To:
`
`Subject:
`
`Sent:
`
`Sent As:
`
`MATSUSHITA ELECTRIC WORKS, LTD. (CCHWU@EARTHLINK.NET)
`
`TRADEMARK APPLICATION NO. 78397894 - ULTRA THIN - JC-00946-TA
`
`11/1/2004 4:06:12 PM
`
`ECOM115@USPTO.GOV
`
`Attachments:
`
`Attachment - 1
`Attachment - 2
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`(cid:160) (cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160) SERIAL NO: 78/397894
`(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)(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)
`
`MATSUSHITA ELECTRIC WORKS, LTD.
`
`*78397894*
`
`RETURN ADDRESS:(cid:160)
`Commissioner for Trademarks
`P.O. Box 1451
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1451
`
`(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160) CORRESPONDENT ADDRESS:
`(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160) CHARLES C.H. WU
`(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160) WU & CHEUNG, LLP
`(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160) 7700 IRVINE CENTER DR., #710
`(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)
`IRVINE, CA 92618
`(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)
`
`ULTRA THIN
`
`(cid:160) (cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160) MARK:(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) CORRESPONDENT’S REFERENCE/DOCKET NO :(cid:160)(cid:160) JC-00946-TA
`(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160) CORRESPONDENT EMAIL ADDRESS:(cid:160)(cid:160) CCHWU@EARTHLINK.NET
`
`Please provide in all correspondence:
`
`(cid:160)1
`
`.(cid:160) Filing date, serial number, mark and
`applicant's name.
`(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)
`2.(cid:160) Date of this Office Action.
`3.(cid:160) Examining Attorney's name and
`(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160) Law Office number.
`4. Your
`telephone number and e-mail
`address.
`
`(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)
`
`O AVOID ABANDONMENT, WE MUST RECEIVE A PROPER RESPONSE TO THIS OFFICE ACTION WITHIN 6 MONTHS
`
`OFFICE ACTION
`
`(cid:160)T
`
`OF OUR MAILING OR E-MAILING DATE.(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)
`
`Serial Number(cid:160) 78/397894
`
`The assigned examining attorney has reviewed the referenced application and determined the following.
`
`(cid:160)D
`
`escriptiveness
`The examining attorney refuses registration on the Principal Register because the proposed mark merely describes the goods.(cid:160) Trademark Act
`Section 2(e)(1), 15 U.S.C. Section 1052(e)(1); TMEP section 1209 et seq.
`
`(cid:160)A
`
`mark is merely descriptive under Trademark Act Section 2(e)(1), 15 U.S.C. 1052(e)(1), if it describes an ingredient, quality, characteristic,
`function, feature, purpose or use of the relevant goods.(cid:160) In re Gyulay, 820 F.2d 1216, 3 USPQ2d 1009 (Fed. Cir. 1987);(cid:160) In re Bed & Breakfast
`Registry, 791 F.2d 157, 229 USPQ 818 (Fed. Cir. 1986); In re MetPath Inc., 223 USPQ 88 (TTAB 1984); In re Bright‑Crest,Ltd., 204 USPQ
`591 (TTAB 1979); TMEP section 1209.01(b).(cid:160) It is not necessary that a term describe all of the purposes, functions, characteristics or features of
`the goods to be merely descriptive.(cid:160) It is enough if the term describes one attribute of the goods.(cid:160) In re H.U.D.D.L.E., 216 USPQ 358 (TTAB
`1982); In re MBAssociates, 180 USPQ 338 (TTAB 1973).
`
`(cid:160)T
`
`he applicant has applied to register the mark ULTRA THIN.(cid:160) The term ULTRA may be defined as “ Immoderately adhering to a belief,
`fashion, or course of action; extreme.” [1](cid:160) The term THIN may be defined as “ a. Relatively small in extent from one surface to the opposite,
`
`usually in the smallest solid dimension: a thin book. b. Not great in diameter or cross section; fine: thin wire.”[2](cid:160)(cid:160)
`
`(cid:160)
`

`
`The wording is merely descriptive of a feature of the applicant’s goods, namely, the size of the applicant’s razor is extremely thin.(cid:160) The mark
`immediately names a feature of the goods and does nothing else.(cid:160) Accordingly, the mark is refused registration on the Principal Register under
`Section 2 (e) (1).
`
`(cid:160)L
`
`ikelihood of Confusion
`The examining attorney refuses registration under Trademark Act Section 2(d), 15 U.S.C. Section 1052(d), because the applicant's mark, when
`used on or in connection with the identified goods/services, so resembles the mark in U.S. Registration No. 1574406 as to be likely to cause
`confusion, to cause mistake, or to deceive.(cid:160) TMEP section 1207.(cid:160) See the enclosed registration.
`
`(cid:160)T
`
`he examining attorney must analyze each case in two steps to determine whether there is a likelihood of confusion.(cid:160) First, the examining
`attorney must look at the marks themselves for similarities in appearance, sound, connotation and commercial impression. (cid:160) In re E. I. DuPont de
`Nemours & Co., 476 F.2d 1357, 177 USPQ 563 (CCPA 1973).(cid:160) Second, the examining attorney must compare the goods or services to
`determine if they are related or if the activities surrounding their marketing are such that confusion as to origin is likely.(cid:160) In re August Storck KG,
`218 USPQ 823 (TTAB 1983); In re International Telephone and Telegraph Corp., 197 USPQ 910 (TTAB 1978); Guardian Products Co., v.
`Scott Paper Co., 200 USPQ 738 (TTAB 1978).
`
`(cid:160)A
`
`pplicant seeks to register the proposed mark ULTRA THIN.(cid:160) The cited registration is for the mark ULTRA.(cid:160) These marks are quite similar
`
`because they share the term ULTRA and they create confusingly similar commercial impressions.(cid:160)(cid:160)
`
`If the marks of the respective parties are identical or highly similar, the examining attorney must consider the commercial relationship between
`the goods or services of the respective parties carefully to determine whether there is a likelihood of confusion.(cid:160) In re Concordia International
`Forwarding Corp., 222 USPQ 355 (TTAB 1983).
`
`(cid:160)A
`
`pplicant seeks to register its mark for "electric shavers."(cid:160) Registrant's goods are "electric hair trimmers."(cid:160) These goods are closely related
`because both are electric devices for trimming hair.(cid:160) If the goods or services of the respective parties are closely related, the degree of similarity
`between marks required to support a finding of likelihood of confusion is not as great as would apply with diverse goods or services.(cid:160) ECI
`Division of E Systems, Inc. v. Environmental Communications Inc., 207 USPQ 443 (TTAB 1980).
`
`(cid:160)T
`
`he examining attorney must resolve any doubt as to the issue of likelihood of confusion in favor of the registrant and against the applicant who
`has a legal duty to select a mark which is totally dissimilar to trademarks already being used.(cid:160) Burroughs Wellcome Co. v. Warner‑LambertCo.,
`203 USPQ 191 (TTAB 1979).
`
`(cid:160)A
`
`lthough the examining attorney has refused registration, the applicant may respond to the refusal to register by submitting evidence and
`arguments in support of registration.
`
`(cid:160)I
`
`f the applicant chooses to respond to the refusal to register, the applicant must also respond to the following informalities.
`
`(cid:160)D
`
`rawing – Standard Character
`Applicant must submit the following standard character claim:(cid:160) “The mark is presented in standard characters without claim to any particular
`font style, size, or color.” (cid:160) 37 C.F.R. §2.52(a).
`
`(cid:160)D
`
`ates of Use Interpreted as After Filing Date
`Clarification as to the dates of use in the application is needed.(cid:160) Applicant has specified “4/10/004” as the dates of first use of the mark, which
`the Office interprets as the last day of April.(cid:160) TMEP §903.07.(cid:160) That date is after April 7, 2004, the date on which the application was filed.(cid:160) In an
`application based on use in commerce under Section 1(a)(2) of the Trademark Act, applicant must have actually used the mark in commerce at
`least as early as the filing date of the application.(cid:160) Trademark Act Section 1(a)(2), 15 U.S.C. §1051(a)(2); 37 C.F.R. §2.34(a)(1); TMEP
`
`§§806.01(a) and 901.(cid:160)(cid:160)
`
`If applicant had in fact used the mark in commerce on or before the filing date of the application, then applicant must correct the dates-of-use. (cid:160)
`Applicant must verify the corrected dates with a notarized affidavit or a signed declaration under 37 C.F.R. §2.20.(cid:160) 37 C.F.R. §2.71(c); TMEP
`§903.05.
`
`(cid:160)I
`
`f applicant did not use the mark in commerce on or before the filing date, then applicant may substitute a different basis for filing, if applicant
`
`can meet the requirements for the new basis.(cid:160) TMEP §§806.01 et seq. and 806.03 et seq.(cid:160)(cid:160)
`
`In this case, applicant may wish to amend the application to assert a Section 1(b) filing(cid:160) basis, the requirements of which are set forth below.
`
`(cid:160)W
`
`here an application is based on a bona fide intention to use the mark in commerce, applicant must submit the following statement:
`
`Applicant has had a bona fide intention to use the mark in commerce on or in connection with the goods or services listed in the application
`as of the filing date of the application.
`
`(cid:160)
`

`
`(cid:160)T
`
`his statement must be verified with a notarized affidavit or a signed declaration under 37 C.F.R. §§2.20 and 2.33.(cid:160) Trademark Act Section 1(b),
`15 U.S.C. §1051(b); 37 C.F.R. §2.34(a)(2); TMEP §806.01(b).
`
`(cid:160)F
`
`oreign Entity
`Applicant must indicate the United States equivalent of its entity type or provide a description of the nature of the entity.(cid:160) In the “Applicant’s
`Entity Type” section of the application, applicant currently identifies itself as LIMITED COMPANY, which is unacceptable as a designation in
`the United States because it is unclear if the application is limited liability corporation or a corporation.(cid:160) TMEP §803.03(i).
`
`(cid:160)N
`
`OTICE:(cid:160) TRADEMARK OPERATION RELOCATING OCTOBER AND NOVEMBER 2004
`
`(cid:160)T
`
`he Trademark Operation is relocating to Alexandria, Virginia, in October and November 2004.(cid:160) Effective October 4, 2004, all Trademark-
`related paper mail (except documents sent to the Assignment Services Division for recordation, certain documents filed under the Madrid
`Protocol, and requests for copies of trademark documents) must be sent to:
`
`Commissioner for Trademarks
`P.O. Box 1451
`Alexandria, VA(cid:160) 22313-1451
`
`(cid:160)A
`
`pplicants, registration owners, attorneys and other Trademark customers are strongly encouraged to correspond with the USPTO online via the
`Trademark Electronic Application System (TEAS), at www.uspto.gov.
`
`(cid:160)I
`
`f the applicant has any questions or needs assistance in responding to this Office action, please telephone the assigned examining attorney.
`
`(cid:160)T
`
`o reach the undersigned attorney by telephone after October 21, 2004, please call (571) 272 - 9472.(cid:160) Thank you.
`
`Curtis W. French
`Trademark Attorney
`Law Office 115
`571-272-9472
`
`How to respond to this Office Action:
`
`(cid:160)Y
`
`ou may respond formally using the Office's Trademark Electronic Application System (TEAS) Response to Office Action form (visit
`http://eteas.uspto.gov/V2.0/oa242/WIZARD.htm and follow the instructions therein, but you must wait until at least 72 hours after receipt if the
`office action issued via e-mail).(cid:160) PLEASE NOTE: Responses to Office Actions on applications filed under the Madrid Protocol (Section 66(a))
`CANNOT currently be filed via TEAS.
`
`(cid:160)T
`
`o respond formally via regular mail, your response should be sent to the mailing Return Address listed above and include the serial number, law
`office and examining attorney’s name on the upper right corner of each page of your response.
`
`(cid:160)T
`
`o check the status of your application at any time, visit the Office’s Trademark Applications and Registrations Retrieval (TARR) system at
`http://tarr.uspto.gov/
`
`about
`
`trademarks,
`
`you
`
`are
`
`encouraged
`
`to
`
`visit
`
`the Office’s web
`
`site
`
`at
`
`(cid:160)F
`
`information
`useful
`other
`and
`general
`or
`http://www.uspto.gov/main/trademarks.htm
`
`(cid:160)F
`
`OR INQUIRIES OR QUESTIONS ABOUT THIS OFFICE ACTION, PLEASE CONTACT THE ASSIGNED EXAMINING
`ATTORNEY.
`
`[1]The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Third Edition copyright © 1992 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Electronic version licensed
`from INSO Corporation; further reproduction and distribution restricted in accordance with the Copyright Law of the United States. All rights reserved.
`
`[2]The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Third Edition copyright © 1992 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Electronic version licensed
`from INSO Corporation; further reproduction and distribution restricted in accordance with the Copyright Law of the United States. All rights reserved.
`
`(cid:160)
`(cid:160)(cid:160)
`(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)
`(cid:160)
`

`
`Print: Nov 1, 2IlII‘.H-
`
`13629193
`
`TYPED DRAWING
`
`Serial Number
`13629193
`
`Status
`REGISTERED AND RENEWED
`
`Word Marl:
`ULTRA
`
`Standard Character Mark
`No
`
`Registration NI.II"I'IhBf
`1574406
`
`Date Registered
`l990fOlfO2
`
`Type of Mark
`TRADEMARK
`
`Register
`PRINCIPAL
`
`Mark Drawing Code
`[1] TYPED DRAWING
`
`D"NI1Bf
`ANDIS COMPANY CORPORATION WISCONSIN 1718 LAYARD AVENUE RACINE
`WISCONSIN 53404
`
`Goodslse-wines
`G & s: ELECTRIC HAIR
`021 044.
`US
`IC 011.
`Class Status —— ACTIVE.
`DRYERS AND COMBINATION ELECTRIC HAIR DRYER, STYLING BRUSH AND CURLING
`IRON. First Use:
`l977fO8fO1. First Use In Commerce:
`IQTTIOSKOI.
`
`Goodsfservices
`G & S: ELECTRIC HAIR
`O23 024.
`US
`IC 008.
`Class Status —— ACTIVE.
`TRIMMERS. First Use:
`l985fO9f23. First Use In Commerce: 1985/D9f23.
`
`Goodsfservices
`IC 009.
`IN MULT. CL. REG..
`Class Status -- SECTION 8 - CLASSIESJ
`O21 O23 O26 O36 038.
`G & S:
`[ ELECTRIC HAIR CURLING IRONS AND
`ELECTRIC HAIR STYLING BRUSHES ]. First Use:
`ISSGXOSXOS. First Use In
`Commerce:
`IQSEEOQJOB.
`
`US
`
`Flllng Dale
`Igsexiixov
`
`

`
`Print: Nov 1, mad.
`
`73629193
`
`Examining Attnmey
`HHNHIN NHNCY L
`
`Attorney of Record
`TIMOTHY M. KELLEY