, incongruous, or otherwise nondescriptive meaning in relation to the goods and/or services is the combined mark registrable.  See In re Colonial Stores, Inc., 394 F.2d 549, 551, 157 USPQ 382, 384 (C.C.P.A. 1968); In re Positec Grp. Ltd., 108 USPQ2d 1161, 1162-63 (TTAB 2013).

 

In this case, both the individual components and the composite result are descriptive of applicant’s goods and/or services and do not create a unique, incongruous, or nondescriptive meaning in relation to the goods and/or services.

 

“Plasmon” is “A quantum or quasiparticle associated with a local collective oscillation of charge density.” See attached evidence from Lexico. Wikipedia expands upon this definition by describing “plasmon” as, “plasmons are collective oscillations of the free electron gas density.” “Plasmons play a large role in the optical properties of metals and semiconductors.” Id. “Plasmonics” are devices are electro-optical devices that incorporate or utilize plasmons.  Id. The applicant’s goods or services are or feature electro-optical devices that incorporate or utilize plasmons. See attached evidence from Google Patents featuring the applicant’s Korean and US patent applications; Facebook page. Finally, the evidence from ACS Publications, Nature, Phys.org, and ResearchGate shows the applicant’s goods or services feature plasmons. Because the applicant’s goods are or services feature plasmons, “PLASMON” merely describes a feature of or is generic for the applicant’s goods or services.

 

“PHOLED” is an acronym for “phosphorescent organic light-emitting diode.” See attached evidence from Acronym Finder and the applicant’s website. Because the “PHOLED” is an acronym for “phosphorescent organic light-emitting diode” and the applicant’s goods are or services feature phosphorescent organic light-emitting diodes, “PHOLED” merely describes a feature of or is generic for the applicant’s goods or services.

 

The composite result, “PLASMON PHOLED” does not create a meaning that is unique, incongruous, or nondescriptive when used in connection with the applicant’s goods or services. When used in connection with the applicant’s goods or services, the proposed mark means phosphorescent organic light-emitting diode goods or services that utilize a collective oscillation of free electron gas density. Because the composite mark does create a unique, incongruous, or nondescriptive meaning when used in connection with the applicant’s goods or services, the proposed mark is refused registration on the Principal Register under Section 2(e)(1) of the Trademark Act.

 

Generic Advisory

 

In addition to being merely descriptive, the applied-for mark appears to be generic in connection with the identified goods and/or services.  “A generic mark, being the ‘ultimate in descriptiveness,’ cannot acquire distinctiveness” and thus is not entitled to registration on either the Principal or Supplemental Register under any circumstances.  In re La. Fish Fry Prods., Ltd., 797 F.3d 1332, 1336, 116 USPQ2d 1262, 1264 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (quoting H. Marvin Ginn Corp. v. Int’l Ass’n of Fire Chiefs, Inc., 782 F.2d 987, 989, 228 USPQ 528, 530 (Fed. Cir. 1986)); see TMEP §§1209.01(c) et seq., 1209.02(a).  Therefore, the trademark examining attorney cannot recommend that applicant amend the application to proceed under Trademark Act Section 2(f) or on the Supplemental Register as possible response options to this refusal.  See TMEP §1209.01(c).

 

Although applicant’s mark has been refused registration, applicant may respond to the refusal(s) by submitting evidence and arguments in support of registration.  However, if applicant responds to the refusal(s), applicant must also respond to the requirement(s) set forth below.

 

III. REQUIREMENT TO PROVIDE INFORMATION ABOUT THE GOODS & SERVICES

 

To permit proper examination of the application, applicant must submit additional information about applicant’s goods and services.  See 37 C.F.R. §2.61(b); TMEP §814.  The requested information should include fact sheets, instruction manuals, brochures, and/or advertisements.  If these materials are unavailable, applicant should submit similar documentation for goods and services of the same type, explaining how its own product or services will differ.  If the goods and services feature new technology and no information regarding competing goods and services is available, applicant must provide a detailed factual description of the goods and services. The applicant must also answer the following questions:

 

• How will the applicant’s manufacturing machines utilize plasmon and phosphorescent organic-light emitting diodes during production?

 

• How will the applicant’s electronic devices utilize plasmon and phosphorescent organic-light emitting diodes?

 

• How will the applicant’s manufacturing services utilize plasmon and phosphorescent organic-light emitting diodes?

 

Factual information about the goods must clearly indicate how they operate, their salient features, and their prospective customers and channels of trade.  Factual information about the services must clearly indicate what the services are and how they are rendered, their salient features, and their prospective customers and channels of trade.  Conclusory statements will not satisfy this requirement for information.

 

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.  Merely stating that information about the goods and services is available on applicant’s website is an insufficient response and will not make the relevant information of record.  See In re Planalytics, Inc., 70 USPQ2d 1453, 1457-58 (TTAB 2004).

 

IV.             REQUIREMENT TO AMEND THE IDENTIFICATION OF GOODS & SERVICES

 

Class 7

 

The wording “Manufacturing machines and equipment for electronic devices, media, and components” in the identification of goods is indefinite and must be clarified because the nature of the goods is not clear. See 37 C.F.R. §2.32(a)(6); TMEP §1402.01. 

 

 

Applicant may substitute the following wording, if accurate (suggestion are bold):

 

            Class 7: Manufacturing machines and equipment for electronic devices, namely, LED devices and component parts

 

Class 9

 

Class 9 is sufficient as written.

 

Class 40

 

The wording “Manufacturing services for others in the field of electronic devices, media, and components” in the identification of services is indefinite and must be clarified because the nature of the services is not clear.

 

The wording “manufacturing process consulting in the field of electronic devices, media, and components” in the identification of services is indefinite and must be clarified because the nature of the services is not clear.

 

 

Applicant may substitute the following wording, if accurate (suggestion are bold):

 

            Class 40: Manufacturing services for others in the field of electronic devices, media, and electronic component parts; manufacturing process consulting in the field of electronic devices, media, and electronic component parts

 

Applicant’s goods or services 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 services or add goods or services 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 or services 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 or services will further limit scope, and once goods or services 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.

RESPONSE GUIDELINES

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

 

 

/Ryan Cianci/

Trademark Attorney

Law Office 116

571-270-3721

ryan.cianci@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 May 12, 2021 for

U.S. Trademark Application Serial No. 90324739

 

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. 

 

 

/Ryan Cianci/

Trademark Attorney

Law Office 116

571-270-3721

ryan.cianci@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 May 12, 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.”