To:
`
`Subject:
`
`Sent:
`
`Sent As:
`
`Attachments:
`
`Bayou Pumps & Products Inc (frank@fjcpllc.com)
`
`U.S. TRADEMARK APPLICATION NO. 88057994 - TESLA DISK PUMPS - N/A
`
`3/10/2019 8:25:36 PM
`
`ECOM103@USPTO.GOV
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE (USPTO)
`
`OFFICE ACTION (OFFICIAL LETTER) ABOUT APPLICANT’S TRADEMARK APPLICATION
`
`*88057994*
`
`GENERAL TRADEMARK
`INFORMATION:
`http://www.uspto.gov/trademarks/index.jsp
`
`VIEW YOUR APPLICATION FILE
`
`U.S. APPLICATION
`SERIAL NO.   88057994
`
`           
`
`MARK: TESLA DISK
`PUMPS
`
`CORRESPONDENT
`ADDRESS:
`  
`     Francis John
`Ciaramella, Esquire
`
`     Francis John
`  
`Ciaramella, PLLC
`
`         110 Front Street, Suite
`300
`
`         Jupiter FL 33477
`
`  
`
`    
`
`APPLICANT: Bayou
`Pumps & Products Inc
`
`    
`
`CORRESPONDENT’S
`REFERENCE/DOCKET
`
`NO:     
`
`    N/A
`
`   
`
`CORRESPONDENT E-
`
`MAIL ADDRESS:    
`
`    frank@fjcpllc.com
`
`SUSPENSION NOTICE: NO RESPONSE NEEDED
`
`ISSUE/MAILING DATE: 3/10/2019
`
`Notwithstanding the following, all issues on this application have been resolved.
`
`The trademark examining attorney is suspending action on the application for the reason(s) stated below.  See 37 C.F.R. §2.67; TMEP §§716 et
`
`seq.  
`
`The effective filing date of the pending application(s) identified below precedes the filing date of applicant’s application.   If the mark in the
`referenced application(s) registers, applicant’s mark may be refused registration under Section 2(d) because of a likelihood of confusion with
`
` 
` 
` 
` 
` 
` 
` 
` 
` 
`

`

`that registered mark(s).   See 15 U.S.C. §1052(d); 37 C.F.R. §2.83; TMEP §§1208 et seq.  Therefore, action on this application is suspended until
`the earlier-filed referenced application(s) is either registered or abandoned.  37 C.F.R. §2.83(c).  A copy of information relevant to this referenced
`application(s) was sent previously.
`
`            
`
`- Application Serial No(s). 79178383
`
`REFUSAL(S)/REQUIREMENT(S) CONTINUED AND MAINTAINED:   The following refusal(s)/requirement(s) is/are continued and
`maintained:
`
`SECTION 2(d) REFUSAL – LIKELIHOOD OF CONFUSION
`
`Registration of the applied-for mark is refused because of a likelihood of confusion with the mark in U.S. Registration No. 4152161.  Trademark
`Act Section 2(d), 15 U.S.C. §1052(d); see TMEP §§1207.01 et seq.  See the enclosed registration.
`
`Determination Of Likelihood Of Confusion
`
`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
`in determining whether there is a likelihood of confusion under Section 2(d).  Any one of the factors listed may be dominant in any given case,
`depending upon the evidence of record.  In re Dixie Restaurants, Inc., 105 F.3d 1405, 41 USPQ2d 1531, 1533 (Fed. Cir. 1997).  In this case, the
`following factors are the most relevant:  similarity of the marks, similarity of the goods and/or services, and similarity of trade channels of the
`goods and/or services.  See In re Opus One, Inc., 60 USPQ2d 1812 (TTAB 2001); In re Dakin’s Miniatures Inc., 59 USPQ2d 1593 (TTAB
`1999); In re Azteca Restaurant Enterprises, Inc., 50 USPQ2d 1209 (TTAB 1999); In re L.C. Licensing Inc., 49 USPQ2d 1379 (TTAB 1998);
`TMEP §§1207.01 et seq.
`
`Taking into account the relevant Du Pont factors, a likelihood of confusion determination in this case involves a two-part analysis.  First, the
`marks are compared for similarities in appearance, sound, connotation and commercial impression.  In re E. I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., 476
`F.2d 1357, 177 USPQ 563 (C.C.P.A. 1973).  Second, the goods or services are compared to determine whether they are similar or related or
`whether the activities surrounding their marketing are such that confusion as to origin is likely.  In re National Novice Hockey League, Inc., 222
`USPQ 638 (TTAB 1984); In re August Storck KG, 218 USPQ 823 (TTAB 1983); In re Int’l Tel. and Tel. Corp. , 197 USPQ 910 (TTAB 1978);
`Guardian Prods. Co., v. Scott Paper Co., 200 USPQ 738 (TTAB 1978); TMEP §§1207.01 et seq.
`
`Two-Part Analysis
`
`Part One: Comparison of the marks for similarities in appearance, sound, connotation and commercial impression.
`
`The marks are compared in their entireties under a Section 2(d) analysis.  Nevertheless, one feature of a mark may be recognized as more
`significant in creating a commercial impression.  Greater weight is given to that dominant feature in determining whether there is a likelihood of
`confusion.  In re National Data Corp., 753 F.2d 1056, 224 USPQ 749 (Fed. Cir. 1985); Tektronix, Inc. v. Daktronics, Inc., 534 F.2d 915, 189
`USPQ 693 (C.C.P.A. 1976). In re J.M. Originals Inc., 6 USPQ2d 1393 (TTAB 1987); TMEP §1207.01(b)(viii).
`
`Furthermore, marks may be confusingly similar in appearance where there are similar terms or phrases or similar parts of terms or phrases
`appearing in both applicant’s and registrant’s mark.
`  See Crocker Nat’l Bank v. Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce , 228 USPQ 689 (TTAB
`1986), aff’d sub nom. Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce v. Wells Fargo Bank, Nat’l Ass’n , 811 F.2d 1490, 1 USPQ2d 1813 (Fed. Cir.
`1987) (COMMCASH and COMMUNICASH).
`
`The marks are similar in appearance, sound, connotation and commercial impression because they share dominant wording.
`
`Applicant’s mark is TESLA DISK PUMPS in STANDARD CHARACTER MARK form.
`
`Registrant’s mark is TESLA in DESIGN PLUS WORDS, LETTERS, AND/OR NUMBERS form.
`
` 
` 
` 
` 
` 
` 
` 
` 
` 
` 
` 
` 
` 
`

`

`Here, applicant and registrant share the dominant wording TESLA.  Applicant’s mere deletion of registrant’s design element does not
`sufficiently distinguish the commercial impression of applicant's mark from the registered mark.   The mere deletion of wording from a registered
`mark may not be sufficient to overcome a likelihood of confusion.  See In re Mighty Leaf Tea, 601 F.3d 1342, 94 USPQ2d 1257 (Fed. Cir.
`2010); In re Optica Int'l, 196 USPQ 775, 778 (TTAB 1977); TMEP §1207.01(b)(ii)-(iii).  Applicant's mark does not create a distinct commercial
`impression because it contains the same common wording as the registered mark, and there is no other wording to distinguish it from the
`registered mark.  Thus, part one of the two-part test is satisfied.
`
`Part Two: Comparison of the goods/services to determine whether they are similar or related.
`
`The goods and/or services of the parties need not be identical or directly competitive to find a likelihood of confusion.  Instead, they need only be
`related in some manner, or the conditions surrounding their marketing are such that they would be encountered by the same purchasers under
`circumstances that would give rise to the mistaken belief that the goods and/or services come from a common source.  On-line Careline Inc. v.
`America Online Inc., 229 F.3d 1080, 56 USPQ2d 1471 (Fed. Cir. 2000); In re Martin’s Famous Pastry Shoppe , Inc., 748 F.2d 1565, 223 USPQ
`1289 (Fed. Cir. 1984); In re Melville Corp., 18 USPQ2d 1386, 1388 (TTAB 1991); In re Corning Glass Works, 229 USPQ 65 (TTAB 1985); In
`re Rexel Inc., 223 USPQ 830 (TTAB 1984); Guardian Prods. Co., Inc. v. Scott Paper Co., 200 USPQ 738 (TTAB 1978); In re Int’l Tel. & Tel.
`Corp., 197 USPQ 910 (TTAB 1978); TMEP §1207.01(a)(i).
`
`Furthermore, if the goods and/or services of the respective parties 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 would be required with 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).
`
`The goods are related.
`
`Applicant seeks registration for the goods:
`
`IC 007. US 013 019 021 023 031 034 035. G & S: Pumps for machines. FIRST USE: 20120101. FIRST USE IN COMMERCE:
`20120101
`
`Registrant maintains registration for the goods:
`
`IC 007. US 013 019 021 023 031 034 035. G & S: Electric motors for submersible pumps, electric motors for machines used in borehole
`applications, electric submersible motors for use with machines other than land vehicles, electric motors for pumps, [ electric motors for
`machines, ] sump pumps, aquarium pumps, electric pumps for swimming pools, [ rotary pumps, namely, wet rotor pumps, ] electric
`pumps in the nature of electro pump machines, [ shafts for pumps, bearings being parts of machines, ] stators and rotors being parts of
`pumps, [ electric circulating pumps for heating plants, ] electric pumps for machines, [ electric pumps for heating installations, ] water
`pumps for irrigation, water pumps for water supply
`
`IC 009. US 021 023 026 036 038. G & S: [ Electric switch plates, pump control valves, ] electronic controls for pumps, mechanical
`remote controls for pumps [ water filter controllers ]
`
`Here, applicant’s and registrant’s goods are related because they are both pump goods.  Therefore, they are of a kind that may emanate from a
`
`single source and/or are marketed in similar channels of trade.  See identification of goods above.  
`
`Please note that 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.  In re Dakin’s Miniatures Inc., 59 USPQ2d 1593,
`1595 (TTAB 1999).  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.  In re Linkvest S.A., 24 USPQ2d 1716
`(TTAB 1992); In re Elbaum, 211 USPQ 639 (TTAB 1981); TMEP §1207.01(a)(iii).
`
`Therefore, for the above stated reasons, the goods are related and the conditions surrounding their marketing are such that they would be
`encountered by the same purchasers under circumstances that would give rise to the mistaken belief that the goods come from a common source. 
`Thus, part two of the two-part test is satisfied.
`
` 
` 
` 
` 
` 
` 
` 
` 
` 
` 
`

`

`Since the marks are similar and the goods are related, registration of the proposed mark is refused because of a likelihood of confusion with the
`mark in U.S. Registration No. 4152161.
`
`Conclusion
`
`The USPTO will periodically conduct a status check of the application to determine whether suspension remains appropriate, and the trademark
`examining attorney will issue as needed an inquiry letter to applicant regarding the status of the matter on which suspension is based.  TMEP
`§§716.04, 716.05.  Applicant will be notified when suspension is no longer appropriate.  See TMEP §716.04.
`
`No response to this notice is necessary; however, if applicant wants to respond, applicant should use the “Response to Suspension Inquiry or
`Letter of Suspension” form online at http://teasroa.uspto.gov/rsi/rsi.
`
`RESPONSE
`
`Please call or email the assigned trademark examining attorney with questions about this Office action.  Although the trademark examining
`attorney cannot provide legal advice or statements about applicant’s rights, the trademark examining attorney can provide applicant with
`additional explanation about the refusal(s) and/or requirement(s) in this Office action.  See TMEP §§705.02, 709.06.  Although the USPTO does
`not accept emails as responses to Office actions, emails can be used for informal communications and will be included in the application record. 
`
`See 37 C.F.R. §§2.62(c), 2.191; TMEP §§304.01-.02, 709.04-.05.  
`
`/Paul A. Moreno/
`
`United States Patent and Trademark Office
`
`Attorney
`
`Law Office 103
`
`571-272-2651
`
`paul.moreno@uspto.gov
`
`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 Trademark Electronic Application System (TEAS) form at
`http://www.uspto.gov/trademarks/teas/correspondence.jsp.
`
` 
` 
`    
` 
` 
` 
` 
` 
` 
` 
`  
`

`

`To:
`
`Subject:
`
`Sent:
`
`Sent As:
`
`Attachments:
`
`Bayou Pumps & Products Inc (frank@fjcpllc.com)
`
`U.S. TRADEMARK APPLICATION NO. 88057994 - TESLA DISK PUMPS - N/A
`
`3/10/2019 8:25:38 PM
`
`ECOM103@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 3/10/2019 FOR U.S. APPLICATION SERIAL NO.88057994
`
`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)  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
`
`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.
`
`  
`
` 
`  
` 
` 
` 
` 
` 
` 
` 
`