Global Innovative Platforms Inc (GIPL)

[samsamsamiam]

lycon chips

I guess they need to change the name - according to this tradmark dispute - the use of the name LYCON was REFUSED:
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=88646983

----
=========
http://tsdr.uspto.gov/documentviewer?caseId=sn77174806&docId=OOA20070820190940#docIndex=1&page=1

ISSUE/MAILING DATE: 8/20/2007



The assigned trademark examining attorney has reviewed the referenced application and has determined the following.



Section 2(d) - Likelihood of Confusion Refusal



Registration of the proposed mark is refused because of a likelihood of confusion with the mark in U.S. Registration No. 0635824. Trademark Act Section 2(d), 15 U.S.C. §1052(d); TMEP §§1207.01 et seq. See the enclosed registration.



In determining whether there is a likelihood of confusion, the examining attorney must analyze each case in two steps. 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 & Co., 476 F.2d 1357, 177 USPQ 563 (CCPA 1973). 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 Co., v. Scott Paper Co., 200 USPQ 738 (TTAB 1978).



In terms of the marks, the proposed mark is LYCON while the cited mark is LICON. Considering that the marks differ only in the presence of the letter Y in the proposed mark instead of the letter I, the marks are pronounced the same and appear similar. Therefore, the marks are similar in sound, appearance, and commercial impression.



With respect to the goods, those of the proposed mark are “Integrated circuits and integrated circuit cores for use in wireless communications and wireless communication equipment and apparati and digital signal processors (DSP)” in International Class 9, while those of the cited mark are “ELECTRICAL SWITCH COMPONENTS-NAMELY, PRECISION SNAP SWITCHES, PUSH-BUTTON SWITCHES, HERMETIC SWITCHES HAVING AS A PART THEREOF A PRECISION SNAP SWITCH OR PUSH-BUTTON SWITCH; AND ELECTROMECHANICAL ASSEMBLIES-NAMELY, AIR-CRAFT CONTROL BOXES AND LIMIT SWITCH DEVICES WHICH UTILIZE ELECTRICAL SWITCHES” in International Class 9. Considering that the goods of both marks are electrical in nature, they are likely to travel in the same channels of trade to the same groups of consumers. Therefore, the services are related such that there would be a likelihood of confusion if both marks were registered.



Although the trademark examining attorney has refused registration, applicant may respond to the refusal to register by submitting evidence and arguments in support of registration.


/Sung In/

Sung In

Trademark Examining Attorney

Law Ofice 103

Ph: [phone]

Fax: [phone]

======
They never submitted anything else to dispute the confusion.