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:  November 03, 2022

 

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 applicant must address:

 

• Trademark Act Section 2(d) Refusal – Likelihood of Confusion
• Ownership of Cited Registration
• Specimen – Deficient Webpage Display for Goods
• Identification of Goods Requires Clarification and/or Re-Classification

 

TRADEMARK ACT 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. 1204277.  Trademark Act Section 2(d), 15 U.S.C. §1052(d); see TMEP §§1207.01 et seq.  See the attached registration.

 

Applicant’s mark is “ORBIT” for the following goods:

 

• Class 6:  manually actuated non-thermostatic valves adapted to be connected into fluid conductors for controlling the flow of fluid therethrough and parts thereof
• Class 7: pneumatic and hydraulic actuators for non-thermostatic valves adapted to be connected into fluid conductors for controlling the flow of fluid there through and parts thereof

 

Registrant’s mark is “ORBIT” for, in relevant part, the following goods:

 

• Class 6:  manually actuated non-thermostatic valves adapted to be connected into fluid conductors for controlling the flow of fluid therethrough and parts thereof
• Class 7:  pneumatic and hydraulic actuators for non-thermostatic valves adapted to be connected into fluid conductors for controlling the flow of fluid therethrough and parts thereof

 

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 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. 

 

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).

 

When comparing marks, “[t]he proper test is not a side-by-side comparison of the marks, but instead whether the marks are sufficiently similar in terms of their commercial impression such that [consumers] who encounter the marks would be likely to assume a connection between the parties.”  Cai v. Diamond Hong, Inc., 901 F.3d 1367, 1373, 127 USPQ2d 1797, 1801 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (quoting Coach Servs., Inc. v. Triumph Learning LLC, 668 F.3d 1356, 1368, 101 USPQ2d 1713, 1721 (Fed. Cir. 2012)); TMEP §1207.01(b).  The proper focus is on the recollection of the average purchaser, who retains a general rather than specific impression of trademarks.  In re Ox Paperboard, LLC, 2020 USPQ2d 10878, at *4 (TTAB 2020) (citing In re Bay State Brewing Co., 117 USPQ2d 1958, 1960 (TTAB 2016)); In re Inn at St. John’s, LLC, 126 USPQ2d 1742, 1746 (TTAB 2018); TMEP §1207.01(b); see In re St. Helena Hosp., 774 F.3d 747, 750-51, 113 USPQ2d 1082, 1085 (Fed. Cir. 2014).

 

Here, applicant’s mark “ORBIT” is highly similar in sight, sound, connotation, and overall commercial impression to registrant’s “ORBIT” mark because both marks consist of the identical and dominant term “ORBIT” and 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) (finding COMMCASH and COMMUNICASH confusingly similar); In re Corning Glass Works, 229 USPQ 65, 66 (TTAB 1985) (finding CONFIRM and CONFIRMCELLS confusingly similar); In re Pellerin Milnor Corp., 221 USPQ 558, 560 (TTAB 1983) (finding MILTRON and MILLTRONICS confusingly similar); TMEP §1207.01(b)(ii)-(iii). 

 

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)).  Here, the word portions of the marks are identical in appearance, sound, connotation, and commercial impression; therefore, the registrant’s addition of a design element does not obviate the similarity of the marks in this case.  See In re Shell Oil Co., 992 F.2d 1204, 1206, 26 USPQ2d 1687, 1688 (Fed. Cir. 1993); TMEP §1207.01(c)(ii).

 

In this case, consumers will likely focus on “ORBIT” in applicant’s mark and may confuse the mark with registrant’s “ORBIT-MAID” mark, especially since the goods of the respective parties are identical highly related, as shown below.

 

On balance, when we consider the marks in their entireties, it is clear that the overall similarities between the marks in connotation, commercial impression, appearance, and sound outweigh the differences between the marks.  According, the similarities between the marks tip in favor of a finding of a likelihood of confusion.

 

B)    Relatedness of the Goods

 

When analyzing an applicant’s and registrant’s goods for similarity and relatedness, that determination is based on the description of the goods in the application and registration at issue, not on extrinsic evidence of actual use.  See Stone Lion Capital Partners, LP v. Lion Capital LLP, 746 F.3d 1317, 1323, 110 USPQ2d 1157, 1162 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (quoting Octocom Sys. Inc. v. Hous. Computers Servs. Inc., 918 F.2d 937, 942, 16 USPQ2d 1783, 1787 (Fed. Cir. 1990)). 

 

In this case, the goods in the application and registration are identical.  Therefore, it is presumed that the channels of trade and classes of purchasers are the same for these goods.  See Cai v. Diamond Hong, Inc., 901 F.3d 1367, 1372, 127 USPQ2d 1797, 1801 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (quoting In re Viterra Inc., 671 F.3d 1358, 1362, 101 USPQ2d 1905, 1908 (Fed. Cir. 2012)).  Thus, applicant’s and registrant’s goods are related.  

 

Upon encountering applicant’s and registrant’s marks, consumers are likely to be confused and mistakenly believe that the respective goods emanate from a common source.

 

Accordingly, applicant’s mark is refused registration under Section 2(d) for a likelihood of confusion.

 

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.

 

OWNERSHIP OF CITED REGISTRATION

 

If the mark in the cited registration is owned by applicant, applicant may provide evidence of ownership of the mark by satisfying one of the following:

 

(1)        Record the assignment with the USPTO’s Assignment Recordation Branch (ownership transfer documents such as assignments can be filed online at http://etas.uspto.gov) and promptly notify the trademark examining attorney that the assignment has been duly recorded;

 

(2)        Submit copies of documents evidencing the chain of title; or

 

(3)        Submit the following statement, verified with an affidavit or signed declaration under 37 C.F.R. §2.20:  “Applicant is the owner of U.S. Registration No. 1204277.”  To provide this statement using the Trademark Electronic Application System (TEAS), use the “Response to Office Action” form; answer “yes” to wizard questions #3 and #9; then, continuing on to the next portion of the form, in the “Additional Statement(s)” section, find “Active Prior Registration(s)” and insert the U.S. registration numbers in the data fields; and follow the instructions within the form for signing.  The form must be signed twice; a signature is required both in the “Declaration Signature” section and in the “Response Signature” section.

 

TMEP §812.01; see 15 U.S.C. §1060; 37 C.F.R. §§2.193(e)(1), 3.25, 3.73(a)-(b); TMEP §502.02(a).

 

Recording a document with the Assignment Recordation Branch does not constitute a response to an Office action.  TMEP §503.01(d).

 

SPECIMEN – DEFICIENT WEBPAGE DISPLAY FOR GOODS

 

Specimen is not an acceptable webpage display.  Registration is refused because the specimen in International Classes 6 and 7 is not acceptable as a display associated with the goods and does not show the applied-for mark as actually used in commerce.  Trademark Act Sections 1 and 45, 15 U.S.C. §§1051, 1127; 37 C.F.R. §2.56(a), (b)(1); see TMEP §§904, 904.03(g)-(i), 904.07(a).  An application based on Trademark Act Section 1(a) must include a specimen showing the applied-for mark as actually used in commerce for each international class of goods identified in the application or amendment to allege use.  15 U.S.C. §1051(a)(1); 37 C.F.R. §§2.34(a)(1)(iv), 2.56(a); TMEP §§904, 904.07(a). 

 

A webpage or catalog display specimen (1) must show use of the mark directly associated with the goods and (2) such use must be of a point-of-sale nature.  37 C.F.R. §2.56(b)(1).  This means that this type of display specimen must include the following:

 

(1)        A picture or sufficient textual description of the goods;

(2)        The mark associated with the goods; and

(3)        A means for ordering the goods such as a “shopping cart” button/link, an order form, or a telephone number for placing orders. 

 

See In re Sones, 590 F.3d 1282, 1286-89, 93 USPQ2d 1118, 1122-24 (Fed. Cir. 2009); In re Azteca Sys., Inc., 102 USPQ2d 1955, 1957-58 (TTAB 2012); In re Dell Inc., 71 USPQ2d 1725, 1727 (TTAB 2004); Lands’ End v. Manbeck, 797 F. Supp. 511, 514, 24 USPQ2d 1314, 1316 (E.D. Va. 1992); TMEP §904.03(h), (i)-.03(i)(D). 

 

In this case, the specimen does not show sufficient means for ordering the goods.  Specifically, the specimen does not contain (i) a shopping cart button/link, (ii) an order form, or (iii) a telephone number for directly placing orders.  Rather the specimen merely contains a “contact” button/link that then takes the consumer to a “Connect with Us” page.   “Contact Us” buttons and links are not acceptable because they do not enable direct ordering of the goods. These buttons and links route consumers to a different web page that offers only an invitation to obtain more information about the goods, or about the retailers, wholesalers, or distributors who actually sell the goods.  See, e.g., In re Quantum Foods, Inc., 94 USPQ2d 1375, 1379 (TTAB 2010) (noting that the "contact us" link on applicant’s web-page specimen did not take customers to an order form, but instead routed to a web page with applicant’s email address and telephone number); cf. In re Genitope Corp., 78 USPQ2d 1819, 1822 (TTAB 2006) (stating that the web page did not provide a link to order the goods or explain how to order them, where the web page contained a link for "click here for more information" and provided links for "Patient Backgrounder" and "Patient Resources" for "more information on personalized immunotherapy and our products").

 

Accordingly, such material is mere advertising, which is not acceptable as a specimen for goods.  See In re Yarnell Ice Cream, LLC, 2019 USPQ2d 265039, at *15-16 (TTAB 2019) (quoting In re Siny Corp., 920 F.3d 1331, 1336, 2019 USPQ2d 127099, at *2-3 (Fed. Cir. 2019)); see also Avakoff v. S. Pac. Co., 765 F.2d 1097, 1098, 226 USPQ 435, 436 (Fed. Cir. 1985); TMEP §904.04(b), (c). 

 

Examples of specimens.  Specimens for goods include a photograph of (1) the actual goods bearing the mark; (2) an actual container, packaging, tag or label for the goods bearing the mark; or (3) a point-of-sale display showing the mark directly associated with the goods.  See 37 C.F.R. §2.56(b)(1), (c); TMEP §904.03(a)-(m).  As specified above, a webpage specimen submitted as a display associated with the goods must show the mark in association with a picture or textual description of the goods and include information necessary for ordering the goods.  TMEP §904.03(i); see 37 C.F.R. §2.56(b)(1), (c).  Any webpage printout or screenshot submitted as a specimen must include the webpage’s URL and the date it was accessed or printed on the specimen itself, within the TEAS form that submits the specimen, or in a verified statement under 37 C.F.R. §2.20 or 28 U.S.C. §1746 in a later-filed response.  See 37 C.F.R. §2.56(c); TMEP §§904.03(i), 1301.04(a).

 

Response options.  Applicant may respond to this refusal by satisfying one of the following for each applicable international class:

 

(1)        Submit a different specimen (a verified “substitute” specimen) that (a) was in actual use in commerce at least as early as the filing date of the application or prior to the filing of an amendment to allege use and (b) shows the mark in actual use in commerce for the goods identified in the application or amendment to allege use.  A “verified substitute specimen” is a specimen that is accompanied by the following statement made in a signed affidavit or supported by a declaration under 37 C.F.R. §2.20:  “The substitute (or new, or originally submitted, if appropriate) specimen(s) was/were in use in commerce at least as early as the filing date of the application or prior to the filing of the amendment to allege use.”  The substitute specimen cannot be accepted without this statement.

 

(2)        Amend the filing basis to intent to use under Section 1(b) (which includes withdrawing an amendment to allege use, if one was filed), as no specimen is required before publication.  This option will later necessitate additional fee(s) and filing requirements, including a specimen.

 

For an overview of the response options referenced above and instructions on how to satisfy these options using the online Trademark Electronic Application System (TEAS) form, see the Specimen webpage.  

 

IDENTIFICATION OF GOODS REQUIRES CLARIFICATION AND/OR RE-CLASSIFICATION

 

Applicant must clarify the wording (i) “manually actuated non-thermostatic valves adapted to be connected into fluid conductors for controlling the flow of fluid therethrough and parts thereof” in the identification of goods in International Class 6 and “pneumatic and hydraulic actuators for non-thermostatic valves adapted to be connected into fluid conductors for controlling the flow of fluid there through and parts thereof” in International Class 7 because this wording is indefinite and too broad.  See 37 C.F.R. §2.32(a)(6); TMEP §§1402.01, 1402.03.  This wording is indefinite because the precise nature of the goods is unclear.  Applicant must amend this wording to specify the common commercial or generic name of the goods.  See TMEP §1402.01.  Further, this wording could identify goods in more than one international class.  For example, metal valves not being parts of machines are classified in International Class 6, valves being machine parts are classified in International Class 7, automatic control valves are classified in International Class 9, valves for plumbing and heating and cooling installations are classified in International Class 11, rubber manually-operated valves are classified in International Class 17, and plastic manually-operated valves are classified in International Class 20.

 

Additionally, the wording “parts thereof” is unclear and must be clarified because it is indefinite and does not make clear what the goods are.  See 37 C.F.R. §2.32(a)(6); TMEP  1402.01, 14020.03.  The word “parts” alone is generally unacceptable for the reasons identified above, the wording “replacement parts therefor” or “structural parts therefor” is acceptable when it follows a definite identification of goods.  See TMEP §1402.03(a).

 

Applicant may substitute the following wording, if accurate:

 

• Class 6:  Metal valves not being parts of machines, namely, manually-actuated non-thermostatic metal valves for use in connection into fluid conductors for controlling the flow of fluid therethrough, and {specify “structural” or “replacement”} parts thereof

 

• Class 7:  Hydraulic and pneumatic valve actuators, namely, pneumatic and hydraulic actuators for non-thermostatic valves for use in connection into fluid conductors for controlling the flow of fluid therethrough, and {specify “structural” or “replacement”} parts thereof

 

Applicant may amend the identification to clarify or limit the goods, but not to broaden or expand the goods 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 and/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.

 

RESPONSE GUIDELINES

 

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.    

 

 

/Eric Sable/

Trademark Examining Attorney

Law Office 117

571-272-4653

Eric.Sable@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 November 03, 2022 for

U.S. Trademark Application Serial No. 97328429

 

A USPTO examining attorney has reviewed your trademark application and issued an Office action.  You must respond to this Office action in order to avoid your application abandoning.  Follow the steps below.

 

(1)  Read the Office action.  This email is NOT the Office action.

 

(2)  Respond to the Office action by the deadline using the Trademark Electronic Application System (TEAS).  Your response must be received by the USPTO on or before 11:59 p.m. Eastern Time of the last day of the response period.  Otherwise, your application will be abandoned.  See the Office action itself regarding how to respond.

 

(3)  Direct general questions about using USPTO electronic forms, the USPTO website, the application process, the status of your application, and whether there are outstanding deadlines to the Trademark Assistance Center (TAC).

 

After reading the Office action, address any question(s) regarding the specific content to the USPTO examining attorney identified in the Office action.

 

 

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 to ensure you receive important USPTO notices about your application.

 

·         Beware of trademark-related scams.  Protect yourself from people and companies that may try to take financial advantage of you.  Private companies may call you and pretend to be the USPTO or may send you communications that resemble official USPTO documents to trick you.  We will never request your credit card number or social security number over the phone.  And all official USPTO correspondence will only be emailed from the domain “@uspto.gov.”  Verify the correspondence originated from us by using your Serial Number in our database, TSDR, to confirm that it appears under the “Documents” tab, or contact the Trademark Assistance Center.

 

·         Hiring a U.S.-licensed attorney.  If you do not have an attorney and are not required to have one under the trademark rules, we encourage you to hire a U.S.-licensed attorney specializing in trademark law to help guide you through the registration process.  The USPTO examining attorney is not your attorney and cannot give you legal advice, but rather works for and represents the USPTO in trademark matters.