throbber
To:
`
`Subject:
`
`Beacon Equity Partners, LLC (trademark@mbbp.com)
`
`U.S. TRADEMARK APPLICATION NO. 85901144 - BEACON EQUITY
`PARTNERS - BCEPTM04
`
`Sent:
`
`2/26/2014 7:45:29 PM
`
`Sent As:
`
`ECOM114@USPTO.GOV
`
`Attachments: Attachment - 1
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE (USPTO)
`OFFICE ACTION (OFFICIAL LETTER) ABOUT APPLICANT’S TRADEMARK APPLICATION
`
`(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) SHERI S. MASON
`(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)
`(cid:160)(cid:160) (cid:160)(cid:160) MORSE, BARNES-BROWN & PENDLETON, P.C.
`(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)
`(cid:160)(cid:160) (cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160) 230 3RD AVE STE 4
`(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)
`(cid:160)(cid:160) (cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160) WALTHAM, MA 02451-7542
`(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)
`
`*85901144*
`
`CLICK HERE TO RESPOND TO THIS LETTER:
`http://www.uspto.gov/trademarks/teas/response_forms.jsp
`
`(cid:160) (cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160) U.S. APPLICATION SERIAL NO. 85901144
`(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) MARK: BEACON EQUITY PARTNERS
`(cid:160)(cid:160) (cid:160)(cid:160) (cid:160)
`(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160) APPLICANT: Beacon Equity Partners, LLC
`(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) BCEPTM04
`
`(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) trademark@mbbp.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: 2/26/2014
`
`THIS IS A FINAL ACTION.
`
`This FINAL Office action is being issued in response to applicant’s communication filed January 30,
`2014.(cid:160) Applicant’s arguments have been carefully considered. (cid:160) However, the Section 2(d) refusal as to
`
`U.S. Registration No. 3001501 is maintained and made FINAL.(cid:160)(cid:160) (cid:160)
`
`(cid:160)
`(cid:160)(cid:160)
`(cid:160)
`

`
`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. 3001501.(cid:160) Trademark Act Section 2(d), 15 U.S.C. §1052(d); see TMEP §§1207.01 et seq.
`
`(cid:160) A copy of U.S. Registration No. 3001501 was sent previously.(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)
`Applicant’s mark is “BEACON EQUITY PARTNERS” for “Business strategy development services;
`consulting in the field of sales methods, sales management, and sales improvement; management and
`operation assistance to commercial businesses; providing an employer with candidates or potential
`employees to fill temporary, contract and permanent positions; none of the foregoing services being
`provided in connection with the acquisition, leasing or management of commercial real estate, real estate
`financing services, financial investment in the field of real-estate related securities, and financial advisory
`services in the field of real-estate related securities”.
`
`(cid:160)T
`
`he mark in the cited registration is as follows:
`
`(cid:160)U
`
`.S. Registration No. 3001501 for the mark “BEACON” for use in connection with, in relevant part,
`“Business consulting services in the area of strategic planning and decision-making for public and private
`entities; and business liaison services, namely, business consultation and management regarding
`marketing activities, launching new products, and matching potential business partners”.
`
`ANALYSIS
`
`(cid:160)T
`
`he marks are similar in commercial impression, and the goods and services are related.(cid:160) Therefore, a
`likelihood of confusion determination is warranted.
`
`(cid:160)T
`
`rademark Act Section 2(d) bars registration of an applied-for mark that so resembles a registered mark
`that it is likely that a potential consumer would be confused or mistaken or deceived as to the source of the
`goods and/or services of the applicant and registrant.(cid:160) See 15 U.S.C. §1052(d).(cid:160) The court in In re E. I. du
`Pont de Nemours & Co., 476 F.2d 1357, 177 USPQ 563 (C.C.P.A. 1973) listed the principal factors to be
`considered when determining whether there is a likelihood of confusion under Section 2(d).(cid:160) See TMEP
`§1207.01.(cid:160) However, not all of the factors are necessarily relevant or of equal weight, and any one factor
`may be dominant in a given case, depending upon the evidence of record.(cid:160) In re Majestic Distilling Co.,
`315 F.3d 1311, 1315, 65 USPQ2d 1201, 1204 (Fed. Cir. 2003); see In re E. I. du Pont, 476 F.2d at 1361-
`62, 177 USPQ at 567.
`
`(cid:160)I
`
`n this case, the following factors are the most relevant:(cid:160) similarity of the marks, similarity of the goods
`and/or services, and similarity of trade channels of the goods and/or services.(cid:160) See In re Opus One, Inc., 60
`USPQ2d 1812 (TTAB 2001); In re Dakin’s Miniatures Inc. , 59 USPQ2d 1593 (TTAB 1999); In re
`Azteca Rest. Enters., Inc., 50 USPQ2d 1209 (TTAB 1999); TMEP §§1207.01 et seq.
`
`Similarity of the Marks
`
`(cid:160)I
`
`n a likelihood of confusion determination, the marks are compared for similarities in their appearance,
`sound, meaning or connotation and commercial impression.(cid:160) 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).(cid:160) Similarity in any one of
`these elements may be sufficient to find a likelihood of confusion.(cid:160) In re White Swan Ltd., 8 USPQ2d
`
`(cid:160)(cid:160)
`(cid:160)(cid:160)
`

`
`1534, 1535 (TTAB 1988); In re Lamson Oil Co., 6 USPQ2d 1041, 1043 (TTAB 1987); see TMEP
`§1207.01(b).
`
`(cid:160)I
`
`n the present case, the marks are similar in commercial impression because the dominant element in each
`mark is “BEACON”. (cid:160) The marks are compared in their entireties under a Trademark Act Section 2(d)
`analysis.(cid:160) See TMEP §1207.01(b).(cid:160) Nevertheless, one feature of a mark may be recognized as more
`significant in creating a commercial impression.(cid:160) Greater weight is given to that dominant feature in
`determining whether there is a likelihood of confusion.(cid:160) In re Nat’l Data Corp. , 753 F.2d 1056, 224
`USPQ 749 (Fed. Cir. 1985); Tektronix, Inc. v. Daktronics, Inc., 534 F.2d 915, 189 USPQ 693 (C.C.P.A.
`1976); In re J.M. Originals Inc., 6 USPQ2d 1393 (TTAB 1987); see TMEP §1207.01(b)(viii), (c)(ii).
`
`(cid:160)A
`
`(cid:160) However, the additional
`pplicant’s mark contains the word “BEACON” along with additional words.
`words are descriptive or generic.(cid:160) Therefore, the dominant word in each mark is “BEACON.”
`
`Similarity of the Services
`
`(cid:160)T
`
`he goods and/or 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, they need only be related in some manner, or the
`conditions surrounding their marketing are such that they would be encountered by the same purchasers
`under circumstances that would give rise to the mistaken belief that the goods and/or services come from a
`common source.(cid:160) In re Total Quality Group, Inc., 51 USPQ2d 1474, 1476 (TTAB 1999); TMEP
`§1207.01(a)(i); see, e.g., On-line Careline Inc. v. Am. Online Inc., 229 F.3d 1080, 1086-87, 56 USPQ2d
`1471, 1475-76 (Fed. Cir. 2000); In re Martin’s Famous Pastry Shoppe, Inc. , 748 F.2d 1565, 1566-68, 223
`USPQ 1289, 1290 (Fed. Cir. 1984).
`
`(cid:160)A
`
`pplicant’s “business strategy development” services are encompassed by registrant’s “business
`consulting services in the area of strategic planning and decision-making for public and private entities.(cid:160)
`Further, applicant’s “consulting [services] in the field of sales methods, sales management, and sales
`improvement, management and operation assistance to commercial businesses” is encompassed by and/or
`related to registrant’s “business consultation and management regarding marketing activities, launching
`new products”.
`
`(cid:160)F
`
`or these reasons, the services are related.
`
`Applicant’s Argument :
`
`(cid:160)A
`
`pplicant argues that the consistency initiative applies in this case.(cid:160) However, following the consistency
`initiative in this case would be inappropriate because it would be a clear error not to issue a Section 2(d)
`refusal because the marks are similar in commercial impression and the services are the same in some
`instances and overlap in other instances.(cid:160) Therefore, applicant’s arguments are unpersuasive.
`
`Conclusion
`
`(cid:160)T
`
`he overriding concern is not only to prevent buyer confusion as to the source of the goods and/or
`services, but to protect the registrant from adverse commercial impact due to use of a similar mark by a
`
`(cid:160)(cid:160)
`(cid:160)(cid:160)
`(cid:160)(cid:160)
`

`
`newcomer.(cid:160) See In re Shell Oil Co., 992 F.2d 1204, 1208, 26 USPQ2d 1687, 1690 (Fed. Cir. 1993).(cid:160)
`Therefore, any doubt regarding a likelihood of confusion determination is resolved in favor of the
`registrant.(cid:160) TMEP §1207.01(d)(i); see Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Packard Press, Inc., 281 F.3d 1261, 1265,
`62 USPQ2d 1001, 1003 (Fed. Cir. 2002); In re Hyper Shoppes (Ohio), Inc., 837 F.2d 463, 464-65, 6
`USPQ2d 1025, 1025 (Fed. Cir. 1988).
`
`(cid:160)A
`
`lthough applicant’s mark has been refused registration, applicant may respond to the refusal by
`submitting evidence and arguments in support of registration.
`
`RESPONSE GUIDELINES
`
`(cid:160)I
`
`f applicant does not respond within six months of the mailing date 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)(cid:160)
`
`(1)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160) Submitting a response that fully satisfies all outstanding requirements, if feasible; and/or
`
`(2)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160) Filing an appeal to the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board, with an appeal fee of $100 per
`class.
`
`37 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).
`
`(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)
`
`/Shaila Lewis/
`Trademark Examining Attorney
`Law Office 114
`(571) 270-1527 (tel.)
`(571) 270-2527 (fax.)
`shaila.lewis@uspto.gov
`
`(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 the Trademark Electronic Application System
`(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 questions about the Office action itself, please contact the assigned
`trademark examining attorney.(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 an individual applicant or
`
`(cid:160)(cid:160)
`(cid:160)
`(cid:160)
`

`
`someone with legal authority to bind an applicant (i.e., a corporate officer, a general partner, all joint
`
`applicants).(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 the Trademark Status and Document Retrieval (TSDR) system at http://tsdr.uspto.gov/. (cid:160) Please keep
`a copy of the TSDR status screen. (cid:160) If the status shows no change for more than six months, contact the
`Trademark Assistance Center by e-mail at TrademarkAssistanceCenter@uspto.gov or 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/trademarks/teas/correspondence.jsp.
`
`(cid:160)(cid:160)
`

`
`
`it is a snapstttt more page as It appeaed on Feb 26, 20:4 00 05 m am The current we could name arranged In the
`nus rs rssoges cattle or rm llwww trrvr
`rtaru conv racttceareas/rnteilectuai— ro e
`I
`me.-ymme Learn more
`fip:TnqrrreHynrrdyurrrseacrr tenlton nus page, press CIIHFM 3:: (Mac) and use thefind ha
`
`Texvoniy version
`
`
`
`iV G inVigor Law Grou
`
`legal services for the life ofyour business
`
`
`
`Intellectual Property
`Intellectual property is olten your businesses‘ most valuable asset. Accordingly, pmtecting the value ol
`your trademarks, trade secmts, copyrights, and patents is essential. The attorneys at invigor Law Gmup
`work with you to implement a custom tailored strategy to protect your intellectual property. We will help
`you define your goals, understand your rights, and develop and execute a strategy lor pmtecting your
`current and future intellectual pmperty, including trademarks, copyrights, patents. and trade secrets.
`Trademark Protection
`Most businesses have significant value attached to their name, logo, or slogan. Another company's use
`ol your trademarks can significantly damage your company and its neputation. One ol the easiest ways
`to secure value and pmtection tor your intellectual property is to register your trademarks with the
`United States Patent and Trademark Ollice. Whether you've developed a logo, slogan, or name [or your
`business, it is important that you take the necessary steps to protect the brand you are building. iVLG can help you understand the trademark
`process and the benefits ot negistering your trademarks.
`
`EIP Assignments
` and how to assin ose rihts to the roar art .
`Have you hired independent contractors to code sollware or create other IP [or your company? We'll help you ensure that your company owns
`the rights to the IP that you pay tor or create.
`copyrights
`Have you created an original work’? Do you understand your rights in the works you cneate? Does it makes sense tor you to register your
`copyright? How can you distribute your work while still adequately protecting it? Our attorneys will help you understand and protect your rights to
`your cmations.
`Patents
`Our attorneys can help you distinguish whether your intellectual pmperty is patentable. ll so, we can provide you advice on who to work with to
`prosecute your patent. and how to protect the brand you build based on your patent(s).
`ll you have any questions about intellectual property law please contact us or schedule a consultation today.
`
` rrn
`
`Contact Us
`(206) 7455229
`team@rnvrgoriaw corn
`Schedule a Free Consultation
`Contact us today to scneduie your tree so mrrtute cortstrllalrort rn person, on tne prrorre, or trrrougrr a video corrrereuce.
`Srnenule Crrnsurtatrnn
`
`Get iVLG Blog Posts by Email
`Subscribe to recerve updates wrm our rarest ottsmess raw news and trtlomtatrort
`rrrbe
`
`Latest from the iVLG Blog
`rvLG News Roundup Week 8 2014 Mergers and Aoqursrrrons lot Googie (and Appie’7) Tesia Ceiebrates m Seattle Seattie to Host First Brrooru ATM (not)
`Wastrrngton House Passes Crowdlurrdrng Bril
`rvLG News Roundup Week 7 2014 Seatlie stanups invest arro Expand Brlcorn Regtriatron and Hackmg Seatlie Btrsrness Trademarks and Parody
`An Overvrew or Laws Governing Bucorrr and Other Drgttai Currency
`Consroeralron and Enlorceabie Contracts
`
`Other invigor Law Group Projects
`
`9 The Sealtie Srrtaii Busrness Lawyers Brag
`
`Posts by Category
`Select Category
`
`iVLG Blog Archives
`Select Month
`v
`
`v
`
`IM PORTANT DiSCi.»‘-\li‘.i ER
`
`f!inS‘A
`
`

`
`To:
`
`Subject:
`
`Beacon Equity Partners, LLC (trademark@mbbp.com)
`
`U.S. TRADEMARK APPLICATION NO. 85901144 - BEACON EQUITY
`PARTNERS - BCEPTM04
`
`Sent:
`
`2/26/2014 7:45:30 PM
`
`Sent As:
`
`ECOM114@USPTO.GOV
`
`Attachments:
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE (USPTO)
`
`IMPORTANT NOTICE REGARDING YOUR
`U.S. TRADEMARK APPLICATION
`
`USPTO OFFICE ACTION (OFFICIAL LETTER) HAS ISSUED
`ON 2/26/2014 FOR U.S. APPLICATION SERIAL NO. 85901144
`
`Please follow the instructions below:
`
`(cid:160)(
`
`1)(cid:160) TO READ THE LETTER:(cid:160) Click on this link or go to http://tsdr.uspto.gov, enter the U.S.
`application serial number, and click on “Documents.”
`
`(cid:160)T
`
`he Office action may not be immediately viewable, to allow for necessary system updates of the
`application, but will be available within 24 hours of this e-mail notification.
`
`(cid:160)(
`
`2)(cid:160) TIMELY RESPONSE IS REQUIRED:(cid:160) Please carefully review the Office action to determine (1)
`how to respond, and (2) the applicable response time period.(cid:160) Your response deadline will be calculated
`from 2/26/2014 (or sooner if specified in the Office action).(cid:160) For information regarding response time
`periods, see http://www.uspto.gov/trademarks/process/status/responsetime.jsp.
`
`(cid:160)D
`
`o NOT hit “Reply” to this e-mail notification, or otherwise e-mail your response because the
`USPTO does NOT accept e-mails as responses to Office actions.(cid:160) Instead, the USPTO recommends that
`you respond online using the Trademark Electronic Application System (TEAS) response form located at
`http://www.uspto.gov/trademarks/teas/response_forms.jsp.
`
`(cid:160)(
`
`3)(cid:160) QUESTIONS:(cid:160) For questions about the contents of the Office action itself, please contact the
`assigned trademark examining attorney.(cid:160) For technical assistance in accessing or viewing the Office action
`in the Trademark Status and Document Retrieval (TSDR) system, please e-mail TSDR@uspto.gov.
`
`WARNING
`
`(cid:160)F
`
`ailure to file the required response by the applicable response deadline will result in the
`
`(cid:160)(cid:160)
`(cid:160)
`(cid:160)
`(cid:160)
`

`
`ABANDONMENT of your application.(cid:160)
`For more information regarding abandonment,
`http://www.uspto.gov/trademarks/basics/abandon.jsp.
`
`see
`
`PRIVATE COMPANY SOLICITATIONS REGARDING YOUR APPLICATION:(cid:160)
`Private
`companies not associated with the USPTO are using information provided in trademark applications to
`mail or e-mail trademark-related solicitations.(cid:160) These companies often use names that closely resemble the
`USPTO and their solicitations may look like an official government document.(cid:160) Many solicitations require
`
`that you pay “fees.” (cid:160)(cid:160)
`
`Please carefully review all correspondence you receive regarding this application to make sure that you are
`responding to an official document from the USPTO rather than a private company solicitation.(cid:160) All
`official USPTO correspondence will be mailed only from the “United States Patent and Trademark
`Office” in Alexandria, VA; or sent by e-mail from the domain “@uspto.gov.” (cid:160) For more information on
`how
`to
`handle
`private
`company
`solicitations,
`see
`http://www.uspto.gov/trademarks/solicitation_warnings.jsp.
`
`(cid:160)
`(cid:160)(cid:160)

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

Still Working On It

This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.

Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.

throbber

A few More Minutes ... Still Working

It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.

Thank you for your continued patience.

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket