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: 7/14/2016

TEAS PLUS OR TEAS REDUCED FEE (TEAS RF) APPLICANTS – TO MAINTAIN LOWER FEE, ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS MUST BE MET, INCLUDING SUBMITTING DOCUMENTS ONLINE: Applicants who filed their application online using the lower-fee TEAS Plus or TEAS RF application form must (1) file certain documents online using TEAS, including responses to Office actions (see TMEP §§819.02(b), 820.02(b) for a complete list of these documents); (2) maintain a valid e-mail correspondence address; and (3) agree to receive correspondence from the USPTO by e-mail throughout the prosecution of the application. See 37 C.F.R. §§2.22(b), 2.23(b); TMEP §§819, 820. TEAS Plus or TEAS RF applicants who do not meet these requirements must submit an additional processing fee of $50 per international class of goods and/or services. 37 C.F.R. §§2.6(a)(1)(v), 2.22(c), 2.23(c); TMEP §§819.04, 820.04. However, in certain situations, TEAS Plus or TEAS RF applicants may respond to an Office action by authorizing an examiner’s amendment by telephone without incurring this additional fee.

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:

Section 2(d) Refusal
Identification and Classification of Goods and Services

SECTION 2(d) REFUSAL – LIKELIHOOD OF CONFUSION

Registration of the applied-for mark SYNCHRONY CONNECT is refused because of a likelihood of confusion with the mark SYNCHRONY in U.S. Registration No. 4241373. Trademark Act Section 2(d), 15 U.S.C. §1052(d); see TMEP §§1207.01 et seq. See the attached registration.

In any likelihood of confusion determination, two key considerations are similarity of the marks and similarity or relatedness of the goods and/or services. In re Aquamar, Inc., 115 USPQ2d 1122, 1126 (TTAB 2015) (citing Federated Foods, Inc. v. Fort Howard Paper Co., 544 F.2d 1098, 1103, 192 USPQ 24, 29 (C.C.P.A. 1976)); In re Iolo Techs., LLC, 95 USPQ2d 1498, 1499 (TTAB 2010); see TMEP §1207.01. That is, the marks are compared in their entireties for similarities in appearance, sound, connotation, and commercial impression. In re Viterra Inc., 671 F.3d 1358, 1362, 101 USPQ2d 1905, 1908 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (quoting 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). Additionally, the goods and/or services are compared to determine whether they are similar or 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, (a)(vi).

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, 1361, 177 USPQ 563, 567 (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 services, and similarity of the trade channels of the goods and 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.

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).

COMPARISON OF MARKS

The applicant has applied to register the mark SYNCHRONY CONNECT.

The registered mark is SYNCHRONY.

Consumers are generally more inclined to focus on the first word, prefix, or syllable in any trademark or service mark. See Palm Bay Imps., Inc. v. Veuve Clicquot Ponsardin Maison Fondee En 1772, 396 F. 3d 1369, 1372, 73 USPQ2d 1689, 1692 (Fed. Cir. 2005); Presto Prods., Inc. v. Nice-Pak Prods., Inc., 9 USPQ2d 1895, 1897 (TTAB 1988) (“it is often the first part of a mark which is most likely to be impressed upon the mind of a purchaser and remembered” when making purchasing decisions).

Adding a term to a registered mark generally 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 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); In re Toshiba Med. Sys. Corp., 91 USPQ2d 1266, 1269 (TTAB 2009) (finding TITAN and VANTAGE TITAN confusingly similar); In re El Torito Rests., Inc., 9 USPQ2d 2002, 2004 (TTAB 1988) (finding MACHO and MACHO COMBOS confusingly similar); TMEP §1207.01(b)(iii). In the present case, the marks are identical in part.

In this case, the first term in the applicant’s mark is identical to the cited registered mark. The addition of the term “CONNECT” is insufficient to obviate the overall similarity of the marks. In this respect, the literal portions of the applicant’s mark and that of the registrant are highly similar in appearance, sound, connotation and commercial impression, and therefore, are likely to cause confusion as to the origin of the goods and services.

COMPARISON OF GOODS/SERVICES

The applicant’s goods and services are identified as follows:

Class 9: Providing a website featuring downloadable information, publications, and articles in the field of business management, including business growth strategies, leadership and organizational planning, and business optimization operation plans.

Class 35: Business organization and management consulting; Business consulting services in business growth and leadership development and business operations management.

Class 41: Providing a website featuring non-downloadable articles in the field of business management, including business growth strategies, leadership and organizational planning, and business optimization operation plans; Providing an Internet website portal in the field of business management, including business growth strategies, leadership and organizational planning, and business optimization operation plans.

The services named in the registration comprise/include the following:

Class 35: Business risk assessment; business feasibility studies; business process management consulting; business data analytics; business data collection; business data integration; business management consulting with relation to the use of analytic and statistic models for the understanding and predicting of consumers, business, market trends and actions; business consulting in the nature of strategic analysis, strategic valuation, strategic consulting and strategic planning; business consulting services in the field of research and development; advisory services with regard to business planning, business analysis, business management, business organization and competitive capabilities

The goods and/or services of the parties 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) (“[E]ven if the goods in question are different from, and thus not related to, one another in kind, the same goods can be related in the mind of the consuming public as to the origin of the goods.”); TMEP §1207.01(a)(i).

The respective goods and/or services need only be “related in some manner and/or if the circumstances surrounding their marketing [be] 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).

With respect to applicant’s and registrant’s goods and/or services, the question of likelihood of confusion is determined 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 Stone Lion Capital Partners, LP v. Lion Capital LLP, 746 F.3d 1317, 1323, 110 USPQ2d 1157, 1162 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (quoting Octocom Sys. Inc. v. Hous. Computers Servs. Inc., 918 F.2d 937, 942, 16 USPQ2d 1783, 1787 (Fed. Cir. 1990)).

Absent restrictions in an application and/or registration, the identified goods and/or services 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)). Additionally, unrestricted and broad identifications are presumed to encompass all goods and/or services of the type described. See In re Jump Designs, LLC, 80 USPQ2d 1370, 1374 (TTAB 2006) (citing In re Elbaum, 211 USPQ 639, 640 (TTAB 1981)); In re Linkvest S.A., 24 USPQ2d 1716, 1716 (TTAB 1992).

In this case, the identification set forth in the application and registration has no restrictions as to nature, type, channels of trade, or classes of purchasers. Therefore, it is presumed that these goods and services travel in all normal channels of trade, and are available to the same class of purchasers. Further, the application and registration use broad wording, such as, “business organization and management consulting; business consulting services in business growth and leadership development and business operations management” and “business process management consulting” and “advisory services with regard to business planning, business analysis, business management, business organization and competitive capabilities” to describe the services, and this wording is presumed to encompass all services of the type described, including the related services that are more narrowly identified in the respective identifications, as well as services that are closely related to the identified goods and services. It is noted that the applicant’s downloadable publications and articles that belong in Class 9 (see below) and the applicant’s provision of non-downloadable articles in Class 41, pertain to the same business related fields as the applicant’s services that are identified in, or belong in, Class 35.

The same consumers will be exposed to the goods and services identified with the marks. The similarities among the marks and the services of the parties are so great as to create a likelihood of confusion.

CONCLUSION

Accordingly, in view of the identical or closely related nature of the goods and services of the parties and the strong similarity of the marks and their commercial impressions, confusion as to the source of the goods and services is likely under Section 2(d) of the Trademark Act.

Although the examining attorney has refused registration, the applicant may respond to the refusal to register by submitting evidence and arguments in support of registration. If the applicant chooses to respond to the refusal to register, the applicant must also respond to the following.

IDENTIFICATION AND CLASSIFICATION OF GOODS AND SERVICES

The wording “Providing a website featuring downloadable information, publications, and articles in the field of business management, including business growth strategies, leadership and organizational planning, and business optimization operation plans” in the identification of goods in Class 9 requires clarification. In particular applicant must specify the type of publications, e.g. newsletters, journals, books. See 37 C.F.R. §2.32(a)(6); TMEP §§1402.01, 1402.03, 1402.11(b). If accurate, applicant may amend that portion of the identification above to “Downloadable written articles and downloadable electronic publications in the nature of journals, magazines, and newsletters, and downloadable written articles in the field of business management, including business growth strategies, leadership and organizational planning, and business optimization operation plans, provided via a website” in Class 9.

Moreover, classification of information services is based on the subject matter of the information provided. TMEP §1402.11(b). Therefore, the portion of the above-referenced identification that refers to provision of a website featuring downloadable information in the field of business management, including business growth strategies, leadership and organizational planning, and business optimization operation plans, appears to identify services that belong in International Class 35 rather than goods in Class 9. If accurate, applicant may amend that portion of the identification above to “Providing a website featuring business information, namely, downloadable information in the field of business management, including business growth strategies, leadership and organizational planning, and business optimization operation plans” in Class 35.

Similarly, the services identified as “Providing an Internet website portal in the field of business management, including business growth strategies, leadership and organizational planning, and business optimization operation plans” are classified incorrectly in Class 41. The classification of the services will vary depending upon the subject matter of the portal. Insofar as the portal pertains to business management, the proper classification appears to be Class 35. Applicant must amend the application to classify the services in International Class 35. See 37 C.F.R. §§2.32(a)(7), 2.85; TMEP §§1401.02(a), 1401.03(b). If accurate, applicant may amend that portion of the identification above to “Providing an Internet website portal in the field of business management, including business growth strategies, leadership and organizational planning, and business optimization operation plans” in Class 35.

For assistance with identifying and classifying goods and services in trademark applications, please see the USPTO’s online searchable U.S. Acceptable Identification of Goods and Services Manual. See TMEP §1402.04.

Applicant may adopt the following identification and classification of goods and services if accurate:

Class 9: Downloadable written articles and downloadable electronic publications in the nature of journals, magazines, and newsletters, and downloadable written articles in the field of business management, including business growth strategies, leadership and organizational planning, and business optimization operation plans, provided via a website” in Class 9.

Class 35: Business organization and management consulting; Business consulting services in business growth and leadership development and business operations management; Providing a website featuring business information, namely, downloadable information in the field of business management, including business growth strategies, leadership and organizational planning, and business optimization operation plans; Providing an Internet website portal in the field of business management, including business growth strategies, leadership and organizational planning, and business optimization operation plans

Applicant’s goods and/or services may be clarified or limited, but may not be expanded beyond those originally itemized in the application or as acceptably amended. See 37 C.F.R. §2.71(a); TMEP §1402.06. Applicant may clarify or limit the identification by inserting qualifying language or deleting items to result in a more specific identification; however, applicant may not substitute different goods and/or services or add goods and/or services not found or encompassed by those in the original application or as acceptably amended. See TMEP §1402.06(a)-(b). The scope of the goods and/or services sets the outer limit for any changes to the identification and is generally determined by the ordinary meaning of the wording in the identification. TMEP §§1402.06(b), 1402.07(a)-(b). Any acceptable changes to the goods and/or services will further limit scope, and once goods and/or services are deleted, they are not permitted to be reinserted. TMEP §1402.07(e).

RESPONSE GUIDELINES

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/trademarks/teas/index.jsp. 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/trademarks/teas/e_filing_tips.jsp and e-mail 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. §§2.62(c), 2.191; TMEP §§304.01-.02, 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.

/John M. C. Kelly/

Trademark Examining Attorney

Law Office 119

571-272-9412

john.kelly@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:	Synchrony Bank (ipdocket-chi@reedsmith.com)
Subject:	U.S. TRADEMARK APPLICATION NO. 86968036 - SYNCHRONY CONNECT - 506350.01296
Sent:	7/14/2016 11:23:13 AM
Sent As:	ECOM119@USPTO.GOV
Attachments:	Attachment - 1 Attachment - 2 Attachment - 3