To: | BIOFIRE DIAGNOSTICS, LLC (mtepper@teiplaw.com) |
Subject: | U.S. Trademark Application Serial No. 97177046 - FIREWORKS - N/A |
Sent: | September 23, 2022 05:27:39 PM |
Sent As: | ecom115@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 |
United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO)
Office Action (Official Letter) About Applicant’s Trademark Application
U.S. Application Serial No. 97177046
Mark: FIREWORKS
|
|
Correspondence Address:
|
|
Applicant: BIOFIRE DIAGNOSTICS, LLC
|
|
Reference/Docket No. N/A
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: September 23, 2022
I. REFUSAL – SECTION 2(d) LIKELIHOOD OF CONFUSION
The applied-for mark is "FIREWORKS" for Class 9 "Downloadable software; Computer software" and Class 42 "Software as a service (SAAS) services".
The Registered marks are:
U.S. Registration No. |
Mark |
Goods/Services |
2043911 |
FIREWORKS |
computer programs for use in animation creation |
2548900 |
FIREWORKS |
computer software for use in monitoring fire detection sensors, assimilating data collected from sensors and providing interactive control over fire alarms |
5301706 |
FIREWORKS CRM |
Application service provider (ASP) featuring non-downloadable software in the field of higher education for use as a comprehensive management tool for collecting, storing, managing, transmitting and sharing of data and information relating to student recruiting and admissions process |
5301707 |
FIREWORKS |
Application service provider (ASP) featuring non-downloadable software in the field of higher education for use as a comprehensive management tool for collecting, storing, managing, transmitting and sharing of data and information relating to student recruiting and admissions process |
5403147 |
FIREWORKS ROUTING |
Software as a service (SAAS) services featuring software for optimizing routing tools by clustering vehicles in compact areas without need to overlap, achieving fairness based on number of tasks and transaction amount, providing time slot based tasks, and providing scheduled and on-demand tasks, and task priority settings |
5702369 |
FIREWORK |
IC 009: Downloadable software in the nature of a mobile application to enable uploading, creating, posting, editing, showing, displaying, blogging, sharing and transmitting of electronic media, videos, or information over the internet and other communications networks; Downloadable software to enable uploading, creating, posting, editing, showing, displaying, blogging, sharing and transmitting of electronic media, videos, or information over the internet and other communications networks |
5869502 |
FIREWORKS FESTIVAL |
computer game software for gaming machines and gaming devices, namely, slot machines and machines which accept a wager |
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.
Comparison of the Marks
The applied-for mark and registered marks are all comprised of or include the word "FIREWORKS". Marks may be confusingly similar in appearance where similar terms or phrases or similar parts of terms or phrases appear in the compared marks and create a similar overall commercial impression. See Crocker Nat’l Bank v. Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce, 228 USPQ 689, 690-91 (TTAB 1986), aff’d sub nom. Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce v. Wells Fargo Bank, Nat’l Ass’n, 811 F.2d 1490, 1495, 1 USPQ2d 1813, 1817 (Fed. Cir. 1987) (holding COMMCASH and COMMUNICASH confusingly similar); In re Corning Glass Works, 229 USPQ 65, 66 (TTAB 1985) (holding CONFIRM and CONFIRMCELLS confusingly similar); In re Pellerin Milnor Corp., 221 USPQ 558, 560 (TTAB 1983) (holding MILTRON and MILLTRONICS confusingly similar); TMEP §1207.01(b)(ii)-(iii).
Therefore, the marks are similar.
Comparison of the Goods and Services
A broader identification of goods and/or services is presumed to encompass a narrower identification of the same type of goods and/or services. 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). In this case, the application does not indicate the function of the identified software goods or the software featured in the identified software services. Therefore, the goods and services identified in the application encompass those identified in the cited registrations. Thus, applicant’s and registrants’ goods and services 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 and/or services 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 and/or services are related.
II. IDENTIFICATION OF GOODS AND SERVICES
The identification for software in International Class 9 is indefinite and too broad and must be clarified to specify (1) the purpose or function of the software and its content or field of use, if content- or field- specific; and (2) whether its format is downloadable, recorded, or online non-downloadable. See 37 C.F.R. §2.32(a)(6); TMEP §§1402.03(d), 1402.11(a). Downloadable and recorded goods are in International Class 9, whereas providing their temporary, online non-downloadable use is a service in International Class 42. See TMEP §1402.03(d).
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).
The identification for software as a service (SAAS) services in International Class 42 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 wording, if accurate:
Class 9: Downloadable software for {specify function, e.g., analyzing laboratory specimens}; Recorded and downloadable computer software for {specify function, e.g., cataloging laboratory specimens};
Class 42: Software as a service (SAAS) services featuring software for e.g., analyzing laboratory specimens, analyzing laboratory specimens }
(Suggested additions are underscored.)
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
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.
/Betty Chang/
Examining Attorney
Law Office 115
571-272-6517
betty.chang@uspto.gov
RESPONSE GUIDANCE