To:
`
`Subject:
`
`Sent:
`
`Sent As:
`
`Attachments:
`
`Panasonic Corporation of North America (ptodocket@arelaw.com)
`
`U.S. TRADEMARK APPLICATION NO. 85266408 - PIVOT - 55210/685
`
`6/16/2011 3:09:15 PM
`
`ECOM108@USPTO.GOV
`
`Attachment - 1
`Attachment - 2
`Attachment - 3
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE (USPTO)
`OFFICE ACTION (OFFICIAL LETTER) ABOUT APPLICANT’S TRADEMARK APPLICATION
`
`85266408
`
`(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)
`
`*85266408*
`
`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) MARK: PIVOT(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)
`America(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) 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)
`55210/685(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)
`
`MORTON AMSTER, ESQ.(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)
`AMSTER, ROTHSTEIN & EBENSTEIN LLP(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)
`NEW YORK, NY 10016-1301(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)
`
`90 PARK AVE
`
`(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)
`
`(cid:160) Panasonic Corporation of North
`
`ptodocket@arelaw.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: 6/16/2011
`
`(cid:160)T
`
`he assigned trademark examining attorney has reviewed the referenced application and has determined the following:
`
`SECTION 2(d) REFUSAL – LIKELIHOOD OF CONFUSION
`
`(cid:160)R
`
`egistration of the applied-for mark is refused because of a likelihood of confusion with the mark in U.S. Registration No. 1670731.(cid:160) Trademark
`Act Section 2(d), 15 U.S.C. §1052(d); see TMEP §§1207.01 et seq.(cid:160) See the enclosed registration.
`
`(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)T
`
`aking into account the relevant du Pont factors, a likelihood of confusion determination in this case involves a two-part analysis.(cid:160) The marks
`are compared for similarities in their appearance, sound, connotation and commercial impression.(cid:160) TMEP §§1207.01, 1207.01(b).(cid:160) The goods
`and/or services are compared to determine whether they are similar or commercially related or travel in the same trade channels.(cid:160) See Herbko
`
`(cid:160)
`(cid:160)
`

`

`Int’l, Inc. v. Kappa Books, Inc. , 308 F.3d 1156, 1164-65, 64 USPQ2d 1375, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2002); Han Beauty, Inc. v. Alberto-Culver Co., 236
`F.3d 1333, 1336, 57 USPQ2d 1557, 1559 (Fed. Cir. 2001); TMEP §§1207.01, 1207.01(a)(vi).
`
`(cid:160)I
`
`n the case at hand, applicant seeks registration of “PIVOT” in standard characters for “hand-held, mobile computing device.” (cid:160) The cited mark
`in Registration No. 1670731 is “PIVOT” in typed form for “computer display monitors.”
`
`(cid:160)C
`
`omparison of the Marks
`
`(cid:160)R
`
`egarding the first part of the test, applicant’s mark, “PIVOT” is identical in appearance, sound, connotation and commercial impression to
`
`registrant’s mark, “PIVOT.” (cid:160)(cid:160)
`
`In 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)-
`(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)H
`
`(cid:160)C
`
`ere, as noted above, the marks are identical.
`
`omparison of the Goods
`
`Where the marks of the respective parties are identical or virtually identical, there need be only a viable relationship between the relevant goods
`and/or services to support a finding of likelihood of confusion.(cid:160) See, e.g., In re Davey Prods. Pty Ltd., 92 USPQ2d 1198, 1202 (TTAB 2009); In
`re Thor Tech, Inc., 90 USPQ2d 1634, 1636 (TTAB 2009); In re Wilson, 57 USPQ2d 1863, 1867 (TTAB 2001); see also In re Shell Oil Co., 992
`F.2d 1204, 1207, 26 USPQ2d 1687, 1689 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
`
`(cid:160)I
`
`n this case, the applicant and registrant provide highly related and complementary goods, computing devices and computer display monitors.(cid:160)
`Therefore, with the contemporaneous use of highly similar marks, consumers are likely to reach the mistaken conclusion that the goods are
`
`related and originate from a common source.(cid:160) As such, registration must be refused under Trademark Action Section 2(d).(cid:160)(cid:160)
`
`Although applicant’s mark has been refused registration, applicant may respond to the refusal(s) by submitting evidence and arguments in
`support of registration.
`
`(cid:160)P
`
`rior Pending Registration
`
`(cid:160)T
`
`he filing date of pending Application Serial No. 85098284 precedes applicant’s filing date. (cid:160) See attached referenced application.(cid:160) If the mark in
`the referenced application registers, applicant’s mark may be refused registration under Trademark Act Section 2(d) because of a likelihood of
`confusion between the two marks.(cid:160) See 15 U.S.C. §1052(d); 37 C.F.R. §2.83; TMEP §§1208 et seq.(cid:160) Therefore, upon receipt of applicant’s
`response to this Office action, action on this application may be suspended pending final disposition of the earlier-filed referenced application.
`
`(cid:160)I
`
`n response to this Office action, applicant may present arguments in support of registration by addressing the issue of the potential conflict
`between applicant’s mark and the mark in the referenced application. (cid:160) Applicant’s election not to submit arguments at this time in no way limits
`applicant’s right to address this issue later if a refusal under Section 2(d) issues.
`
`(cid:160)I
`
`f applicant chooses to respond to the refusal to register, then applicant must also respond to the following requirement.
`
`(cid:160)I
`
`dentification of Goods
`
`(cid:160)T
`
`he wording “hand-held, mobile computing device” in the identification of goods is indefinite because it fails to indicate specific goods. (cid:160) See
`TMEP §§1402.01, 1402.03.(cid:160) In the identification of goods, applicant must use the common commercial or generic names for the goods, be as
`complete and specific as possible, and avoid the use of indefinite words and phrases.(cid:160) If applicant uses indefinite words such as “devices,” such
`words must be followed by “namely,” followed by a list of the specific goods identified by their common commercial or generic names. (cid:160) See
`TMEP §§1402.01, 1402.03(a).
`
`(cid:160)A
`
`pplicant may substitute the following wording, if accurate (suggestions provided in bold italics):
`
`(cid:160)C
`
`lass 009
`
`“Hand-held, mobile computing device, namely {INDICATE SPECIFIC GOODS, E.G., handheld computers, handheld personal
`computers, etc.}”
`(cid:160) (cid:160)
`An applicant may amend an identification of goods and services only to clarify or limit the goods and services; adding to or broadening the
`
`(cid:160)
`(cid:160)
`

`

`scope of the goods and/or services is not permitted.(cid:160) 37 C.F.R. §2.71(a); see TMEP §§1402.06 et seq., 1402.07 et seq.
`
`(cid:160)F
`
`or assistance with identifying and classifying goods and/or services in trademark applications, please see the online searchable Manual of
`Acceptable Identifications of Goods and Services at http://tess2.uspto.gov/netahtml/tidm.html.(cid:160) See TMEP §1402.04.
`
`(cid:160)R
`
`equest for Information
`
`Applicant must submit response to the questions below to permit proper examination of the application.(cid:160) See 37 C.F.R. §2.61(b); TMEP §§814,
`1402.01(e).
`
`(1)(cid:160)(cid:160) does the device pivot or swivel?
`(2)(cid:160)(cid:160) Does the device include any part that enables it to pivot?
`(3)(cid:160)(cid:160) What significance does the word “pivot” have in relation to the goods?
`
`Failure to respond to a request for information can be grounds for refusing registration.(cid:160) TMEP §814; see In re Cheezwhse.com, Inc., 85 USPQ2d
`1917, 1919 (TTAB 2008); In re DTI P’ship LLP , 67 USPQ2d 1699, 1701-02 (TTAB 2003).(cid:160) Merely stating that information about the goods or
`services is available on applicant’s website is an inappropriate response to a request for additional information, and is insufficient to make the
`relevant information of record.(cid:160) See In re Planalytics, Inc., 70 USPQ2d 1453, 1457-58 (TTAB 2004).
`
`/Caryn Glasser/
`Trademark Examining Attorney
`Law Office 108
`Phone:(cid:160) (571) 270-1517
`Fax:(cid:160) (571) 270-2517
`caryn.glasser@uspto.gov(informal)
`
`(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)
`

`

`71025906
`
`Print: Jun 16, 2011
`
`TYPED DRAWING
`
`Serial Number
`14025906
`
`Status
`REGISTERED AND RENEWED
`
`Word Mark
`PIVOT
`
`Standard Character Mark
`No
`
`Registration Number
`IETOTBl
`
`Date Registered
`1991f12f31
`
`Type of Mark
`TRADEMARK
`
`Register
`PRINCIPAL
`
`Mark Drawing Code
`[I] TYPED DRAWING
`
`Owner
`INC. CORPORATION CALIFORNIA 6665 Owens Drive
`PORTRAIT DISPLAYS ,
`Pleasanton CALIFORNIA
`94588
`
`GoodsIServices
`Class Status —— ACTIVE
`monitors. First Use:
`
`IC 009.
`.
`IQQOKOBHEB.
`
`G E: S:
`026.
`US
`computer display
`First Use In Commerce:
`IBBOHOZHZB.
`
`
`
`Filing Date
`IBQOHOZHOZ
`
`Examining Attomay
`KRISP,
`JENNIFER
`
`
`
`
`
`Attorney of Record
`ER C
`1 OFFNER
`
`

`

`Print: Jun 16, 2011
`
`85098284-
`
`DESIGN MARK
`
`Serial Number
`85098284
`
`Status
`NoTICE oF ALLOWANCE - ISSUED
`
`Word Marl:
`I PIVOT
`
`Standard Character Mark
`Yes
`
`Type of Mark
`TRADEMARK
`
`Register
`PRINCIPAL
`
`Mark Drawing Code
`[4]
`STANDARD CHARACTER MARK
`
`Owner
`Checkmate Mobile, Inc. CORPORATION DELAWARE Suite lTl T960 Sequel
`Drive Aptoe CALIFORNIA 95003
`
`GoodefSeryioes
`021 023 026 036 038.
`US
`IC 009.
`Class Status -- ACTIVE.
`Protective case for mobile computer devices.
`
`G & 8:
`
`Filing Date
`2010H08/02
`
`Examining Attorney
`DUBRAY, KATHERINE M.
`
`Attorney of Record
`Josh Gerben, Esq.
`
`

`

`iPivot
`
`

`

`To:
`
`Subject:
`
`Sent:
`
`Sent As:
`
`Attachments:
`
`Panasonic Corporation of North America (ptodocket@arelaw.com)
`
`U.S. TRADEMARK APPLICATION NO. 85266408 - PIVOT - 55210/685
`
`6/16/2011 3:09:17 PM
`
`ECOM108@USPTO.GOV
`
`IMPORTANT NOTICE REGARDING YOUR
`U.S. TRADEMARK APPLICATION
`
`USPTO OFFICE ACTION HAS ISSUED ON 6/16/2011 FOR
`SERIAL NO. 85266408
`
`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 6/16/2011 (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)
`