To:
`
`Subject:
`
`PANASONIC CORPORATION OF NORTH AMERICA (
`ptodocket@arelaw.com)
`
`TRADEMARK APPLICATION NO. 78445277 - HI PHI & DESIGN -
`55210/489
`
`Sent:
`
`2/13/06 4:28:49 PM
`
`Sent As:
`
`ECOM101@USPTO.GOV
`
`Attachments:
`
`78/445277
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`(cid:160) (cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160) 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)(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)
`
`AMERICA
`
`PANASONIC CORPORATION OF NORTH
`
`*78445277*
`
`BEFORE THE
`TRADEMARK TRIAL
`AND APPEAL BOARD
`ON APPEAL
`
`(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160) CORRESPONDENT ADDRESS:
`(cid:160) MORTON AMSTER, ESQ.
`(cid:160) AMSTER, ROTHSTEIN & EBENSTEIN LLP
`(cid:160) 90 PARK AVE
`(cid:160) NEW YORK NY 10016-1301
`(cid:160)
`
`HI PHI & DESIGN
`
`(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) CORRESPONDENT’S REFERENCE/DOCKET NO :(cid:160)(cid:160) 55210/489
`(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160) CORRESPONDENT EMAIL ADDRESS:(cid:160)(cid:160) ptodocket@arelaw.com
`
`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)(cid:160)
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`Applicant:
`
`Trademark:
`
`Panasonic Corporation of North
`America
`HI PHI & DESIGN
`
`Serial No:
`
`78445277
`
`Attorney:
`
`Morton Amster, Esq.
`
`:
`
`:
`
`:
`
`:
`
`BEFORE THE(cid:160)
`
`TRADEMARK TRIAL
`
`AND
`
`APPEAL BOARD
`
`(cid:160)
`(cid:160)
`(cid:160)
`(cid:160)
`(cid:160)
`

`
`Address:
`
`Amster, Rothstein, & Ebenstein
`LLP
`90 Park Ave.
`New York, NY 10016-1301
`
`:
`
`ON APPEAL
`
`(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)
`(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160) Applicant has appealed the Trademark Examining Attorney’s final refusal to register the mark HI PHI
`
`EXAMINING ATTORNEY'S APPEAL BRIEF
`
`and design for the goods of car audio speakers on the ground that the mark is confusingly similar to U.S.
`
`Registration No. 2483911 for the mark HIFI.COM in standard character form to store and mail order
`
`services featuring audio electronic components.(cid:160)(cid:160)
`
`FACTS
`
`(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160) On July 2, 2004, applicant Panasonic Corporation of North America applied for a federal trademark
`
`registration for HI PHI and design for car audio speakers.(cid:160) In an Office Action mailed February 8, 2005,
`
`the examining attorney refused registration of the mark under Trademark Act Section 2(d) on the ground
`
`that the mark is confusingly similar to U.S. Registration No. 2483911 for the mark HIFI.COM in standard
`
`character form to store and mail order services featuring audio electronic components.(cid:160) There were no
`
`other issues or requirements in the case.(cid:160) The applicant responded on May 27, 2005, with arguments in
`
`favor of registration.(cid:160) After considering the applicant’s arguments carefully, the examiner issued a Final
`
`Office Action on June 10, 2005, refusing the mark under Section 2(d).(cid:160) The applicant filed a timely notice
`
`of appeal of the Final Refusal.(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)
`
`ISSUE
`
`The sole issue on appeal is whether the applicant’s mark, when used on or in connection with the
`
`identified goods, so resembles the mark in Registration No. 2483911, as to be likely to cause confusion, to
`
`cause mistake or to deceive.(cid:160) Trademark Act Section 2(d).
`
`ARGUMENT
`
`(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160) The 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
`
`(cid:160)
`(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)
`

`
`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)(cid:160)(cid:160) Any doubt regarding a likelihood of confusion should be resolved in favor of the prior registrant.(cid:160) In re
`
`Hyper Shoppes (Ohio), Inc., 837 F.2d 463, 6 USPQ2d 1025 (Fed. Cir. 1988); TMEP §§1207.01(d)(i).(cid:160)(cid:160)
`
`I.(cid:160) SIMILARITY OF THE MARKS
`Applicant’s mark, HI PHI and design, and the registered mark, HIFI.COM, are confusingly
`similar because they sound highly similar and contain common elements that cast the same
`commercial impression.
`
`(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)
`
`In determining likelihood of confusion, the examining attorney must compare the marks for similarity
`
`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) The marks are compared for similarities in sound, appearance,
`
`meaning or connotation.(cid:160) In re E .I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., 476 F.2d 1357, 177 USPQ 563 (C.C.P.A.
`
`1973).(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 1534, 1536 (TTAB 1988); In re Lamson Oil Co., 6 USPQ2d 1041, 1043
`
`(TTAB 1987); In re Mack, 197 USPQ 755 (TTAB 1977); TMEP §1207.01(b).(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160) When a mark consists of a word portion and a design portion, the word portion is more likely to be
`
`impressed upon a purchaser’s memory and to be used in calling for the goods or services. (cid:160) Therefore, the
`
`word portion is normally accorded greater weight in determining likelihood of confusion.(cid:160) In re Dakin’s
`
`Miniatures Inc., 59 USPQ2d 1593, 1596 (TTAB 1999); In re Appetito Provisions Co., 3 USPQ2d 1553
`
`(TTAB 1987); Amoco Oil Co. v. Amerco, Inc., 192 USPQ 729 (TTAB 1976); TMEP §1207.01(c)(ii).
`
`(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)
`
`Similarity in sound is one factor in determining whether there is a likelihood of confusion between
`
`marks. There is no "correct" pronunciation of a trademark because it is impossible to predict how the
`
`public will pronounce a particular mark. Therefore, "correct" pronunciation cannot be relied on to avoid a
`
`likelihood of confusion. See, e.g., Kabushiki Kaisha Hattori Tokeiten v. Scuotto , 228 USPQ 461 (TTAB
`
`1985) (SEYCOS and design for watches held likely to be confused with SEIKO for watches and clocks);
`
`In re Great Lakes Canning, Inc. , 227 USPQ 483 (TTAB 1985) (CAYNA (stylized) for soft drinks held
`
`

`
`likely to be confused with CANA for, inter alia , canned and frozen fruit and vegetable juices); In re
`
`Energy Telecommunications & Electrical Association , 222 USPQ 350 (TTAB 1983) (ENTELEC and
`
`design for association services in the telecommunication and energy industries held likely to be confused
`
`with INTELECT for conducting expositions for the electrical industry); In re Cresco Mfg. Co. , 138 USPQ
`
`401 (TTAB 1963) (CRESCO and design for leather jackets held likely to be confused with KRESSCO for
`
`hosiery);(cid:160) TMEP § 1207.01(b)(iv). (cid:160)(cid:160) Similarity in sound alone may be sufficient to support a finding of
`
`likelihood of confusion.(cid:160) RE/MAX of America, Inc. v. Realty Mart, Inc., 207 USPQ 960, 964 (TTAB
`
`1980); Molenaar, Inc. v. Happy Toys Inc., 188 USPQ 469 (TTAB 1975); In re Cresco Mfg. Co., 138
`
`USPQ 401 (TTAB 1963); TMEP §1207.01(b)(iv).(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160) While the two marks in the present case are not identical, enough similarity exists between the
`
`applicant’s proposed mark of HI PHI and design, and the registered mark, HIFI.COM, to cause confusion.
`
`(cid:160) The terms “HIFI” and “HI PHI” are dominant in both marks, are phonetic equivalents, and cause the
`
`marks to sound alike and cast the same commercial impression.(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160) Top-level domains (TLDs), such as “.COM”, are generic locators for Internet website addresses and
`
`have no meaningful source identifying significance.(cid:160) See CCBN.com Inc v. C-call.com Inc., 73 F.Supp.2d
`
`106, 53 USPQ2d 1132, 1136 (D. Mass. 1999) (“[the] “.com” … suffix is not a relevant part of the mark,
`
`because “com” is a generic locator for domain names of web sites dedicated to commercial use”);
`
`Brookfield Communications, Inc., v. West Coast Entertain. Corp., 174 F.3d 1036, 50 USPQ2d 1545 (9th
`
`Cir. 1999) (MOVIEBUFF.COM found to be essentially identical to MOVIEBUFF); Hard Rock Café Int’l
`
`v. Morton, 1999 WL 717995 (S.D.N.Y 1999).(cid:160) Thus the TLD appearing in the registrant’s mark would be
`
`less significant in creating a commercial impression in the minds of consumers, and should be given little
`
`weight in comparing the respective marks. Thus, in this case, the presence of “.COM” in the registrant’s
`
`mark does little to impress any source significance on the consumer.(cid:160) Rather, by sound and impression, the
`
`consumer is highly likely to confuse HIFI.COM as simply a website for HI PHI.(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160) The similarity in sound between the registrant’s and applicant’s proposed marks is buttressed by other
`existing registrations.(cid:160) In the context of the other marks including the wording “HIFI,” [1](cid:160) the registered
`
`marks cited by the applicant use non-generic wording in combination with the wording HI FI.(cid:160) This
`
`additional, non-generic wording makes an auditory impression on the consumer, which is sufficient to
`
`distinguish these existing marks from each other.(cid:160) However, there is no such additional auditory, non-
`
`

`
`generic component that would distinguish the marks at issue in this case.(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160) Applicant argues that the use of the wording PHI, design, and text stylization creates a different
`
`impression that distinguishes the applicant’s proposed mark from the registrant’s mark.
`
`(cid:160) However,
`
`applicant ignores the fact that the registrant’s standard character mark can be written in the same
`
`stylization as that used by the applicant.(cid:160) Registration of a mark in typed or standard character form means
`
`that the mark may be displayed in any lettering style.(cid:160) 37 C.F.R. §2.52(a).(cid:160) The rights associated with a
`
`mark in typed or standard character form reside in the wording itself, and registrant is free to adopt any
`
`style of lettering, including lettering identical to that used by applicant.(cid:160) Therefore, applicant’s
`
`presentation of its mark in special form will not avoid likelihood of confusion with a mark that is
`
`registered in typed or standard character form because the marks presumably could be used in the same
`
`manner of display.(cid:160) See In re Melville Corp., 18 USPQ2d 1386 (TTAB 1991); In re Pollio Dairy Prods.
`
`Corp., 8 USPQ2d 2012 (TTAB 1988); Sunnen Prods. Co. v. Sunex Int’l Inc ., 1 USPQ2d 1744, 1747
`
`(TTAB 1987); In re Hester Indus., Inc., 231 USPQ 881, 882, n.6 (TTAB 1986); United Rum Merchants,
`
`Ltd. V. Fregal, Inc., 216 USPQ 217 (TTAB 1982); Frances Denney, Inc. v. Vive Parfums, Ltd., 190 USPQ
`
`302 (TTAB 1976); See also TMEP §1207.01(c)(iii).
`
`(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160) Applicant additionally argues that the proposed mark creates an impression that the goods, car audio
`
`speakers, have a classic, timeless quality, in the tradition and grandeur of ancient Greece, which would
`
`distinguish the applicant’s and registrant’s marks.
`
`(cid:160) This impression invoking ancient Greece in
`
`connection with car audio speakers is pure conjecture.(cid:160) Rather, consumers are used to seeing Greek letters
`used in a wide variety of ways, including as mathematical symbols and fraternity letters.[2](cid:160) No evidence
`
`has been presented showing why consumers would perceive this “ancient Greece” impression from the
`
`applicant’s proposed mark. (cid:160) Based on the evidence of record, consumers would be highly unlikely to
`
`perceive a connection with ancient Greece.(cid:160) Thus, there is no impression created that distinguishes the
`
`applicant’s proposed mark from the registrant’s mark.
`
`(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160) Applicant finally argues that the registrant’s mark is weak. Even if applicant has shown that the cited
`
`mark is “weak,” such marks are still entitled to protection against registration by a subsequent user of the
`
`same or similar mark for the same or closely related goods or services.(cid:160) See Hollister Incorporated v. Ident
`
`A Pet, Inc., 193 USPQ 439 (TTAB 1976) and cases cited therein.(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)
`
`Therefore the marks, HIFI.COM, and HI PHI and design will create the same commercial impression
`
`in the eyes of consumers, who are likely to confuse the marks as originating from the same source.
`
`

`
`II.(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160) SIMILARITY OF THE GOODS AND SERVICES
`(cid:160)(cid:160) The applicant’s goods are highly likely to be sold through the registrant’s retail store and mail
`
`order services, which would confuse consumers about their source.(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160) The second step in determining whether there is a likelihood of confusion is to 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)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160) Consumers are likely to be confused by the use of similar marks on or in connection with goods and
`
`with services featuring or related to those goods.(cid:160) See In re Hyper Shoppes (Ohio), Inc., 837 F.2d 463, 6
`
`USPQ2d 1025 (Fed. Cir. 1988) (BIGG’S for retail grocery and general merchandise store services held
`
`confusingly similar to BIGGS for furniture); In re U.S. Shoe Corp., 229 USPQ 707 (TTAB 1985)
`
`(CAREER IMAGE (stylized) for retail women’s clothing store services and clothing held likely to be
`
`confused with CREST CAREER IMAGES (stylized) for uniforms); In re United Service Distributors, Inc.,
`
`229 USPQ 237 (TTAB 1986) (design for distributorship services in the field of health and beauty aids
`
`held likely to be confused with design for skin cream); In re Phillips-Van Heusen Corp., 228 USPQ 949
`
`(TTAB 1986) (21 CLUB for various items of men’s, boys’, girls’ and women’s clothing held likely to
`
`be confused with THE “21” CLUB (stylized) for restaurant services and towels); Steelcase Inc. v.
`
`Steelcare Inc., 219 USPQ 433 (TTAB 1983) (STEELCARE INC. for refinishing of furniture, office
`
`furniture, and machinery held likely to be confused with STEELCASE for office furniture and
`
`accessories); Mack Trucks, Inc. v. Huskie Freightways, Inc., 177 USPQ 32 (TTAB 1972) (use of similar
`
`marks for trucking services and on motor trucks and busses is likely to cause confusion).
`
`(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160) A determination of whether there is a likelihood of confusion is made solely on the basis of the goods
`
`and/or services identified in the application and registration, without limitations or restrictions that are not
`
`reflected therein.(cid:160) In re Dakin’s Miniatures Inc., 59 USPQ2d 1593, 1595 (TTAB 1999).(cid:160) If the cited
`
`registration describes the goods and/or services broadly and there are no limitations as to their nature,
`
`type, channels of trade or classes of purchasers, then it is presumed that the registration encompasses all
`
`goods and/or services of the type described, that they move in all normal channels of trade, and that they
`
`are available to all potential customers.(cid:160) In re Linkvest S.A., 24 USPQ2d 1716 (TTAB 1992); In re Elbaum,
`
`

`
`211 USPQ 639 (TTAB 1981); TMEP §1207.01(a)(iii).
`
`(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)
`
`In this case, the goods and services are highly related because the applicant’s goods would be sold
`
`through the registrant’s retail store and mail order services featuring audio electronic components, and the
`
`goods and services would be encountered by the same consumers in the same channels of trade.(cid:160)
`
`Dictionary evidence was provided in the Final Office Action of June 10, 2005, showing that a component
`
`is simply part of something.(cid:160) The registrant’s identification of audio electronic components necessarily
`
`includes car audio speakers because the speakers would just be a component of a car audio system.(cid:160)
`
`Evidence in the nature of websites describing car audio systems including car audio speakers was also
`
`provided in the Final Office Action of June 10, 2005.(cid:160) The applicant’s goods, car audio speakers, are a
`
`component of car audio systems.(cid:160) The registrant’s services necessarily include the sale of car audio
`
`components, and the registrant could sell the applicant’s goods. (cid:160) Thus, the goods and services in this case
`
`are highly related, and highly likely to be encountered together in the marketplace.
`
`(cid:160)(cid:160) Applicant argues that the consumers are sophisticated, and would not confuse the source of the goods
`
`and the services.(cid:160) However, even if the purchasers in this case were considered “sophisticated,” the fact
`
`that purchasers are sophisticated or knowledgeable in a particular field does not necessarily mean that they
`
`are sophisticated or knowledgeable in the field of trademarks or immune from source confusion.(cid:160) See In re
`
`Decombe, 9 USPQ2d 1812 (TTAB 1988); In re Pellerin Milnor Corp., 221 USPQ 558 (TTAB 1983);
`
`TMEP §1207.01(d)(vii).
`
`(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160) Therefore, because the goods and services in this case are highly related and have the same channels of
`
`trade, consumers are highly likely to be confused about the source of the goods and the services.
`
`CONCLUSION
`
`(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)
`
`The refusal for likelihood of confusion with the mark in U.S. Registration Number 2483911 should be
`
`upheld.(cid:160) The dominant portions of the marks in this case are highly similar in sound and commercial
`
`impression.(cid:160) The goods and services are highly related, and highly likely to cause confusion because
`
`consumers would encounter them used together in the market place.(cid:160) On balance, because the marks are
`
`highly similar in sound and impression, and the goods and services are highly related, confusion is likely.(cid:160)
`
`Thus, the Examining Attorney’s refusal to register the applicant’s proposed mark should be upheld.
`
`(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)
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`(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)
`
`/Joanna M. Dukovcic/
`Trademark Examining Attorney
`Law Office 101
`Phone:(cid:160) (571) 272-9707
`
`Ronald R. Sussman
`Managing Attorney
`Law Office – 101
`Phone:(cid:160) (571) 272-9696
`
`[1] See applicant’s Response to First Office Action, dated May 27, 2005, pp. 8-9.
`[2] See dictionary definitions for various Greek letters, including PHI, and third-party registrations showing Greek letters
`used to indicate a source of fraternity and professional organizations, presented in the Final Office Action dated June 10,
`2005.(cid:160)
`
`(cid:160)
`(cid:160)(cid:160)