OFFICE ACTION ( OFFICIAL LETTER) ABOUT STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE (USPTO) OFFICE ACTION (...

Click here to load reader

  • date post

    25-May-2018
  • Category

    Documents

  • view

    213
  • download

    0

Embed Size (px)

Transcript of OFFICE ACTION ( OFFICIAL LETTER) ABOUT STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE (USPTO) OFFICE ACTION (...

  • To: Google Inc. (tmdocketing@google.com le.com)

    Subject: U.S. TRADEMARK APPLICATION NO. 86008139 - GLASS - N/A

    Sent: 9/18/2013 10:45:47 AM

    Sent As: ECOM116@USPTO.GOV

    Attachments: Attachment - 1Attachment - 2Attachment - 3Attachment - 4Attachment - 5Attachment - 6Attachment - 7Attachment - 8Attachment - 9Attachment - 10Attachment - 11Attachment - 12Attachment - 13Attachment - 14Attachment - 15Attachment - 16Attachment - 17Attachment - 18Attachment - 19Attachment - 20Attachment - 21Attachment - 22Attachment - 23Attachment - 24Attachment - 25Attachment - 26Attachment - 27Attachment - 28Attachment - 29

    UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE (USPTO)OFFICE ACTION (OFFICIAL LETTER) ABOUT APPLICANTS TRADEMARK APPLICATION

    ../mailto:tmdocketing@google.com le.com../OOA0002.JPG../OOA0003.JPG../OOA0004.JPG../OOA0005.JPG../OOA0006.JPG../OOA0007.JPG../OOA0008.JPG../OOA0009.JPG../OOA0010.JPG../OOA0011.JPG../OOA0012.JPG../OOA0013.JPG../OOA0014.JPG../OOA0015.JPG../OOA0016.JPG../OOA0017.JPG../OOA0018.JPG../OOA0019.JPG../OOA0020.JPG../OOA0021.JPG../OOA0022.JPG../OOA0023.JPG../OOA0024.JPG../OOA0025.JPG../OOA0026.JPG../OOA0027.jpg../OOA0028.jpg../OOA0029.jpg../OOA0030.jpg

  • U.S. APPLICATION SERIAL NO. 86008139 MARK: GLASS

    *86008139* CORRESPONDENT ADDRESS: CHRISTINE HSIEH GOOGLE INC. 1600 AMPHITHEATRE PKWY MOUNTAIN VIEW, CA 94043-1351

    CLICK HERE TO RESPOND TO THIS LETTER:http://www.uspto.gov/trademarks/teas/response_forms.jsp

    APPLICANT: Google Inc.

    CORRESPONDENTS REFERENCE/DOCKET NO : N/A CORRESPONDENT E-MAIL ADDRESS: tmdocketing@google.com le.com

    OFFICE ACTION

    STRICT DEADLINE TO RESPOND TO THIS LETTERTO AVOID ABANDONMENT OF APPLICANTS TRADEMARK APPLICATION, THE USPTOMUST RECEIVE APPLICANTS COMPLETE RESPONSE TO THIS LETTER WITHIN 6 MONTHSOF THE ISSUE/MAILING DATE BELOW. ISSUE/MAILING DATE: 9/18/2013 The referenced application has been reviewed by the assigned trademark examining attorney. Applicantmust 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 that applicant must address:

    Potential Citation of Prior-Filed ApplicationsRefusal Likelihood of ConfusionRefusal Mark is Merely DescriptiveIdentification Requires ClarificationRequirement for Information

    PRIOR-FILED APPLICATION(S) The filing dates of pending U.S. Application Serial Nos. 85354619, 85526590, 85653378, 85731148,85481062, 85780830 and 85833558 precede applicants filing date. See attached referencedapplications. If one or more of the marks in the referenced applications register, applicants mark may berefused registration under Trademark Act Section 2(d) because of a likelihood of confusion with theregistered mark(s). See 15 U.S.C. 1052(d); 37 C.F.R. 2.83; TMEP 1208 et seq. Therefore, upon

    http://www.uspto.gov/trademarks/teas/response_forms.jsp

  • receipt of applicants response to this Office action, action on this application may be suspended pendingfinal disposition of the earlier-filed referenced applications. In response to this Office action, applicant may present arguments in support of registration by addressingthe issue of the potential conflict between applicants mark and the marks in the referenced applications. Applicants election not to submit arguments at this time in no way limits applicants right to address thisissue later if a refusal under Section 2(d) issues.

    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. 3488007, 3546663, 3797151, 3883602, 4096814 and 4248234. Trademark Act Section2(d), 15 U.S.C. 1052(d); see TMEP 1207.01 et seq. See the enclosed registrations. --General Principles in Determining Likelihood of Confusion In any likelihood of confusion determination, two key considerations are similarity of the marks andsimilarity or relatedness of the goods and/or services. See Federated Foods, Inc. v. Fort Howard PaperCo., 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, 41USPQ2d 1531, 1533 (Fed. Cir. 1997). That is, the marks are compared in their entireties for similarities inappearance, sound, connotation, and commercial impression. In re Viterra Inc., 671 F.3d 1358, 1362, 101USPQ2d 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/orservices are compared to determine whether they are similar or commercially related or travel in the sametrade channels. See Coach Servs., Inc. v. Triumph Learning LLC, 668 F.3d 1356, 1369-71, 101 USPQ2d1713, 1722-23 (Fed. Cir. 2012); Herbko Intl, Inc. v. Kappa Books, Inc. , 308 F.3d 1156, 1165, 64USPQ2d 1375, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2002); TMEP 1207.01, (a)(vi). --Similarities Between the Marks Marks are compared in their entireties for similarities in appearance, sound, connotation, and commercialimpression. In re Viterra Inc., 671 F.3d 1358, 1362, 101 USPQ2d 1905, 1908 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (quoting Inre E. I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., 476 F.2d 1357, 1361, 177 USPQ 563, 567 (C.C.P.A. 1973)); TMEP1207.01(b)-(b)(v). Similarity in any one of these elements may be sufficient to find the marksconfusingly similar. In re White Swan Ltd., 8 USPQ2d 1534, 1535 (TTAB 1988); see In re 1st USARealty Profls, Inc. , 84 USPQ2d 1581, 1586 (TTAB 2007); TMEP 1207.01(b). The applicant applied to register the mark GLASS, in stylized format. The registered marks are GLASS;WRITE ON GLASS; GLASS3D; and, TELEGLASS. The applicants mark is similar to the registrants marks. The marks all share the common featureGLASS and create the same overall commercial impression. When comparing marks, the test is not whether the marks can be distinguished in a side-by-sidecomparison, but rather whether the marks are sufficiently similar in their entireties that confusion as to thesource of the goods and/or services offered under applicants and registrants marks is likely to result. Midwestern Pet Foods, Inc. v. Societe des Produits Nestle S.A., 685 F.3d 1046, 1053, 103 USPQ2d 1435,1440 (Fed. Cir. 2012); Edom Labs., Inc. v. Lichter, 102 USPQ2d 1546, 1551 (TTAB 2012); TMEP

  • 1207.01(b). The focus is on the recollection of the average purchaser, who normally retains a generalrather than specific impression of trademarks. LOreal S.A. v. Marcon , 102 USPQ2d 1434, 1438 (TTAB2012); Sealed Air Corp. v. Scott Paper Co., 190 USPQ 106, 108 (TTAB 1975); TMEP 1207.01(b). --Similarities Between the Goods The goods and/or services of the parties need not be identical or even competitive to find a likelihood ofconfusion. 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)([E]ven if the goods in question are different from, and thus not related to, one another in kind, the samegoods can be related in the mind of the consuming public as to the origin of the goods.); TMEP1207.01(a)(i). The respective goods and/or services need only be related in some manner and/or if the circumstancessurrounding their marketing [be] such that they could give rise to the mistaken belief that [the goodsand/or services] emanate from the same source. Coach Servs., Inc. v. Triumph Learning LLC, 668 F.3d1356, 1369, 101 USPQ2d 1713, 1722 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (quoting 7-Eleven Inc. v. Wechsler, 83 USPQ2d1715, 1724 (TTAB 2007)); Gen. Mills Inc. v. Fage Dairy Processing Indus. SA, 100 USPQ2d 1584, 1597(TTAB 2011); TMEP 1207.01(a)(i). With regard to Reg. Nos. 3797151 and 3883602, the applicants goods identified as Computer hardware;computer peripherals; wearable computer peripherals; peripherals for mobile devices; wearableperipherals for mobile devices; computer hardware for remotely accessing and transmitting data; computerperipherals for remotely accessing and transmitting data; peripherals for mobile devices for remotelyaccessing and transmitting data; computer hardware for displaying data and video; computer peripheralsfor displaying data and video; peripherals for mobile devices for displaying data and video; computersoftware encompass, or could be used in conjunction with, the registrants goods identified asComputer software for enabling users to create customizable text and visual effects on existing websites,and to enable the viewing and sharing of digital images, information and data available on globalcomputer networks; computer software to enable browsing of websites. With regard to Reg. No. 3488007, the applicants goods identified as Computer hardware; computerperipherals; wearable computer peripherals; peripherals for mobile devices; wearable peripherals formobile devices; computer hardware for remotely accessing and transmitting data; computer peripherals forremotely accessing and transmitting data; peripherals for mobile devices for remotely accessing andtransmitting data; computer hardware for displaying data and video; computer peripherals for displayingdata and video; peripherals for mobile devices for displaying data and video; computer softwareencompass, or could be used in conjunction with, the registrants goods identified as Apparatus forviewing projected images consisting of some or all of the following components - a head-mount device, animage-projection member, one or more lenses, one or more image-display members and an imagemagnifier; apparatus for viewing projected images consisting of earphone, an attachment device, animage-projection member and an image-display memb