To:
`
`Subject:
`
`Sent:
`
`Sent As:
`
`Attachments:
`
`Tully, Michael L. (foster@tdfoster.com)
`
`U.S. TRADEMARK APPLICATION NO. 85076485 - INFANT MESSENGER - 6420.001-01
`
`10/26/2012 7:48:01 AM
`
`ECOM107@USPTO.GOV
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE (USPTO)
`OFFICE ACTION (OFFICIAL LETTER) ABOUT APPLICANT’S TRADEMARK APPLICATION
`
`85076485
`
`(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160) CORRESPONDENT ADDRESS:
`(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)
`
`*85076485*
`
`CLICK HERE TO RESPOND TO THIS LETTER:
`http://www.uspto.gov/trademarks/teas/response_forms.jsp
`
`(cid:160) (cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160) APPLICATION SERIAL NO.(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)
`(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160) MARK: INFANT MESSENGER(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160) (cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)
`(cid:160) (cid:160)
`(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160) APPLICANT:(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)
`(cid:160) Tully, Michael L.(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160) (cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160) CORRESPONDENT’S REFERENCE/DOCKET NO :(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)
`(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)
`6420.001-01(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160) CORRESPONDENT E-MAIL ADDRESS:(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)
`
`THOMAS D. FOSTER(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)
`TDFOSTER - INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)
`SAN DIEGO, CA 92130(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)
`
`12626 HIGH BLUFF DR STE 150
`
`(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)
`
`foster@tdfoster.com
`
`OFFICE ACTION
`
`STRICT DEADLINE TO RESPOND TO THIS LETTER
`TO AVOID ABANDONMENT OF APPLICANT’S TRADEMARK APPLICATION, THE USPTO MUST RECEIVE APPLICANT’S COMPLETE
`RESPONSE TO THIS LETTER WITHIN 6 MONTHS OF THE ISSUE/MAILING DATE BELOW.
`
`(cid:160)I
`
`SSUE/MAILING DATE: 10/26/2012
`
`(cid:160)T
`
`HIS IS A FINAL ACTION.
`
`Application Serial No. 77/388071 has been abandoned.(cid:160) Prosecution of this application is, therefore, resumed.
`
`(cid:160)C
`
`LASS 28
`
`1.
`
`Potential bar to registration
`
`(cid:160)A
`
`pplication Serial No. 77/388071 has been abandoned.(cid:160) Reference to this application as a potential bar to registration in Class 28 is
`WITHDRAWN.
`
`2.
`
`Disclaimer
`
`(cid:160)T
`
`he requirement that applicant disclaim INFANT is CONTINUED and made FINAL.
`
`Applicant may submit the following standardized format for a disclaimer:
`
`(cid:160)
`(cid:160)
`(cid:160)
`(cid:160)
`(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)
`(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)
`

`

`No claim is made to the exclusive right to use “INFANT” apart from the mark as shown.
`
`(cid:160)T
`
`MEP §1213.08(a)(i); see In re Owatonna Tool Co., 231 USPQ 493 (Comm’r Pats. 1983).
`
`(cid:160)A
`
`n INFANT is a very young child.(cid:160) See http://www.encarta.msn.com attached to the office action of October 15, 2010.(cid:160) Presumably, applicant’s
`toys are intended for infant use. A term that describes an intended user or group of users of a product or service is merely descriptive.(cid:160) E.g., In re
`Planalytics, Inc., 70 USPQ2d 1453 (TTAB 2004) (holding GASBUYER merely descriptive of intended user of risk management services in the
`field of pricing and purchasing natural gas); In re Camel Mfg. Co., 222 USPQ 1031 (TTAB 1984) (holding MOUNTAIN CAMPER merely
`descriptive of intended users of retail and mail order services in the field of outdoor equipment and apparel); see TMEP §1209.03(i).
`
`(cid:160)A
`
` “disclaimer” is a statement that applicant does not claim exclusive rights to an unregistrable component of a mark; it does not affect the
`appearance of the mark.(cid:160) TMEP §1213.(cid:160) An unregistrable component of a mark includes wording and designs that are merely descriptive of the
`goods, and is wording or an illustration that others would need to use to describe or show their goods and services in the marketplace.(cid:160) 15 U.S.C.
`§1052(e); see TMEP §§1209.03(f), 1213.03 et seq.
`
`(cid:160)A
`
` disclaimer does not physically remove the disclaimed matter from the mark, but rather is a written statement that applicant does not claim
`exclusive rights to the disclaimed wording and/or design separate and apart from the mark as shown in the drawing.(cid:160) TMEP §§1213, 1213.10.
`
`(cid:160)I
`
`f applicant does not provide the required disclaimer, the USPTO can refuse to register the entire mark.(cid:160) TMEP §1213.01(b).
`
`(cid:160)T
`
`he following cases further explain the disclaimer requirement:(cid:160) Dena Corp. v. Belvedere Int’l Inc ., 950 F.2d 1555, 21 USPQ2d 1047 (Fed. Cir.
`1991); In re Brown-Forman Corp., 81 USPQ2d 1284 (TTAB 2006); In re Kraft, Inc., 218 USPQ 571 (TTAB 1983).
`
`(cid:160)C
`
`LASS 9
`
`1.(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160) SECTION 2(d) REFUSAL – LIKELIHOOD OF CONFUSION [Class 9 only]
`
`For the reasons set forth below, the refusal under Trademark Act Section 2(d) is now made FINAL with respect to U.S. Registration No(s).
`3310190; 3310191; 3310193; 3310194.(cid:160) See 15 U.S.C. §1052(d); 37 C.F.R. §2.64(a).
`
`(cid:160)I
`
`n any likelihood of confusion determination, two key considerations are similarity of the marks and similarity or relatedness of the goods and
`services.(cid:160) See Federated Foods, Inc. v. Fort Howard Paper Co., 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, 41 USPQ2d 1531, 1533 (Fed.
`Cir. 1997).(cid:160) That is, the marks are compared in their entireties for similarities in appearance, sound, connotation, and commercial impression.(cid:160) In
`re Viterra Inc., 671 F.3d 1358, 1362, 101 USPQ2d 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).(cid:160) Additionally, the goods and services are compared to determine
`whether they are similar or commercially related or travel in the same trade channels.(cid:160) See Coach Servs., Inc. v. Triumph Learning LLC, 668 F.3d
`1356, 1369-71, 101 USPQ2d 1713, 1722-23 (Fed. Cir. 2012); Herbko Int’l, Inc. v. Kappa Books, Inc. , 308 F.3d 1156, 1165, 64 USPQ2d 1375,
`1381 (Fed. Cir. 2002); TMEP §1207.01, (a)(vi).
`
`(cid:160)C
`
`omparison of Marks
`
`(cid:160)M
`
`arks are compared in their entireties for similarities in appearance, sound, connotation, and commercial impression.(cid:160) In re Viterra Inc., 671
`F.3d 1358, 1362, 101 USPQ2d 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).(cid:160) Similarity in any one of these elements may be sufficient to find the marks confusingly
`similar.(cid:160) In re White Swan Ltd., 8 USPQ2d 1534, 1535 (TTAB 1988); see In re 1st USA Realty Prof’ls, Inc. , 84 USPQ2d 1581, 1586 (TTAB
`2007); TMEP §1207.01(b).
`
`(cid:160)R
`
`egistrant is using AOL INSTANT MESSENGER and INSTANT MESSENGER.(cid:160) Applicant intends to use INFANT MESSENGER. INFANT
`MESSENGER is likely to be perceived as similar to the INSTANT MESSENGER marks because the marks resemble each other in appearance.
`Each mark contains the term MESSENGER as its second term and is preceded by a descriptive term – INSTANT on the one hand referring to
`delivery time and INFANT on the other referring to content type.(cid:160)(cid:160) The marks are(cid:160) highly similar.
`
`Applicant has argued that the marks are parodies. The fact that a mark is intended to be a parody of another trademark is not, by itself, sufficient
`to overcome a likelihood of confusion refusal, because “[t]here are confusing parodies and non-confusing parodies.” J. Thomas McCarthy,
`McCarthy on Trademarks and Unfair Competition, §31.153 (4th ed. 2010); see also Boston Red Sox Baseball Club LP v. Sherman, 88 USPQ2d
`1581, 1592 (TTAB 2008) (“Parody is not a defense if the marks would otherwise be considered confusingly similar.”). “A true parody actually
`decreases the likelihood of confusion because the effect of the parody is to create a distinction in the viewer’s mind between the actual product
`and the joke.” Mutual of Omaha Ins. Co. v. Novak, 648 F. Supp. 905, 910, 231 USPQ 963, 965 (D. Neb. 1986), aff’d , 836 F.2d 397, 5 USPQ2d
`1314 (8th Cir. 1987). Thus, ”[w]hile a parody must call to mind the actual product to be successful, the same success also necessarily
`distinguishes the parody from the actual product.” Id. See Starbucks U.S. Brands, LLC v. Ruben, 78 USPQ2d 1741 (TTAB 2006) (holding
`
`(cid:160)
`(cid:160)
`

`

`contemporaneous use of applicant’s mark, LESSBUCKS COFFEE, and opposer’s marks, STARBUCKS and STARBUCKS COFFEE, for
`identical goods and services, likely to cause confusion, noting that “parody is unavailing to applicant as an outright defense and, further, does not
`serve to distinguish the marks”); Columbia Pictures Indus. Inc., v. Miller, 211 USPQ 816, 820 (TTAB 1981) (holding CLOTHES
`ENCOUNTERS for clothing, and CLOSE ENCOUNTERS OF THE THIRD KIND for t-shirts, likely to cause confusion, noting that the “right
`of the public to use words in the English language in a humorous and parodic manner does not extend to use of such words as trademarks if such
`use conflicts with the prior use and/or registration of the substantially same mark by another”); see also Jordache Enters. v. Hogg Wyld Ltd.,
`828 F.2d 1482, 4 USPQ2d 1216, 1220, 1222 (10th Cir. 1987) (noting that “a parody of an existing trademark can cause a likelihood of confusion,
`” but affirming district court’s holding that contemporaneous use of LARDASHE and JORDACHE, both for jeans, is not likely to cause
`confusion).
`
`In this instance, INFANT MESSENGER is not likely to be perceived as a parody because the proposed mark is not a joke and is not likely to be
`perceived as such by the consumer. It is likely to be perceived as a way of delivering content about infants and young children, much like the
`registrant delivers content quickly.
`
`Comparison of the Goods and Services
`
`The goods and services of the parties need not be identical or directly competitive to find a likelihood of confusion.(cid:160) See Safety-Kleen Corp. v.
`Dresser Indus., Inc., 518 F.2d 1399, 1404, 186 USPQ 476, 480 (C.C.P.A. 1975); TMEP §1207.01(a)(i).(cid:160) Rather, it is sufficient to show that
`because of the conditions surrounding their marketing, or because they are otherwise related in some manner, the goods and/or services would be
`encountered by the same consumers under circumstances such that offering the goods and services under confusingly similar marks would lead
`to the mistaken belief that they come from, or are in some way associated with, the same source.(cid:160) In re Iolo Techs., LLC, 95 USPQ2d 1498, 1499
`(TTAB 2010); see In re Martin’s Famous Pastry Shoppe, Inc. , 748 F.2d 1565, 1566-68, 223 USPQ 1289, 1290 (Fed. Cir. 1984); TMEP
`§1207.01(a)(i).
`
`Registrant is using its mark in connection with electronic transmission of data, images documents and electronic mail.(cid:160)
`Applicant intends to use its mark on software and hardware for instant messaging and delivery of other communications
`including data, images and presumably mail/messages.(cid:160) Both registrant and applicant are using their marks in connection with
`electronic delivery of content.(cid:160) Consumers familiar with AOL INSTANT MESSENGER and INSTANT MESSENGER are
`likely to assume that software called INFANT MESSENGER for instant messaging and content delivery is related to the
`registrant’s services identifying a specific type of messaging pertaining to infants. (cid:160)(cid:160) The similarities between the marks,
`therefore, and the relatedness of the good and services create a substantial likelihood that consumers may be confused as to the
`
`source of the goods and services. (cid:160)(cid:160)
`
`2.(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160) SECTION 2(e)(1) REFUSAL - MERELY DESCRIPTIVE [Class 9 Only]
`
`The refusal under Trademark Act Section 2(e)(1) is now made FINAL for the reasons set forth below.(cid:160) See 15 U.S.C. §1052(e)(1); 37 C.F.R.
`§2.64(a).
`
`(cid:160)T
`
`he determination of whether a mark is merely descriptive is made in relation to an applicant’s goods, not in the abstract. (cid:160) In re The Chamber of
`Commerce of the U.S., 675 F.3d 1297, 1300, 102 USPQ2d 1217, 1219 (Fed. Cir. 2012); In re Bayer Aktiengesellschaft, 488 F.3d 960, 963-64, 82
`USPQ2d 1828, 1831 (Fed. Cir. 2007); TMEP §1209.01(b); see, e.g., In re Polo Int’l Inc. , 51 USPQ2d 1061, 1062-63 (TTAB 1999) (finding
`DOC in DOC-CONTROL would refer to the “documents” managed by applicant’s software rather than the term “doctor” shown in a
`dictionary definition); In re Digital Research Inc., 4 USPQ2d 1242, 1243-44 (TTAB 1987) (finding CONCURRENT PC-DOS and
`CONCURRENT DOS merely descriptive of “computer programs recorded on disk” where the relevant trade used the denomination
`“concurrent” as a descriptor of a particular type of operating system). (cid:160) “Whether consumers could guess what the product [or service] is from
`consideration of the mark alone is not the test.” (cid:160) In re Am. Greetings Corp., 226 USPQ 365, 366 (TTAB 1985).
`
`(cid:160)M
`
`ESSENGER describes a type of software. [See attached materials from the Internet attached to the office action of October 15, 2010].(cid:160)
`INFANT identifies a young child. See http://www.encarta.msn.com attached to the office action of October 15, 2010.(cid:160) INFANT MESSENGER
`describes software and hardware used in connection therewith to deliver information about infants.(cid:160) Presumably, applicant’s goods incorporate
`this function.
`
`(cid:160)M
`
`aterial obtained from the Internet is generally accepted as competent evidence.(cid:160) See In re Rodale Inc., 80 USPQ2d 1696, 1700 (TTAB 2006)
`(accepting Internet evidence to show genericness); In re Fitch IBCA Inc., 64 USPQ2d 1058, 1060-61 (TTAB 2002) (accepting Internet evidence
`to show descriptiveness); TBMP §1208.03; TMEP §710.01(b).
`
`(cid:160)O
`
`PTIONS
`
`(cid:160)I
`
`f applicant does not respond within six months of the date of issuance of this final Office action, the application will be abandoned.(cid:160) 15 U.S.C.
`§1062(b); 37 C.F.R. §2.65(a).(cid:160) Applicant may respond to this final Office action by:
`
`(cid:160)
`

`

`(1)(cid:160) Submitting a response that fully satisfies all outstanding requirements, if feasible; and/or
`
`(2)(cid:160) Filing an appeal to the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board, with an appeal fee of $100 per class.
`
`(cid:160)3
`
`7 C.F.R. §§2.6(a)(18), 2.64(a); TBMP ch. 1200; TMEP §714.04.
`
`(cid:160)I
`
`n certain rare circumstances, a petition to the Director may be filed pursuant to 37 C.F.R. §2.63(b)(2) to review a final Office action that is
`limited to procedural issues.(cid:160) 37 C.F.R. §2.64(a); TMEP §714.04; see 37 C.F.R. §2.146(b); TBMP §1201.05; TMEP §1704 (explaining
`petitionable matters).(cid:160) The petition fee is $100.(cid:160) 37 C.F.R. §2.6(a)(15).
`
`/Kathleen M. Vanston/
`Examining Attorney
`Law Office 107
`(571) 272-9235
`kathy.vanston@uspto.gov [for informal inquiries only]
`
`(cid:160)T
`
`O RESPOND TO THIS LETTER: (cid:160) Go to http://www.uspto.gov/trademarks/teas/response_forms.jsp. (cid:160) Please wait 48-72 hours from the
`issue/mailing date before using TEAS, to allow for necessary system updates of the application.(cid:160) For technical assistance with online forms, e-
`mail TEAS@uspto.gov.(cid:160) For(cid:160)questions about the Office action itself, please contact the assigned trademark examining attorney.(cid:160)(cid:160) E-mail
`communications will not be accepted as responses to Office actions; therefore, do not respond to this Office action by e-mail.
`
`(cid:160)A
`
`ll informal e-mail communications relevant to this application will be placed in the official application record.
`
`(cid:160)W
`
`HO MUST SIGN THE RESPONSE:(cid:160) It must be personally signed by(cid:160)an individual applicant or(cid:160)someone with legal authority to bind an
`applicant (i.e., a corporate officer, a general partner, all joint applicants).(cid:160)(cid:160)If an applicant is represented by an attorney, the attorney must sign the
`
`response.(cid:160)(cid:160)
`PERIODICALLY CHECK THE STATUS OF THE APPLICATION: (cid:160) To ensure that applicant does not miss crucial deadlines or official
`notices, check the status of the application every three to four months using Trademark Applications and Registrations Retrieval (TARR) at
`http://tarr.uspto.gov/. (cid:160) Please keep a copy of the complete TARR screen. (cid:160) If TARR shows no change for more than six months, call
`1-800-786-9199. (cid:160) For more information on checking status, see http://www.uspto.gov/trademarks/process/status/.
`
`(cid:160)T
`
`O UPDATE CORRESPONDENCE/E-MAIL ADDRESS:(cid:160) Use the TEAS form at http://www.uspto.gov/teas/eTEASpageE.htm.
`
`(cid:160)
`(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)
`(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)
`

`

`To:
`
`Subject:
`
`Sent:
`
`Sent As:
`
`Attachments:
`
`Tully, Michael L. (foster@tdfoster.com)
`
`U.S. TRADEMARK APPLICATION NO. 85076485 - INFANT MESSENGER - 6420.001-01
`
`10/26/2012 7:48:02 AM
`
`ECOM107@USPTO.GOV
`
`IMPORTANT NOTICE REGARDING YOUR
`
`U.S. TRADEMARK APPLICATION
`
`USPTO OFFICE ACTION HAS ISSUED ON 10/26/2012 FOR
`SERIAL NO. 85076485
`
`lease follow the instructions below to continue the prosecution of your application:
`
`(cid:160)P
`
`TO READ OFFICE ACTION: Click on this link or go to http://portal.uspto.gov/external/portal/tow and enter the application serial
`number to access the Office action.
`
`(cid:160)P
`
`LEASE NOTE: The Office action may not be immediately available but will be viewable within 24 hours of this e-mail notification.
`
`(cid:160)R
`
`ESPONSE(cid:160)IS REQUIRED: You should carefully review the Office action to determine (1) how to respond; and (2) the applicable
`response time period. Your response deadline will be calculated from 10/26/2012 (or sooner if specified in the office action).
`
`(cid:160)D
`
`o NOT hit “Reply” to this e-mail notification, or otherwise attempt to e-mail your response, as the USPTO does NOT accept e-mailed
`responses.(cid:160) Instead, the USPTO recommends that you respond online using the Trademark Electronic Application System Response
`Form.
`
`(cid:160)H
`
`ELP: For technical assistance in accessing the Office action, please e-mail
`
`TDR@uspto.gov.(cid:160) Please contact the assigned examining attorney with questions about the Office action.(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160) WARNING
`
`(cid:160)F
`
`ailure to file the required response by the applicable deadline will result in the ABANDONMENT of your
`application.
`
`(cid:160)
`(cid:160)(cid:160)
`(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)
`