To:
`
`Subject:
`
`Sent:
`
`Sent As:
`
`Attachments:
`
`Panasonic Corporation (DCPTOTrademarkMail@hoganlovells.com)
`
`U.S. TRADEMARK APPLICATION NO. 88281283 - HOMEX - 1P3518.10855
`
`4/12/2019 11:07:56 AM
`
`ECOM103@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
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE (USPTO)
`OFFICE ACTION (OFFICIAL LETTER) ABOUT APPLICANT’S TRADEMARK APPLICATION
`
`U.S. APPLICATION SERIAL NO.  
`88281283
`
`           
`
`MARK: HOMEX
`
`CORRESPONDENT ADDRESS:
`  
`       JULIA ANNE MATHESON
`  
`       HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP
`         555 13TH STREET NW
`           WASHINGTON, DC 20004
`    
`   
`
`APPLICANT: Panasonic Corporation
`
`    
`
`*88281283*
`
`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:       
`
`  1P3518.10855
`CORRESPONDENT E-MAIL
`
`   
`
`ADDRESS:       
`
`DCPTOTrademarkMail@hoganlovells.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.   A RESPONSE
`TRANSMITTED THROUGH THE TRADEMARK ELECTRONIC APPLICATION SYSTEM (TEAS) MUST BE RECEIVED BEFORE
`MIDNIGHT EASTERN TIME OF THE LAST DAY OF THE RESPONSE PERIOD.
`
`ISSUE/MAILING DATE: 4/12/2019
`
`  
`
`The referenced application and the preliminary amendment dated February 6, 2019 have been reviewed by the assigned trademark examining
`attorney.  The signed declaration provided in the preliminary amendment is accepted.  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:
`Section 2(d) Refusal – Likelihood of Confusion as to the Specified Goods Only
`Prior-Filed Application
`Identification of Goods and Services
`Multiple-Class Application – Advisory
`Option to Delete Dual Filing Bases
`
`SECTION 2(d) REFUSAL – LIKELIHOOD OF CONFUSION AS TO THE SPECIFIED
`
`GOODS ONLY
`
`THIS PARTIAL REFUSAL APPLIES ONLY TO THE GOODS SPECIFIED THEREIN
`
`Registration of the applied-for mark is refused because of a likelihood of confusion with the marks in U.S. Registration Nos. 5484522 and
`5710595.  Trademark Act Section 2(d), 15 U.S.C. §1052(d); see TMEP §§1207.01 et seq.  See the attached registrations.
`
`Applicant’s mark is HOMEX in standard character form for, in relevant part, “Air conditioning apparatus; freezing machines and apparatus;
`cooking apparatus and installations for industrial purposes; electric cooking pots for household purposes; electrical rice cookers; electric
`apparatus for making coffee; electric cooking stoves for household purposes; electric stoves; electric toasters for household purposes; electric
`therm pots; electric refrigerators; electric freezers; ice machines for household purposes; electric ovens; microwave ovens; induction heating
`cookers; hot plates; electric space cooling apparatus for household purposes; bread making machines for household purposes; electric kettle;
`electric roasters for household purposes; electric deep fryers for household purposes; electric cookers for household purposes; electric cooking
`
`pots for household purposes; air-conditioning installations; air blowing installations; electric sandwich makers” in International Class 11.  
`
`Registrant’s marks are detailed below:
`
`Reg. No. 5484522:   X HOME in design form for “Coffee machines, electric; Electric outdoor grills; Electric toasters; Gas burners; Gas
`cookers; Gas grills; Regulating accessories for gas pipes and lines; Roasting spits for cooking ovens; Safety accessories for gas pipes,
`namely, flashback arrestors and reverse flow check valves; Electric griddles; Gas patio heaters” in International Class 11.
`
`Reg. No. 5710595:  HOMEX in standard character form for “Plumbing services; Repair, maintenance, replacement and installation of
`heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) Systems; Electrical repairs, maintenance, and installation of electrical wiring, outlets,
`
` 
`  
`  
`  
` 
` 
` 
` 
`

`

`light fixtures, and electrical panels” in International Class 37.
`
`Trademark Act Section 2(d) bars registration of an applied-for mark that is so similar to a registered mark that it is likely consumers would be
`confused, mistaken, or deceived as to the commercial source of the goods and/or services of the parties.  See 15 U.S.C. §1052(d).  Likelihood of
`confusion is determined on a case-by-case basis by applying the factors set forth in In re E. I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., 476 F.2d 1357, 1361,
`177 USPQ 563, 567 (C.C.P.A. 1973) (called the “ du Pont factors”).   In re i.am.symbolic, llc, 866 F.3d 1315, 1322, 123 USPQ2d 1744, 1747
`(Fed. Cir. 2017).  Only those factors that are “relevant and of record” need be considered.   M2 Software, Inc. v. M2 Commc’ns, Inc., 450 F.3d
`1378, 1382, 78 USPQ2d 1944, 1947 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (citing Shen Mfg. Co. v. Ritz Hotel Ltd., 393 F.3d 1238, 1241, 73 USPQ2d 1350, 1353 (Fed.
`
`Cir. 2004)); see In re Inn at St. John’s, LLC , 126 USPQ2d 1742, 1744 (TTAB 2018).  
`
`Although not all du Pont factors may be relevant, there are generally two key considerations in any likelihood of confusion analysis:  (1) the
`similarities between the compared marks and (2) the relatedness of the compared goods and/or services.  See In re i.am.symbolic, llc, 866 F.3d at
`1322, 123 USPQ2d at 1747 (quoting Herbko Int’l, Inc. v. Kappa Books, Inc., 308 F.3d 1156, 1164-65, 64 USPQ2d 1375, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2002));
`Federated Foods, Inc. v. Fort Howard Paper Co., 544 F.2d 1098, 1103, 192 USPQ 24, 29 (C.C.P.A. 1976) (“The fundamental inquiry mandated
`by [Section] 2(d) goes to the cumulative effect of differences in the essential characteristics of the goods [or services] and differences in the
`marks.”); TMEP §1207.01.
`
`In this case, the following factors are the most relevant:  Similarity of the marks, relatedness of the goods and/or services, and similarity of the
`trade channels of the goods and/or services.
`
`SIMILARITY OF THE MARKS
`
`The applied-for mark and the registered marks are sufficiently similar to create a likelihood of confusion.
`
`In a likelihood of confusion determination, the marks in their entireties are compared for similarities in appearance, sound, connotation, and
`commercial impression.  In re i.am.symbolic, llc, 866 F.3d 1315, 1323, 123 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2017); 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)); 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).  
`
`In the present case, applicant’s mark is HOMEX and the mark in Reg. No. 5710595 is HOMEX.  These marks are identical in appearance,
`sound, and meaning, “and have the potential to be used . . . in exactly the same manner.”   In re i.am.symbolic, llc, 116 USPQ2d 1406, 1411
`(TTAB 2015), aff’d, 866 F.3d 1315, 123 USPQ2d 1744 (Fed. Cir. 2017).  Additionally, because they are identical, these marks are likely to
`engender the same connotation and overall commercial impression when considered in connection with applicant’s and registrant’s respective
`goods and/or services.  Id.
`
`Therefore, the marks are confusingly similar.  
`
`When comparing marks, “[t]he proper test is not a side-by-side comparison of the marks, but instead whether the marks are sufficiently similar in
`terms of their commercial impression such that [consumers] who encounter the marks would be likely to assume a connection between the
`parties.”   Cai v. Diamond Hong, Inc., __ F.3d __, 127 USPQ2d 1797, 1801 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (quoting Coach Servs., Inc. v. Triumph Learning
`LLC, 668 F.3d 1356, 1368, 101 USPQ2d 1713, 1721 (Fed. Cir. 2012)); 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.  In re Inn at St. John’s, LLC, 126 USPQ2d 1742, 1746
`(TTAB 2018) (citing In re St. Helena Hosp., 774 F.3d 747, 750-51, 113 USPQ2d 1082, 1085 (Fed. Cir. 2014); Geigy Chem. Corp. v. Atlas Chem.
`Indus., Inc., 438 F.2d 1005, 1007, 169 USPQ 39, 40 (CCPA 1971)); TMEP §1207.01(b).
`
`The average purchaser who retains a general rather than specific impression of trademarks is likely to confuse the applied-for mark, HOMEX,
`with the registered mark, X HOME & Design, because the marks identify legally identical and closely related goods.  Where the goods and/or
`services of an applicant and registrant are identical or virtually identical, the degree of similarity between the marks required to support a finding
`that confusion is likely declines.  See Cai v. Diamond Hong, Inc., __ F.3d __, 127 USPQ2d 1797, 1801 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (quoting In re Viterra
`Inc., 671 F.3d 1358, 1363, 101 USPQ2d 1905, 1908 (Fed. Cir. 2012)); TMEP §1207.01(b).  Further, where the goods and/or services of an
`applicant and registrant are “similar in kind and/or closely related,” the degree of similarity between the marks required to support a finding of
`likelihood of confusion is not as great as in the case of diverse goods and/or services.  In re J.M. Originals Inc., 6 USPQ2d 1393, 1394 (TTAB
`1987); see Shen Mfg. Co. v. Ritz Hotel Ltd., 393 F.3d 1238, 1242, 73 USPQ2d 1350, 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2004); TMEP §1207.01(b).
`
`In addition, confusion is likely between two marks consisting of reverse combinations of the same elements if they convey the same meaning or
`create substantially similar commercial impressions.  TMEP §1207.01(b)(vii); see, e.g., In re Wine Soc’y of Am. Inc., 12 USPQ2d 1139, 1142
`(TTAB 1989) (holding THE WINE SOCIETY OF AMERICA and design for wine club membership services including the supplying of printed
`materials likely to be confused with AMERICAN WINE SOCIETY 1967 and design for newsletters, bulletins, and journals); In re Nationwide
`
` 
` 
`  
` 
` 
` 
` 
` 
`

`

`Indus. Inc., 6 USPQ2d 1882, 1884 (TTAB 1988) (holding RUST BUSTER for a rust-penetrating spray lubricant likely to be confused with
`BUST RUST for a penetrating oil).
`
`Finally, the design element in X HOME & Design does not obviate the similarity of the marks because the applied-for mark is in standard
`character form.  A mark in typed or standard characters may be displayed in any lettering style; the rights reside in the wording or other literal
`element and not in any particular display or rendition.  See In re Viterra Inc., 671 F.3d 1358, 1363, 101 USPQ2d 1905, 1909 (Fed. Cir. 2012); In
`re Mighty Leaf Tea, 601 F.3d 1342, 1348, 94 USPQ2d 1257, 1260 (Fed. Cir. 2010); 37 C.F.R. §2.52(a); TMEP §1207.01(c)(iii).  Thus, a mark
`presented in stylized characters and/or with a design element generally will not avoid likelihood of confusion with a mark in typed or standard
`characters because the word portion could be presented in the same manner of display.  See, e.g., In re Viterra Inc., 671 F.3d at 1363, 101
`USPQ2d at 1909; Squirtco v. Tomy Corp., 697 F.2d 1038, 1041, 216 USPQ 937, 939 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (stating that “the argument concerning a
`difference in type style is not viable where one party asserts rights in no particular display”).
`
`RELATEDNESS OF THE GOODS AND/OR SERVICES
`
`Applicant has identified its goods as “Air conditioning apparatus; freezing machines and apparatus; cooking apparatus and installations for
`industrial purposes; electric cooking pots for household purposes; electrical rice cookers; electric apparatus for making coffee; electric cooking
`stoves for household purposes; electric stoves; electric toasters for household purposes; electric therm pots; electric refrigerators; electric
`freezers; ice machines for household purposes; electric ovens; microwave ovens; induction heating cookers; hot plates; electric space cooling
`apparatus for household purposes; bread making machines for household purposes; electric kettle; electric roasters for household purposes;
`electric deep fryers for household purposes; electric cookers for household purposes; electric cooking pots for household purposes; air-
`
`conditioning installations; air blowing installations; electric sandwich makers” in International Class 11.   
`
`The goods in Reg. No. 5484522 are identified as “Coffee machines, electric; Electric outdoor grills; Electric toasters; Gas burners; Gas cookers;
`Gas grills; Regulating accessories for gas pipes and lines; Roasting spits for cooking ovens; Safety accessories for gas pipes, namely, flashback
`arrestors and reverse flow check valves; Electric griddles; Gas patio heaters” in International Class 11.
`
`The services in Reg. No. 5710595 are identified as “Plumbing services; Repair, maintenance, replacement and installation of heating, ventilation,
`and air conditioning (HVAC) Systems; Electrical repairs, maintenance, and installation of electrical wiring, outlets, light fixtures, and electrical
`panels” in International Class 37.
`
`The goods and/or services are compared to determine whether they are similar, commercially related, or travel in the same trade channels.  See
`Coach Servs., Inc. v. Triumph Learning LLC, 668 F.3d 1356, 1369-71, 101 USPQ2d 1713, 1722-23 (Fed. Cir. 2012); Herbko Int’l, Inc. v. Kappa
`Books, Inc., 308 F.3d 1156, 1165, 64 USPQ2d 1375, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2002); TMEP §§1207.01, 1207.01(a)(vi).
`
`Determining likelihood of confusion is based on the description of the goods and/or services stated in the application and registration at issue, not
`on extrinsic evidence of actual use.  See In re Detroit Athletic Co., 903 F.3d 1297, 1307, 128 USPQ2d 1047, 1052 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (citing In re
`
`i.am.symbolic, llc, 866 F.3d 1315, 1325, 123 USPQ2d 1744, 1749 (Fed. Cir. 2017)).   
`
`In this case, the application uses broad wording to describe “electric apparatus for making coffee”, which presumably encompasses all goods of
`the type described, including the more narrow “ Coffee machines, electric” identified in Reg. No. 5484522.  See, e.g., In re Solid State Design
`Inc., 125 USPQ2d 1409, 1412-15 (TTAB 2018); Sw. Mgmt., Inc. v. Ocinomled, Ltd., 115 USPQ2d 1007, 1025 (TTAB 2015).  Similarly, the
`broadly worded “ Electric toasters” identified in Reg. No. 5484522 encompasses the more narrow “ electric toasters for household purposes”
`identified in the application.  Id.  Thus, applicant’s and registrant’s aforementioned goods are legally identical.  See, e.g., In re i.am.symbolic,
`llc, 127 USPQ2d 1627, 1629 (TTAB 2018) (citing Tuxedo Monopoly, Inc. v.Gen. Mills Fun Grp., Inc., 648 F.2d 1335, 1336, 209 USPQ 986, 988
`(C.C.P.A. 1981); Inter IKEA Sys. B.V. v. Akea, LLC, 110 USPQ2d 1734, 1745 (TTAB 2014); Baseball Am. Inc. v. Powerplay Sports Ltd., 71
`USPQ2d 1844, 1847 n.9 (TTAB 2004)).
`
`Additionally, the goods and/or services of the parties have no restrictions as to nature, type, channels of trade, or classes of purchasers and are
`“presumed to travel in the same channels of trade to the same class of purchasers.”   In re Viterra Inc., 671 F.3d 1358, 1362, 101 USPQ2d 1905,
`1908 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (quoting Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Packard Press, Inc., 281 F.3d 1261, 1268, 62 USPQ2d 1001, 1005 (Fed. Cir. 2002)). 
`Thus, applicant’s and registrant’s coffee machines and toasters are related.
`
`Applicant’s other various electric kitchen products are also related to the goods identified in Reg. No. 5484522.  The compared goods and/or
`services need not be identical or even competitive to find a likelihood of confusion.  See On-line Careline Inc. v. Am. Online Inc., 229 F.3d 1080,
`1086, 56 USPQ2d 1471, 1475 (Fed. Cir. 2000); Recot, Inc. v. Becton, 214 F.3d 1322, 1329, 54 USPQ2d 1894, 1898 (Fed. Cir. 2000); TMEP
`§1207.01(a)(i).  They need only be “related in some manner and/or if the circumstances surrounding their marketing are such that they could
`give rise to the mistaken belief that [the goods and/or services] emanate from the same source.”   Coach Servs., Inc. v. Triumph Learning LLC,
`668 F.3d 1356, 1369, 101 USPQ2d 1713, 1722 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (quoting 7-Eleven Inc. v. Wechsler, 83 USPQ2d 1715, 1724 (TTAB 2007));
`TMEP §1207.01(a)(i).
`
` 
`  
` 
` 
` 
` 
` 
` 
`

`

`The attached Internet evidence, consisting of website screenshots of various brands, such as Avantco, Cuisinart, Hamilton Beach, and Kenmore,
`that produce various electric kitchen products, establishes that the same entity commonly produces goods and markets the goods under the same
`mark.  Thus, applicant’s and registrant’s various electric kitchen products are considered related for likelihood of confusion purposes.  See, e.g.,
`In re Davey Prods. Pty Ltd., 92 USPQ2d 1198, 1202-04 (TTAB 2009); In re Toshiba Med. Sys. Corp., 91 USPQ2d 1266, 1268-69, 1271-72
`(TTAB 2009).
`
`With regards to the services identified in Reg. No. 5710595, 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 Detroit Athletic Co., 903 F.3d 1297, 1307, 128
`USPQ2d 1047, 1051 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (finding retail shops featuring sports team related clothing and apparel related to various clothing items,
`including athletic uniforms); In re Hyper Shoppes (Ohio), Inc., 837 F.2d 463, 6 USPQ2d 1025 (Fed. Cir. 1988) (finding retail grocery and general
`merchandise store services related to furniture); In re United Serv. Distribs., Inc., 229 USPQ 237 (TTAB 1986) (finding distributorship services
`in the field of health and beauty aids related to skin cream); In re Phillips-Van Heusen Corp., 228 USPQ 949 (TTAB 1986) (finding various
`items of men’s, boys’, girls’ and women’s clothing related to restaurant services and towels); Steelcase Inc. v. Steelcare Inc., 219 USPQ 433
`(TTAB 1983) (finding refinishing of furniture, office furniture, and machinery related to office furniture and accessories); Mack Trucks, Inc. v.
`Huskie Freightways, Inc., 177 USPQ 32 (TTAB 1972) (finding trucking services related to motor trucks and buses).
`
`The attached Internet evidence, consisting of companies, such as Home Depot, Lowes, and Sears, that sell air conditioning apparatus and provide
`related services, establishes that the relevant goods and/or services are sold or provided through the same trade channels and used by the same
`classes of consumers in the same fields of use.  Thus, applicant’s various air conditioning apparatus and the services identified in Reg. No.
`5710595 are considered related for likelihood of confusion purposes.  See, e.g., In re Davey Prods. Pty Ltd., 92 USPQ2d 1198, 1202-04 (TTAB
`2009); In re Toshiba Med. Sys. Corp., 91 USPQ2d 1266, 1268-69, 1271-72 (TTAB 2009).
`
`Moreover, the applied-for mark and the mark in Reg. No. 5710595 are identical.  Where the marks of the respective parties are identical or
`virtually identical, as in this case, the degree of similarity or relatedness between the goods and/or services needed to support a finding of
`likelihood of confusion declines.  See In re i.am.symbolic, llc, 116 USPQ2d 1406, 1411 (TTAB 2015) (citing In re Shell Oil Co., 992 F.2d 1204,
`1207, 26 USPQ2d 1687, 1689 (Fed. Cir. 1993)), aff’d , 866 F.3d 1315, 123 USPQ2d 1744 (Fed. Cir. 2017); TMEP §1207.01(a).
`
`Based on the foregoing, consumers encountering the applied-for mark and the registered marks for legally identical and closely related goods and
`services are likely to be confused and mistakenly believe that the respective goods and services emanate from a common source.
`
`Applicant may respond to the stated refusal by submitting evidence and arguments against the refusal.  In addition, applicant may respond by
`doing one of the following:
`
`(1)  Deleting the goods to which the refusal pertains; or
`
`(2)  Filing a request to divide out the goods that have not been refused registration, so that the mark may proceed toward publication for
`opposition for those goods or services to which the refusal does not pertain.  See 37 C.F.R. §2.87.  See generally TMEP §§1110 et seq.
`(regarding the requirements for filing a request to divide).  If applicant files a request to divide, then to avoid abandonment, applicant
`must also file a timely response to all outstanding issues in this Office action, including the refusal.  37 C.F.R. §2.87(e).
`
`PRIOR-FILED APPLICATION
`
`The filing date of pending U.S. Application Serial No. 88273949 precedes applicant’s filing date.  See attached referenced application.  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.  See 15 U.S.C. §1052(d); 37 C.F.R. §2.83; TMEP §§1208 et seq.  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.
`
`In 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.  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.
`
`However, if applicant responds to the Section 2(d) Refusal, applicant must also respond to the requirement(s) set forth below.
`
`IDENTIFICATION OF GOODS AND SERVICES
`
`The identification of goods and/or services contains parentheses.  Generally, applicants should not use parentheses and brackets in identifications
`
` 
` 
` 
` 
` 
` 
` 
` 
`  
` 
` 
` 
`  
` 
`

`

`in their applications so as to avoid confusion with the USPTO’s practice of using parentheses and brackets in registrations to indicate goods
`and/or services that have been deleted from registrations or in an affidavit of incontestability to indicate goods and/or services not claimed.  See
`TMEP §1402.12.  The only exception is that parenthetical information is permitted in identifications in an application if it serves to explain or
`translate the matter immediately preceding the parenthetical phrase in such a way that it does not affect the clarity or scope of the identification,
`e.g., “fried tofu pieces (abura-age).”   Id.
`
`Therefore, applicant must remove the parentheses from the identification and incorporate any parenthetical or bracketed information into the
`description of the goods and/or services.
`
`Further, the wording “electric therm pots” in the identification of goods and/or services appears to be misspelled and is thus indefinite; the
`spelling must be corrected or the wording further clarified.  See 37 C.F.R. §2.32(a)(6); TMEP §1402.01(a).  Suggestions documented below.
`
`Applicant is advised to delete or modify the duplicate entry in the identification of goods and/or services in International Class 42 for “testing or
`research on machines, apparatus and instruments.”   See generally TMEP §§1402.01, 1402.01(a).  If applicant does not respond to this issue, be
`advised that the USPTO will remove duplicate entries from the identification prior to registration.
`
`If modifying one of the duplicate entries, applicant may amend it to clarify or limit the goods and/or services, but not to broaden or expand the
`goods and/or services beyond those in the original application or as acceptably amended.  See 37 C.F.R. §2.71(a); TMEP §1402.06.  Also,
`generally, any deleted goods and/or services may not later be reinserted.  TMEP §1402.07(e).
`
`In addition, particular wording in the identification of goods is indefinite and must be clarified because it does not clearly specify the nature of
`the goods.  See 37 C.F.R. §2.32(a)(6); TMEP §1402.01.  Applicant must amend this wording to specify the common commercial or generic name
`of the goods.  See TMEP §1402.01.  If the goods have no common commercial or generic name, applicant must describe the product, its main
`purpose, and its intended uses.  See id.  Suggestions and further explanation detailed below.
`
`Particular wording in the identification of services is also indefinite and must be clarified because it does not clearly specify the nature of the
`services.  See 37 C.F.R. §2.32(a)(6); TMEP §1402.01.  Applicant must amend this wording to specify the common commercial or generic name
`of the services.  See TMEP §1402.01.  If the services have no common commercial or generic name, applicant must describe or explain the
`nature of the services using clear and succinct language.  See id.  Suggestions and further explanation detailed below.
`
`Applicant must also clarify the wording “phase modifiers” in the identification of goods in International Class 9 because it is indefinite and too
`broad.  See 37 C.F.R. §2.32(a)(6); TMEP §§1402.01, 1402.03.  This wording is indefinite because it does not make clear what the goods are. 
`Further, this wording could identify goods in more than one international class.  For example, “phase shifters for communications apparatus” are
`in International Class 9 and “phase shifters for musical instruments” are in International Class 15.   Suggestions documented below.
`
`The wording “electronic dictionaries” in the identification of goods in International Class 9 must also be clarified because it is indefinite and too
`broad.  See 37 C.F.R. §2.32(a)(6); TMEP §§1402.01, 1402.03.  This wording is indefinite because it does not make clear what the goods and/or
`services are.  Further, this wording could identify goods and/or services in more than one international class.  For example, “downloadable
`electronic dictionaries” are in International Class 9 and “providing online non-downloadable electronic dictionaries” are in International Class
`41.  Suggestions documented below.
`
`The wording “optical machines and apparatus” in the identification of goods in International Class 9 must also be clarified because it is
`indefinite and too broad.  See 37 C.F.R. §2.32(a)(6); TMEP §§1402.01, 1402.03.  This wording is indefinite because it does not make clear what
`the goods are.  Further, this wording could identify goods in more than one international class.  For example, machines for the production of
`optical lenses and replacement parts therefor” are in International Class 7 and “optical machines and apparatus, namely, optical code readers”
`are in International Class 9.  Suggestions documented below.
`
`The wording “electronic publications” in the identification of goods in International Class 9 must also be clarified because it is indefinite and too
`broad.  See 37 C.F.R. §2.32(a)(6); TMEP §§1402.01, 1402.03.  This wording is indefinite because it does not clearly specify the nature of the
`publications and the subject matter of the publications.  Further, this wording could identify goods and/or services in more than one international
`class.  For example, “downloadable electronic publications in the nature of ebooks in the field of math and science” are in International Class 9
`and “providing a website feature non-downloadable publications in the nature of essays and articles in the field of math and science” are in
`International Class 42.  Suggestions documented below.
`
`The wording “LCD screen displays” in the identification of goods in International Class 9 must also be clarified because it is indefinite and too
`broad.  See 37 C.F.R. §2.32(a)(6); TMEP §§1402.01, 1402.03.  This wording is indefinite because it does not make clear what the goods are. 
`Further, this wording could identify goods in more than one international class.  For example, “LCD large-screen displays” are in International
`Class 9 and “battery-powered computer games with LCD screen displays” are in International Class 28.   Suggestions documented below.
`
`The wording “air driers” in the identification of goods in International Class 11 must also be clarified because it is indefinite and too broad.   See
`
` 
` 
` 
` 
` 
` 
` 
` 
` 
` 
` 
` 
`

`

`37 C.F.R. §2.32(a)(6); TMEP §§1402.01, 1402.03.  This wording is indefinite because it does not make clear what the goods are.  Further, this
`wording could identify goods in more than one international class.  For example, “recirculated air driers” are in International Class 7 and
`“electric air driers” are in International Class 11.   Suggestions documented below.
`
`The wording “electric blankets” in the identification of goods in International Class 11 must also be clarified because it is indefinite and too
`broad.  See 37 C.F.R. §2.32(a)(6); TMEP §§1402.01, 1402.03.  This wording is indefinite because it does not make clear what the goods are. 
`Further, this wording could identify goods in more than one international class.  For example, “electric blankets for medical purposes” are in
`International Class 10 and “electric blankets for household purposes” are in International Class 11.   Suggestions documented below.
`
`The wording “kitchen worktops with integrated sinks for household purposes” in the identification of goods in International Class 11 must also
`be clarified because it is indefinite and too broad.  See 37 C.F.R. §2.32(a)(6); TMEP §§1402.01, 1402.03.  This wording is indefinite because it
`does not make clear what the goods are.  Further, this wording could identify goods in more than one international class.  For example, “sinks
`integrated into kitchen worktopos” are in International Class 11 and “kitchen worktops with integrated sinks sold together as a unit” are in
`International Class 20.  Suggestions documented below.
`
`The wording “ventilation apparatus” in the identification of goods in International Class 11 must also be clarified because it is indefinite and too
`broad.  See 37 C.F.R. §2.32(a)(6); TMEP §§1402.01, 1402.03.  This wording is indefinite because it does not make clear what the goods are. 
`Further, this wording could identify goods in more than one international class.  For example, “medical apparatus, namely, invasive and non-
`invasive ventilation apparatus and instruments” are in International Class 10 and “ventilation apparatus, namely, turbine ventilators” are in
`International Class 11.  Suggestions documented below.
`
`Applicant may substitute the following wording, if accurate (suggested changes in bold):  
`
`Class 9:  Rotary converters; phase modifiers shifters for communications apparatus; telephone apparatus; wire communication
`machines and apparatus {this wording is indefinite because the nature of the goods is unclear – please use the common commercial
`or generic name for the goods, e.g., wire-based communication machines and apparatus, namely, telephone apparatus and receivers};
`transmission machines and apparatus for telecommunication {this wording is indefinite because the nature of the goods is unclear –
`please use the common commercial or generic name for the goods, e.g., open-wire transmission machines and apparatus for
`telecommunication}; broadcasting machines and apparatus {this wording is indefinite – please specify the type of broadcasting
`machines and apparatus, e.g., cable broadcasting machines and apparatus}; radio communication machines and apparatus {this
`wording is indefinite because the nature of the goods is unclear – please use the common commercial or generic name for the goods,
`e.g., radio communication machines and apparatus, namely, walkie talkies}; radio machines and apparatus {this wording is
`indefinite – please specify the type of radio machines, e.g., radio machines and apparatus, namely, radio pagers, radio receivers and
`transmitters}; remote control telemetering machines and instruments; audio frequency devices and apparatus {this wording is
`indefinite because the nature of the goods is unclear – please use the common commercial or generic name for the goods, e.g., audio
`frequency devices and apparatus, namely audio-frequency transformers}; video frequency devices and apparatus {this wording is
`indefinite because the nature of the goods is unclear – please use the common commercial or generic name for the goods, e.g., video
`frequency devices and apparatus, namely, video cameras, camcorders, videodisc players, videodisc recorders, digital video players,
`digital video recorders, digital video disc players, and digital video disc recorders}; parts and accessories for telecommunication
`machines and apparatus {this wording is indefinite – please specify the particular parts and accessories, e.g., parts and accessories
`for telecommunication machines