To: | Radyne Corporation (ppost@indelinc.com) |
Subject: | U.S. Trademark Application Serial No. 90649863 - ARTUS - RADUS-073TM |
Sent: | December 17, 2021 04:37:19 PM |
Sent As: | ecom125@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 |
United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO)
Office Action (Official Letter) About Applicant’s Trademark Application
U.S. Application Serial No. 90649863
Mark: ARTUS
|
|
Correspondence Address:
|
|
Applicant: Radyne Corporation
|
|
Reference/Docket No. RADUS-073TM
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: December 17, 2021
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.
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. 0359028 and 0990085. Trademark Act Section 2(d), 15 U.S.C. §1052(d); see TMEP §§1207.01 et seq. See the attached registrations.
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 seeks registration of the mark ARTUS in standard characters for “electrical power inductors” in International Class 9.
Registrant in Reg. No. 0359028 owns a registration for the mark ARTOS in stylized characters for “machines for labeling, marking, feeding, cutting, stripping, folding, straightening, bending, coiling, and/or tipping materials having elongated shape such as wire, cable, cord, gimp, braid, bars, strips, tubing, bands, straps, tape, welting or the like, and formed of substances such as metal, wood, paper, cloth, insulation, rubber, leather, gauze, lace, cellulose, or the like” in International Class 7.
Registrant in Reg. No. 0990085 owns a registration for the mark ARTOS in a stylized design for “machines for labeling, marking, measuring, feeding, cutting, stripping, attaching terminals, bending and/or tipping materials having elongated shapes such as wire, cable, cord, braid, tubing, bands, tape or the like, and formed of substances such as metal, paper, cloth, insulation, rubber, plastics, leather, gauze, lace, cellulose or the like; also machines for uncoiling, feeding, measuring, cutting, roll forming and seaming of sheet” in International Class 7.
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).
Applicant’s mark is ARTUS in standard characters. Reg. No. 0359028 is ARTOS in stylized lettering. Reg. No. 0990085 is ARTOS in a diamond carrier design.
In this case, applicant’s mark, ARTUS, is confusingly similar to registrant’s marks, ARTOS, in appearance, sound, and commercial impression because they sound almost exactly the same and both begin with “ART” followed by a vowel and the letter “S.”
Moreover, the minor stylization in the marks and the design (diamond background shape) in Reg. No. 0990085 do not detract from the confusing similarity. 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 and/or services. 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 is often considered 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)).
Therefore, the parties’ marks are confusingly similar.
Relatedness of the Goods
Applicant’s goods are “electrical power inductors” in International Class 9.
Registrant’s goods in Reg. No. 0359028 are “machines for labeling, marking, feeding, cutting, stripping, folding, straightening, bending, coiling, and/or tipping materials having elongated shape such as wire, cable, cord, gimp, braid, bars, strips, tubing, bands, straps, tape, welting or the like, and formed of substances such as metal, wood, paper, cloth, insulation, rubber, leather, gauze, lace, cellulose, or the like” in International Class 7.
Registrant’s goods in Reg. No. 0990085 are “machines for labeling, marking, measuring, feeding, cutting, stripping, attaching terminals, bending and/or tipping materials having elongated shapes such as wire, cable, cord, braid, tubing, bands, tape or the like, and formed of substances such as metal, paper, cloth, insulation, rubber, plastics, leather, gauze, lace, cellulose or the like; also machines for uncoiling, feeding, measuring, cutting, roll forming and seaming of sheet” in International Class 7.
The goods are related because they are commonly provided by a single source under the same mark.
Specifically, the attached Internet evidence, consisting of webpages from Eldec, EFD, Inductoheat, Ultraflex, establishes that the same entity commonly provides the relevant goods of electrical power inductors and machines for stripping or cutting wire, and other materials, 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).
Therefore, because the marks are confusingly similar and the goods are related, purchasers encountering these goods are likely to believe, mistakenly, that they emanate from a common source. Accordingly, there is a likelihood of confusion, and registration is refused pursuant to Section 2(d) of the Trademark Act.
IDENTIFICATION AND CLASSIFICATION OF GOODS REQUIRES AMENDMENT
Applicant may substitute the following wording, if accurate:
Class 9: electrical power inductors being electrical inductors
Class 11: electrical power inductors, namely, electrical induction heating apparatuses for heating metal workpieces
Advisories
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.
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 already paid (view the USPTO’s current fee schedule). The application identifies goods that are classified in at least 2 classes; however, applicant submitted a fee sufficient for only 1 class. 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.
RESPONSE GUIDELINES
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.
Mitchell, John
/John Mitchell/
Trademark Examining Attorney
Law Office 125
(571) 270-0709
John.Mitchell@uspto.gov
RESPONSE GUIDANCE