UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF Cog/IERCE
`
`Patent and Trademark Office
`
`SERIAL N0.
`
`APPLICANT
`
`FORM PT931525 (5-90)
`~ ~ ~-—— era
`
`.
`
`.
`
`_
`
`PAPER NO.
`
`ADDRESS:
`Assistant Commissioner
`for Trademarks
`2900 Crystal Drive
`Arlington, VA 22202-3513
`Ifno fees are enclosed, the address should include the word
`"Box Responses - No Fee."
`Please provide in all correspondence:
`
`1. Filing Date, serial number, mark and
`Applicant's name.
`2. Mailing date ofthis Office action
`3. Examining Attorney's name and
`Law Ofice number.
`4. Your telephone number and ZIP code.
`
`,
`
`'
`
`ACTION N0.
`
`‘
`
`’
`
`descriptive of the registrant’s services and offers little trademark significance.
`
`The examining attorney must analyze each case in two steps to determine whether there is a
`likelihood of confusion. First, the examining attorney must look at the marks themselves for
`similarities in appearance, sound, connotation and commercial impression. In re E. I. DuPont de
`‘ Nemours & Ca, 476 F.2d 1357, 177 USPQ 563 (CCPA 1973).
`In this case, applicant‘s mark
`for MAYO ONE and registrant's mark for MAYO AVIATION both contain the dominant term
`"MAYO" and are likely to have the same commercial impression. The wording AVIATION is
`
`A PROPER RESPONSE TO THIS OFFICE ACTION MUST BE RECEIVED WITHIN 6
`MONTHS FROM THE DATE OF THIS ACTION IN ORDER TO AVOID ABANDONMENT.
`
`For your convenience and to ensure proper handling ofyour response, a label has been enclosed.
`Please attach it to the upper right corner ofyour response. If the label is not enclosed, print or type
`the Trademark Law Office No, Serial No, andMgr in the upper right corner ofyour response.
`
`RE: Serial Number: 75/298180
`
`The assigned examining attorney has reviewed the referenced application and determined the
`following.
`
`LIKELIHOOD OF CONFUSION
`
`The examining attorney refuses registration under Trademark Act Section 2(d), 15 U.S.C.
`Section 1052(d), because the applicant's mark, when used on or in connection with the identified
`services, so resembles the mark in US. Registration No. 2046966 as to be likely to cause
`confusion, to cause mistake, or to deceive. TMEP section 1207. See the enclosed registration.
`
`VB
`Q‘l
`
`A
`
`

`

`75/298180
`
`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.
`In re August Storck KG, 218 USPQ 823 (TTAB 1983); In re International Telephone
`and Telegraph Corp, 197 USPQ 910 (TTAB 1978); Guardian Products Ca, V. Scott Paper
`Co., 200 USPQ 738 (TTAB 1978).
`In this case,
`the mark MAYO AVIATION has been
`registered for air taxi and ambulance services, whereas the Applicant seeks to register its mark
`for emergency medical services.
`
`It is well settled that the issue of likelihood of confiision between marks must be determined on
`
`the basis of the goods or services as they are identified in the application and the registration.
`Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce v. Wells Fargo Bank, 811 F.2d 1490,
`l USPQ2d 1813
`(Fed. Cir. 1987), Paula Payne Products Co. v. Johnson Publishing Co., 473 F.2d 901, 177
`USPQ 76 (CCPA 1973).
`Since the identification of the applicant's services is broad,
`it is
`presumed that the application encompasses all emergency medical services of the type described,
`including those in the registrant's more specific identification,
`that they move in all normal
`channels of trade and that they are available for all potential customers. Therefore,
`it
`is
`presumed in this case that the Applicant’s services will include ambulance services. Applicant’s
`specimens support this where it states “Mayo One provides high-level emergency care during
`the transportation of critically ill or injured patients.” See Applicant’s specimens.
`
`
`
`In addition, the Applicant’s emergency medical care provided at the scene of accidents and
`during transportation is likely to be viewed as complementary to ambulance services. Since the
`Applicant and registrant provide related and complementary medical and transportation services,
`it is likely that consumers may be led to believe that applicant's emergency medical services are
`provided by the same source that provides the registrant’s air taxi and ambulance services,
`Therefore, the referenced appllication is likely to cause confusion with the enclosed registration,
`and the examining attorney must refuse registration.
`
`Although the examining attorney has refused registration, the applicant may respond to the
`refiisal to register by submitting evidence and arguments in support of registration.
`
`If the applicant chooses to respond to the refusals to register, the applicant must also respond to
`the following informality.
`
`PRIOR REGISTRATION S
`
`If the applicant is the owner of Registration Nos. 2028929, 2025755, 1670238, 1614853, and
`1613827, the applicant must submit a claim of ownership.
`37 C.F.R. Section 2.36, TMEP
`section 812. Please note that although the Applicant claimed ownership of US. Registration
`No. 1589666 in the application, that registration has been canceled and will not be printed on a
`registration. TMEP section 812.
`
`

`

`75/298180
`
`
`
`it new
`Daniel P. Vavonese
`
`Examining Attorney, Law Office 109
`
`If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me at the number below.
`
`(703) 308-9109 x148
`
`

`

`
`
`*** User: EX996029 *** flial Number: 74613200 ***
`
`Word Mark
`MAYO AVIATION
`
`Goods/Services
`IC 039; US 100 105; G & S: air taxi and ambulance services; FIRST USE:
`1978.05.01; FIRST USE IN COMMERCE: 1978.06.01
`
`3 *** Document Number: 58 ***
`
`Mark Drawing Code
`(1) TYPED DRAWING
`
`Serial Number
`74-613200
`
`Filing Date
`1994.12.20
`
`Registration Number
`2046966
`
`Registration Date
`1997.03.25
`
`Owner Name/Address
`Inc. CORPORATION COLORADO 7765 S. Peoria
`(REGISTRANT) Mayo Aviation,
`Street Englewood COLORADO 80112
`
`Disclaimer
`NO CLAIM IS MADE TO THE EXCLUSIVE RIGHT TO USE “AVIATION” APART FROM THE
`MARK AS SHOWN
`
`Type of Mark
`SERVICE MARK
`
`Register
`PRINCIPAL—2(F)
`
`*** Search:
`
`

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.

We are unable to display this document.

Connectivity issues with tsdrapi.uspto.gov. Try again now.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket