To:
`
`Subject:
`
`Sent:
`
`Sent As:
`
`Attachments:
`
`TowerJazz Panasonic Semiconductor Co., L ETC. (dctrademarks@dlapiper.com)
`
`U.S. TRADEMARK APPLICATION NO. 86351548 - TOWERJAZZ PANASONIC SEMICONDUCTOR -
`373445-8
`
`11/12/2014 1:10:28 PM
`
`ECOM107@USPTO.GOV
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE (USPTO)
`OFFICE ACTION (OFFICIAL LETTER) ABOUT APPLICANT’S TRADEMARK APPLICATION
`
`U.S. APPLICATION SERIAL NO.   86351548
`
`           
`
`MARK: TOWERJAZZ PANASONIC SEMICONDUCTOR
`
`CORRESPONDENT ADDRESS:
`  
`       ANN K. FORD
`  
`       DLA PIPER LLP (US)
`        
`500 8TH ST NW
`           WASHINGTON, DC 20004-2131
`    
`   
`APPLICANT: TowerJazz Panasonic Semiconductor Co., L ETC.
`
`*86351548*
`
`CLICK HERE TO RESPOND TO THIS LETTER:
`http://www.uspto.gov/trademarks/teas/response_forms.jsp
`
`VIEW YOUR APPLICATION FILE
`
`    
`CORRESPONDENT’S REFERENCE/DOCKET NO :       
`CORRESPONDENT E-MAIL ADDRESS:       
`
`  373445-8
`
`   
`
`dctrademarks@dlapiper.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.
`
`ISSUE/MAILING DATE: 11/12/2014
`
`This Office action supersedes the previous Office action issued on November 12, 2014 in connection with this application.
`
`Applicant must address all issue(s) raised in this Office action, in addition to the issues raised in the other Office action dated November 12,
`2014.  The issues raised in the previous November 12, 2014 Office action are as follows and are maintained: 
`Refusal under Trademark Act Section 2(d) – Likelihood of Confusion
`Requirement for a Claim of Ownership of Registrations
`Requirement for a Disclaimer
`Requirement to Amend the Identification of Services
`Requirement to Amend the Classification of Services
`
`Applicant must respond to all issues raised in this Office action and the previous November 12, 2014 Office action, within six (6) months of the
`date of issuance of this Office action.  37 C.F.R. §2.62(a).  If applicant does not respond within this time limit, the application will be
`abandoned.  37 C.F.R. §2.65(a).
`
`ISSUE REGARDING APPLICANT’S ENTITY TYPE
`
` 
` 
` 
` 
` 
` 
` 
` 
`  
` 
` 
`  
` 
`

`

`  The
`Applicant sets forth in the application the entity type “limited company” and applicant’s address and/or country of organization as Japan.
`designation “company” (or the abbreviation “co.”) or “limited company” is an acceptable entity designation in a U.S. application for applicants
`from commonwealth countries.  See TMEP §803.03(i).  However, applicant has identified an address and/or country of organization that is not a
`
`commonwealth country (see http://www.thecommonwealth.org/Internal/142227/members/).   
`
`Therefore, applicant must specify the entity that would be the equivalent of a “limited company” in the United States or provide a description of
`the nature of the foreign entity that is applying.  See id.
`
`RESPONSE TO OFFICE ACTION
`
`To expedite prosecution of the application, applicant is encouraged to file its response to this Office action online via the Trademark Electronic
`Application System (TEAS), which is available at http://www.uspto.gov/teas/index.html.  If applicant has technical questions about the TEAS
`response to Office action form, applicant can review the electronic filing tips available online at http://www.uspto.gov/teas/eFilingTips.htm and
`email technical questions to TEAS@uspto.gov.
`
`If applicant has questions regarding this Office action, please telephone or e-mail the assigned trademark examining attorney.  All relevant e-mail
`communications will be placed in the official application record; however, an e-mail communication will not be accepted as a response to this
`Office action and will not extend the deadline for filing a proper response.  See 37 C.F.R. §2.191; TMEP §§709.04-.05.  Further, although the
`trademark examining attorney may provide additional explanation pertaining to the refusal(s) and/or requirement(s) in this Office action, the
`trademark examining attorney may not provide legal advice or statements about applicant’s rights.   See TMEP §§705.02, 709.06.
`
`/Alyssa Steel/
`Alyssa Paladino Steel
`Trademark Examining Attorney
`Law Office 107
`(571) 272-8808
`alyssa.steel@uspto.gov
`
`TO RESPOND TO THIS LETTER:   Go to http://www.uspto.gov/trademarks/teas/response_forms.jsp.   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. 
`For technical assistance with online forms, e-mail TEAS@uspto.gov.  For questions about the Office action itself, please contact the assigned
`trademark examining attorney.  E-mail communications will not be accepted as responses to Office actions; therefore, do not respond to
`this Office action by e-mail.
`
`All informal e-mail communications relevant to this application will be placed in the official application record.
`
`WHO MUST SIGN THE RESPONSE:  It must be personally signed by an individual applicant or someone with legal authority to bind an
`applicant (i.e., a corporate officer, a general partner, all joint applicants).  If an applicant is represented by an attorney, the attorney must sign the
`
`response.  
`
`PERIODICALLY CHECK THE STATUS OF THE APPLICATION:   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/.   Please keep a copy of the TSDR status screen.   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.   For more information on checking
`status, see http://www.uspto.gov/trademarks/process/status/.
`
`TO UPDATE CORRESPONDENCE/E-MAIL ADDRESS:  Use the TEAS form at http://www.uspto.gov/trademarks/teas/correspondence.jsp.
`
`  
` 
` 
` 
` 
` 
` 
` 
`  
`

`

`To:
`
`Subject:
`
`Sent:
`
`Sent As:
`
`Attachments:
`
`TowerJazz Panasonic Semiconductor Co., L ETC. (dctrademarks@dlapiper.com)
`
`U.S. TRADEMARK APPLICATION NO. 86351548 - TOWERJAZZ PANASONIC SEMICONDUCTOR -
`373445-8
`
`11/12/2014 1:10:29 PM
`
`ECOM107@USPTO.GOV
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE (USPTO)
`
`IMPORTANT NOTICE REGARDING YOUR
`U.S. TRADEMARK APPLICATION
`
`USPTO OFFICE ACTION (OFFICIAL LETTER) HAS ISSUED
`ON 11/12/2014 FOR U.S. APPLICATION SERIAL NO. 86351548
`
`Please follow the instructions below:
`
`(1)  TO READ THE LETTER:  Click on this link or go to http://tsdr.uspto.gov, enter the U.S. application serial number, and click on
`“Documents.”
`
`The 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.
`
`(2)  TIMELY RESPONSE IS REQUIRED:  Please 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 11/12/2014 (or sooner if specified in the Office action).  For information
`regarding response time periods, see http://www.uspto.gov/trademarks/process/status/responsetime.jsp.
`
`Do 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. 
`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.
`
`(3)  QUESTIONS:  For questions about the contents of the Office action itself, please contact the assigned trademark examining attorney.  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
`
`Failure to file the required response by the applicable response deadline will result in the ABANDONMENT of your application.  For
`more information regarding abandonment, see http://www.uspto.gov/trademarks/basics/abandon.jsp.
`
`PRIVATE COMPANY SOLICITATIONS REGARDING YOUR APPLICATION:  Private companies not associated with the USPTO are
`using information provided in trademark applications to mail or e-mail trademark-related solicitations.  These companies often use names that
`closely resemble the USPTO and their solicitations may look like an official government document.  Many solicitations require that you pay
`
`“fees.”   
`
`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.  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.”   For more information on how to handle
`private company solicitations, see http://www.uspto.gov/trademarks/solicitation_warnings.jsp.
`
` 
`  
` 
` 
` 
` 
` 
` 
` 
` 
` 
` 
`  
`

`

`To:
`
`Subject:
`
`Sent:
`
`Sent As:
`
`Attachments:
`
`TowerJazz Panasonic Semiconductor Co., L ETC. (dctrademarks@dlapiper.com)
`
`U.S. TRADEMARK APPLICATION NO. 86351548 - TOWERJAZZ PANASONIC SEMICONDUCTOR -
`373445-8
`
`11/12/2014 10:19:37 AM
`
`ECOM107@USPTO.GOV
`
`Attachment - 1
`Attachment - 2
`Attachment - 3
`Attachment - 4
`Attachment - 5
`Attachment - 6
`Attachment - 7
`Attachment - 8
`Attachment - 9
`Attachment - 10
`Attachment - 11
`Attachment - 12
`Attachment - 13
`Attachment - 14
`Attachment - 15
`Attachment - 16
`Attachment - 17
`Attachment - 18
`Attachment - 19
`Attachment - 20
`Attachment - 21
`Attachment - 22
`Attachment - 23
`Attachment - 24
`Attachment - 25
`Attachment - 26
`Attachment - 27
`Attachment - 28
`Attachment - 29
`Attachment - 30
`Attachment - 31
`Attachment - 32
`Attachment - 33
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE (USPTO)
`OFFICE ACTION (OFFICIAL LETTER) ABOUT APPLICANT’S TRADEMARK APPLICATION
`
`U.S. APPLICATION SERIAL NO.   86351548
`
`           
`
`MARK: TOWERJAZZ PANASONIC SEMICONDUCTOR
`
`*86351548*
`
` 
` 
` 
`

`

`CORRESPONDENT ADDRESS:
`  
`       ANN K. FORD
`  
`       DLA PIPER LLP (US)
`        
`500 8TH ST NW
`           WASHINGTON, DC 20004-2131
`    
`   
`APPLICANT: TowerJazz Panasonic Semiconductor Co., L ETC.
`
`CLICK HERE TO RESPOND TO THIS LETTER:
`http://www.uspto.gov/trademarks/teas/response_forms.jsp
`
`VIEW YOUR APPLICATION FILE
`
`  373445-8
`
`    
`CORRESPONDENT’S REFERENCE/DOCKET NO :       
`CORRESPONDENT E-MAIL ADDRESS:       
`
`   
`
`dctrademarks@dlapiper.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.
`
`ISSUE/MAILING DATE: 11/12/2014
`
`The referenced application has been reviewed by the assigned trademark examining attorney.  Applicant must respond timely and completely to
`the issue(s) below.  15 U.S.C. §1062(b); 37 C.F.R. §§2.62(a), 2.65(a); TMEP §§711, 718.03.
`
`SUMMARY OF ISSUES that applicant must address:
`
`Refusal under Trademark Act Section 2(d) – Likelihood of Confusion
`Requirement for a Claim of Ownership of Registrations
`Requirement for a Disclaimer
`Requirement to Amend the Identification of Services
`Requirement to Amend the Classification of Services
`
`SECTION 2(d) REFUSAL – LIKELIHOOD OF CONFUSION
`
`Registration of the applied-for mark is refused because of a likelihood of confusion with the marks in U.S. Registration Nos. 2219862 and
`3108573, both for the mark “Panasonic”.   Trademark Act Section 2(d), 15 U.S.C. §1052(d); see TMEP §§1207.01 et seq.  See the enclosed
`registrations.
`
`Trademark Act Section 2(d) bars registration of an applied-for mark that so resembles a registered mark that it is likely a potential consumer
`would be confused, mistaken, or deceived as to the source of the goods and/or services of the applicant and registrant.  See 15 U.S.C. §1052(d). 
`A determination of likelihood of confusion under Section 2(d) is made on a case-by case basis and the factors set forth in In re E. I. du Pont de
`Nemours & Co., 476 F.2d 1357, 177 USPQ 563 (C.C.P.A. 1973) aid in this determination.  Citigroup Inc. v. Capital City Bank Grp., Inc., 637
`F.3d 1344, 1349, 98 USPQ2d 1253, 1256 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (citing On-Line Careline, Inc. v. Am. Online, Inc., 229 F.3d 1080, 1085, 56 USPQ2d
`1471, 1474 (Fed. Cir. 2000)).  Not all the du Pont factors, however, are necessarily relevant or of equal weight, and any one of the factors may
`control in a given case, depending upon the evidence of record.  Citigroup Inc. v. Capital City Bank Grp., Inc., 637 F.3d at 1355, 98 USPQ2d at
`1260; In re Majestic Distilling Co., 315 F.3d 1311, 1315, 65 USPQ2d 1201, 1204 (Fed. Cir. 2003); see In re E. I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., 476
`F.2d at 1361-62, 177 USPQ at 567.
`
`In this case, the following factors are the most relevant:  similarity of the marks, similarity and nature of the goods and/or services, and similarity
`of the trade channels of the goods and/or services.  See In re Viterra Inc., 671 F.3d 1358, 1361-62, 101 USPQ2d 1905, 1908 (Fed. Cir. 2012); In
`re Dakin’s Miniatures Inc. , 59 USPQ2d 1593, 1595-96 (TTAB 1999); TMEP §§1207.01 et seq.
`
`Comparing the Marks
`
`Marks are compared in their entireties for similarities in appearance, sound, connotation, and commercial impression.  Stone Lion Capital
`
` 
` 
` 
` 
` 
`  
`  
` 
`  
` 
` 
` 
` 
` 
`

`

`Partners, LP v. Lion Capital LLP, 746 F.3d 1317, 1321, 110 USPQ2d 1157, 1160 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (quoting Palm Bay Imps., Inc. v. Veuve
`Clicquot Ponsardin Maison Fondee En 1772, 396 F. 3d 1369, 1371, 73 USPQ2d 1689, 1691 (Fed. Cir. 2005)); TMEP §1207.01(b)-(b)(v). 
`“Similarity in any one of these elements may be sufficient to find the marks confusingly similar.”   In re Davia, 110 USPQ2d 1810, 1812 (TTAB
`2014) (citing In re White Swan Ltd., 8 USPQ2d 1534, 1535 (TTAB 1988); In re 1st USA Realty Prof’ls, Inc., 84 USPQ2d 1581, 1586 (TTAB
`2007)); TMEP §1207.01(b).
`
`When comparing marks, the test is not whether the marks can be distinguished in a side-by-side comparison, but rather whether the marks are
`sufficiently similar in terms of their overall commercial impression that confusion as to the source of the goods and/or services offered under the
`respective marks is likely to result.  Midwestern Pet Foods, Inc. v. Societe des Produits Nestle S.A., 685 F.3d 1046, 1053, 103 USPQ2d 1435,
`1440 (Fed. Cir. 2012); In re Davia, 110 USPQ2d 1810, 1813 (TTAB 2014); TMEP §1207.01(b).  The proper focus is on the recollection of the
`average purchaser, who retains a general rather than specific impression of trademarks.  United Global Media Grp., Inc. v. Tseng, 112 USPQ2d
`1039, 1049, (TTAB 2014); L’Oreal S.A. v. Marcon , 102 USPQ2d 1434, 1438 (TTAB 2012); TMEP §1207.01(b).
`
`The applicant’s mark, “Towerjazz Panasonic Semiconductor Co.” is likely to be confused with the registered marks, “Panasonic”.   The second
`term in the applicant’s mark is identical to the registrant’s entire mark.  Incorporating the entirety of one mark within another does not obviate
`the similarity between the compared marks, as in the present case, nor does it overcome a likelihood of confusion under Section 2(d).  See Wella
`Corp. v. Cal. Concept Corp., 558 F.2d 1019, 1022, 194 USPQ 419, 422 (C.C.P.A. 1977) (finding CALIFORNIA CONCEPT and surfer design
`and CONCEPT confusingly similar); Coca-Cola Bottling Co. v. Jos. E. Seagram & Sons, Inc., 526 F.2d 556, 557, 188 USPQ 105, 106 (C.C.P.A.
`1975) (finding BENGAL and BENGAL LANCER and design confusingly similar); Hunter Indus., Inc. v. Toro Co., 110 USPQ2D 1651, 1660-61
`(TTAB 2014) (finding PRECISION and PRECISION DISTRIBUTION CONTROL confusingly similar); TMEP §1207.01(b)(iii).  In the present
`case, the marks are identical in part.
`
`Later in this Office Action, the applicant is required to disclaim the wording “Semiconductor Co.”   Although marks are compared in their
`entireties, one feature of a mark may be more significant or dominant in creating a commercial impression.  See In re Viterra Inc., 671 F.3d 1358,
`1362, 101 USPQ2d 1905, 1908 (Fed. Cir. 2012); In re Nat’l Data Corp., 753 F.2d 1056, 1058, 224 USPQ 749, 751 (Fed. Cir. 1985); TMEP
`§1207.01(b)(viii), (c)(ii).  Matter that is descriptive of or generic for a party’s goods and/or services is typically less significant or less dominant
`in relation to other wording in a mark.  See In re Chatam Int’l Inc., 380 F.3d 1340, 1342-43, 71 USPQ2d 1944, 1946 (Fed. Cir. 2004); In re
`Binion, 93 USPQ2d 1531, 1534 (TTAB 2009).
`
`In the present case, the attached evidence shows that the wording “Semiconductor Co.” in the applied-for mark is merely descriptive of or
`generic for applicant’s services.  Dictionary.com, search of “ semiconductor”, http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/semiconductor (November
`12, 2014); Dictionary.com, search of “ integrated circuit”, http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/integrated%20circuit?s=t (November 12,
`2014).  Thus, this wording is less significant in terms of affecting the mark’s commercial impression, and renders the wording “Towerjazz
`Panasonic” the more dominant element of the mark.
`
`Material obtained from the Internet is generally accepted as competent evidence.  See In re Davey Prods. Pty Ltd., 92 USPQ2d 1198, 1202-03
`(TTAB 2009) (accepting Internet evidence to show relatedness of goods in a likelihood of confusion determination); In re Rodale Inc., 80
`USPQ2d 1696, 1700 (TTAB 2006) (accepting Internet evidence to show genericness); In re White, 80 USPQ2d 1654, 1662 (TTAB 2006)
`(accepting Internet evidence to show false suggestion of a connection); In re Joint-Stock Co. “Baik” , 80 USPQ2d 1305, 1308-09 (TTAB 2006)
`(accepting Internet evidence to show geographic significance); In re Consol. Specialty Rests. Inc., 71 USPQ2d 1921, 1927-29 (TTAB 2004)
`(accepting Internet evidence to show geographic location is well-known for particular goods); In re Gregory, 70 USPQ2d 1792, 1793, 1795
`(TTAB 2004) (accepting Internet evidence to show surname significance); 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).
`
`Marks may be confusingly similar in appearance where similar terms or phrases or similar parts of terms or phrases appear in the compared
`marks and create a similar overall commercial impression.  See Crocker Nat’l Bank v. Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce , 228 USPQ 689,
`690-91 (TTAB 1986), aff’d sub nom. Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce v. Wells Fargo Bank, Nat’l Ass’n , 811 F.2d 1490, 1495, 1
`USPQ2d 1813, 1817 (Fed. Cir. 1987) (finding COMMCASH and COMMUNICASH confusingly similar); In re Corning Glass Works, 229
`USPQ 65, 66 (TTAB 1985) (finding CONFIRM and CONFIRMCELLS confusingly similar); In re Pellerin Milnor Corp., 221 USPQ 558, 560
`(TTAB 1983) (finding MILTRON and MILLTRONICS confusingly similar); TMEP §1207.01(b)(ii)-(iii).  In this case, the applicant’s mark is
`inclusive of the registrant’s Mark “Panasonic”.
`  Source confusion is likely because the marks are similar in sound, appearance and meaning.
`
`Comparing the Goods and Services
`
`The applicant’s services are identified as “manufacture and sale of integrated circuits and design, technical, and support services related
`thereto.”   See application.  In RN 2219862, the registrant’s goods include “electronic components, namely,…integratedcircuits.”   See attached
`registration.  In RN 3108573, the registrant’s goods include “electronic components, namely,…integratedcircuits” and “transformers, namely,
`…hybridintegrated circuits.”   See attached registration.  The applicant is designing, manufacturing, selling and supporting goods that are identical
`to the registrant’s goods, specifically, integrated circuits.  As such, the marks would be used in the same manner, with very closely related goods
`and services, and in the same channels of trade.  Therefore, source confusion is likely.
`
` 
` 
` 
` 
` 
` 
` 
` 
`

`

`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.  TMEP §1207.01(a)(ii); see In re Hyper Shoppes (Ohio), Inc., 837 F.2d 463, 6 USPQ2d 1025 (Fed. Cir. 1988) (holding BIGG’S for retail
`grocery and general merchandise store services likely to be confused with BIGGS for furniture); In re United Serv. Distribs., Inc., 229 USPQ 237
`(TTAB 1986) (holding design for distributorship services in the field of health and beauty aids likely to be confused with design for skin cream);
`In re Phillips-Van Heusen Corp., 228 USPQ 949 (TTAB 1986) (holding 21 CLUB for various items of men’s, boys’, girls’ and women’s
`clothing likely to be confused with THE “21” CLUB (stylized) for restaurant services and towels); In re U.S. Shoe Corp., 229 USPQ 707 (TTAB
`1985) (holding CAREER IMAGE (stylized) for retail women’s clothing store services and clothing likely to be confused with CREST CAREER
`IMAGES (stylized) for uniforms); Steelcase Inc. v. Steelcare Inc., 219 USPQ 433 (TTAB 1983) (holding STEELCARE INC. for refinishing of
`furniture, office furniture, and machinery likely to be confused with STEELCASE for office furniture and accessories); Mack Trucks, Inc. v.
`Huskie Freightways, Inc., 177 USPQ 32 (TTAB 1972) (holding similar marks for trucking services and on motor trucks and buses likely to cause
`confusion).
`
`The 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 newcomer.  See In re Shell Oil Co., 992 F.2d 1204, 1208, 26 USPQ2d 1687, 1690
`(Fed. Cir. 1993).  Therefore, any doubt regarding a likelihood of confusion determination is resolved in favor of the registrant.  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, 1026 (Fed. Cir. 1988).
`
`the applicant’s proposed mark, “Towerjazz Panasonic Semiconductor Co.”,
`Accordingly,
`Trademark Act Section 2(d).
`
`is refused for likelihood of confusion under
`
`Although applicant’s mark has been refused registration, applicant may respond to the refusal by submitting evidence and arguments in support
`of registration.
`
`If applicant responds to the refusal, applicant must also respond to the requirements set forth below.
`
`CLAIM OF OWNERSHIP OF REGISTRATIONS
`
`If the marks in the cited registrations have been assigned to applicant, applicant may provide evidence of ownership of the marks by satisfying
`one of the following:
`
`(1)  Record the assignment with the USPTO’s Assignment Recordation Branch (ownership transfer documents such as assignments can
`be filed online at http://etas.uspto.gov) and promptly notify the trademark examining attorney that the assignment has been duly recorded.
`
`(2)  Submit copies of documents evidencing the chain of title.
`
`(3)  Submit the following statement, verified with an affidavit or signed declaration under 37 C.F.R. §2.20:  “Applicant is the owner of
`
`U.S. Registration Nos. 2219862 and 3108573.”  
`
`TMEP §812.01; see 15 U.S.C. §1060; 37 C.F.R. §§2.193(e)(1), 3.25, 3.73(a)-(b); TMEP §502.02(a).
`
`Recording a document with the Assignment Recordation Branch does not constitute a response to an Office action.  TMEP §503.01(d).
`
`DISCLAIMER REQUIRED
`
`Applicant must disclaim the wording “Semiconductor Co.” because it merely describes an feature or characteristic of applicant’s services, and
`thus is an unregistrable component of the mark.  See 15 U.S.C. §§1052(e)(1), 1056(a); DuoProSS Meditech Corp. v. Inviro Med. Devices, Ltd.,
`695 F.3d 1247, 1251, 103 USPQ2d 1753, 1755 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (quoting In re Oppedahl & Larson LLP, 373 F.3d 1171, 1173, 71 USPQ2d 1370,
`
`1371 (Fed. Cir. 2004)); TMEP §§1213, 1213.03(a).  
`
`The attached evidence from Dictionary.com shows a semiconductor is “a basic component of various kinds of electronic circuit[s]” and
`integrated circuits, the applicant’s goods, are a type of circuit “constructed on a single semiconductor wafer or chip.”   Dictionary.com, search of
`“ semiconductor”, http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/semiconductor (November 12, 2014); Dictionary.com, search of “ integrated circuit”,
`http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/integrated%20circuit?s=t (November 12, 2014); see Identification of Goods.  Therefore, the wording
`merely describes a feature or characteristic of the applicant’s services, specifically, the goods that are being manufactured, sold and supported .
`
` 
` 
` 
`  
` 
`  
` 
` 
` 
` 
` 
`  
` 
`

`

`Material obtained from the Internet is generally accepted as competent evidence.  See In re Davey Prods. Pty Ltd., 92 USPQ2d 1198, 1202-03
`(TTAB 2009) (accepting Internet evidence to show relatedness of goods in a likelihood of confusion determination); In re Rodale Inc., 80
`USPQ2d 1696, 1700 (TTAB 2006) (accepting Internet evidence to show genericness); In re White, 80 USPQ2d 1654, 1662 (TTAB 2006)
`(accepting Internet evidence to show false suggestion of a connection); In re Joint-Stock Co. “Baik” , 80 USPQ2d 1305, 1308-09 (TTAB 2006)
`(accepting Internet evidence to show geographic significance); In re Consol. Specialty Rests. Inc., 71 USPQ2d 1921, 1927-29 (TTAB 2004)
`(accepting Internet evidence to show geographic location is well-known for particular goods); In re Gregory, 70 USPQ2d 1792, 1793, 1795
`(TTAB 2004) (accepting Internet evidence to show surname significance); 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).
`
`Business type designations and abbreviations such as “Corporation,” “Inc.,” “Company,” and “Ltd.” or family business designations such as
`“& Son’s” or “Bros.” must be disclaimed, because they merely indicate applicant’s business type or structure and generally have no source-
`indicating capacity.  TMEP §1213.03(d); see, e.g., Goodyear’s India Rubber Glove Mfg. Co. v. Goodyear Rubber Co. , 128 U.S. 598, 602-03
`(1888); In re Piano Factory Grp., Inc., 85 USPQ2d 1522, 1526 (TTAB 2006); In re Patent & Trademark Servs., Inc., 49 USPQ2d 1537, 1539-40
`
`(TTAB 1998).  
`
`An applicant may not claim exclusive rights to terms that others may need to use to describe their goods and/or services in the marketplace.  See
`Dena Corp. v. Belvedere Int’l, Inc., 950 F.2d 1555, 1560, 21 USPQ2d 1047, 1051 (Fed. Cir. 1991); In re Aug. Storck KG, 218 USPQ 823, 825
`(TTAB 1983).  A disclaimer of unregistrable matter does not affect the appearance of the mark; that is, a disclaimer does not physically remove
`the disclaimed matter from the mark.  See Schwarzkopf v. John H. Breck, Inc., 340 F.2d 978, 978, 144 USPQ 433, 433 (C.C.P.A. 1965); TMEP
`
`§1213.  
`
`If applicant does not provide the required disclaimer, the USPTO may refuse to register the entire mark.  See In re Stereotaxis Inc., 429 F.3d
`1039, 1040-41, 77 USPQ2d 1087, 1088-89 (Fed. Cir. 2005); TMEP §1213.01(b).
`
`Applicant should submit a disclaimer in the following standardized format:
`
`No claim is made to the exclusive right to use “Semiconductor Co.” apart from the mark as shown.
`
`For an overview of disclaimers and instructions on how to satisfy this disclaimer requirement online using the Trademark Electronic Application
`System (TEAS) form, please go to http://www.uspto.gov/trademarks/law/disclaimer.jsp.
`
`IDENTIFICATION OF SERVICES
`
`The wording “Manufacture and sale of integrated circuits and design, technical, and support services related thereto” in the identification of
`
`services must be clarified because it is too broad and could include services in other international classes.  See TMEP §§1402.01, 1402.03.  
`
`Also, the identification of services is indefinite and must be clarified.  See TMEP §1402.01.  Applicant must specify the nature of the services as
`
`well as their main purpose and their field of use or channels of trade.  
`
`The word “sale” in the identification of services is indefinite and must be clarified.   See TMEP §1402.01.  To be a service, an activity must be
`primarily for the benefit of someone other than the applicant.  See In re Reichhold Chems., Inc., 167 USPQ 376, 377 (TTAB 1970).  “Sales” or
`“selling” is not a service rendered for the benefit of others.   See TMEP §§1301.01(a)(ii), 1402.11.
`
`Therefore, applicant must delete “sale” and indicate with greater specificity the nature of the service, e.g., “retail store services featuring
`integrated circuits,” “mail order services featuring integrated circuits,” or “on-line retail store services featuring integrated circuits.”
`
`Applicant may adopt the following identification, showing the suggested amendments in bold type, if accurate:  
`
`Class 35
`
`Retail store services featuring integrated circuits
`
`Class 37
`
`Technical support services, namely, troubleshooting in the nature of the repair of integrated circuits
`
` 
` 
` 
` 
` 
`   
` 
` 
` 
` 
` 
` 
` 
`

`

`Class 40
`
`Manufacture of integrated circuits to order and specification of others; Technical support services, namely, providing
`technical advice related to the manufacture of integrated circuits
`
`Class 42
`
`Design of integrated circuits for others; Technical support services, namely, troubleshooting in the nature of diagnosing
`integrated circuit problems
`
`An applicant may only amend an identification to clarify or limit the services, but not to add to or broaden the scope of the services.  37 C.F.R.
`§2.71(a); see TMEP §§1402.06 et seq., 1402.07.
`
`For assistance with identifying and classifying services in trademark applications, please see the USPTO’s online searchable U.S. Acceptable
`Identification of Goods and Services Manual at http://tess2.uspto.gov/netahtml/tidm.html.   See TMEP §1402.04.
`
`CLASSIFICATION OF SERVICES
`
`If applicant adopts the suggested amendment of the services, then applicant must amend the classification to International Classes 35, 37, 40
`
`and/or 42.  See 37 C.F.R. §§2.32(a)(7), 2.85; TMEP §§805, 1401.   
`
`Applicant must adopt the appropriate international classification number for the services identified in the application.  The United States follows
`the International Classification of Goods and Services for the Purposes of the Registration of Marks, established by the World Intellectual
`Property Organization, to classify goods and services.  37 C.F.R. §2.85(a); TMEP §§1401.02, 1401.02(a).
`
`Proper classification of goods and services is a purely administrative matter within the sole discretion of the United States Patent and Trademark
`Office.  In re Tee-Pak, Inc., 164 USPQ 88, 89 (TTAB 1969).
`
`REQUIREMENTS FOR APPLICATIONS WITH MULTIPLE CLASSES
`
`The application identifies services in more than one international class; therefore, applicant must satisfy all the requirements below for each
`international class based on Trademark Act Section 1(b):
`
`(1)      
`
`(2)      
`
`List the goods and/or services by their international class number in consecutive numerical order, starting with the lowest
`numbered class.
`
`Submit a filing fee for each international class not covered by the fee(s) already paid (view the USPTO’s current fee schedule at
`http://www.uspto.gov/trademarks/tm_fee_info.jsp).  The application identifies services that are classified in at least four classes;
`however, applicant submitted a fee(s) sufficient for only one class.  Applicant must either submit the filing fees for the classes not
`covered by the submitted fees or restrict the application to the number of classes covered by the fees already paid.
`
`See 15 U.S.C. §§1051(b), 1112, 1126(e); 37 C.F.R. §§2.32(a)(6)-(7), 2.34(a)(2)-(3), 2.86(a); TMEP §§1403.01, 1403.02(c).
`
`For an overview of the requirements for a Section 1(b) multiple-class application and how to satisfy the requirements online using the Trademark
`Electronic Application System (TEAS) form, please go to http://www.uspto.gov/trademarks/law/multiclass.jsp.
`
`Fees for Additional Classes
`
`The filing fees for adding classes to an application are as follows:
`
`(1)  A $325 fee per class, when the fees are submitted with an electronic response filed online at
`http://www.uspto.gov/trademarks/teas/response_forms.jsp, via the Trademark Electronic Application System (TEAS).
`
`(2)  A $375 fee per class, when the fees are submitted with a paper response.
`
`37 C.F.R. §2.6(a)(1)(i)-(ii); TMEP §§810, 1403.02(c).
`
` 
` 
` 
` 
` 
`  
` 
` 
`  
` 
` 
` 
` 
` 
` 
` 
` 
` 
` 
` 
`

`

`RESPONSE TO OFFICE ACTION
`
`To expedite prosecution of the application, applicant is encouraged to file its response to this Office action online via the Trademark Electronic
`Application System (TEAS), which is available at http://www.uspto.gov/teas/index.html.  If applicant has technical questions about the TEAS
`response to Office acti