Offc Action Outgoing

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE

 

 

 

OFFICE ACTION

 

TO AVOID ABANDONMENT, WE MUST RECEIVE A PROPER RESPONSE TO THIS OFFICE ACTION WITHIN 6 MONTHS OF OUR MAILING OR E-MAILING DATE. 

 

 

Serial Number  76/390641

 

This letter responds to the applicant’s communication filed on March 18, 2003.

 

Registration was refused under Trademark Act Section 2(e)(1), 15 U.S.C. §1052(e)(1), because the subject matter for which registration is sought is merely descriptive of the identified goods.

 

The examining attorney has considered the applicant’s arguments carefully but has found them unpersuasive.  For the reasons below, the refusal under Section 2(e)(1) is maintained and made FINAL.

 

In response to the refusal the applicant argues that the proposed mark is not merely descriptive for the identified goods because  it “does not describe a toy for playing fetch with a dog, but, instead, suggests one aspect of such a game, namely that the toy must be thrown in order for the dog to retrieve it.”

 

A mark is merely descriptive under Trademark Act Section 2(e)(1), 15 U.S.C. §1052(e)(1), if it describes an ingredient, quality, characteristic, function, feature, purpose or use of the relevant goods.  In re Gyulay, 820 F.2d 1216, 3 USPQ2d 1009 (Fed. Cir. 1987);  In re Bed & Breakfast Registry, 791 F.2d 157, 229 USPQ 818 (Fed. Cir. 1986); In re MetPath Inc., 223 USPQ 88 (TTAB 1984); In re Bright‑Crest, Ltd., 204 USPQ 591 (TTAB 1979); TMEP §1209.01(b).

 

The examining attorney must consider whether a mark is merely descriptive in relation to the identified goods, not in the abstract.  In re Omaha National Corp., 819 F.2d 1117, 2 USPQ2d 1859 (Fed. Cir. 1987); In re Abcor Development Corp., 588 F.2d 811, 200 USPQ 215 (C.C.P.A. 1978); In re Venture Lending Associates, 226 USPQ 285 (TTAB 1985); In re American Greetings Corp., 226 USPQ 365 (TTAB 1985).  TMEP §1209.01(b). 

 

In the case at hand, the applicant seeks registration of the mark “LAUNCH-A-BALL,” in typed form, for use on pet toys.  The specimen of use describes the goods as a “tennis ball launcher.”  Web sites through which the goods are sold explain that they “[l]aunch tennis balls significantly farther than with your arm alone!” and “[l]aunch tennis balls two times further than with your arm.”  See attached.

 

The very function and use of the identified goods is to “launch a ball” so the user can play fetch with his or her dog.  It is not necessary that a term describe all of the purposes, functions, characteristics or features of the goods to be merely descriptive.  It is enough if the term describes one attribute of the goods.  In re H.U.D.D.L.E., 216 USPQ 358 (TTAB 1982); In re MBAssociates, 180 USPQ 338 (TTAB 1973).  TMEP §1209.01(b). 

 

Consumers seeing the proposed mark used on the identified goods will immediately perceive that a function of the goods is to “launch a ball.”  Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, the proposed mark is merely descriptive of the goods and the refusal to register under Section 2(e)(1) must be maintained and made FINAL.

 

Amendment to the Supplemental Register:  Although the examining attorney has refused registration on the Principal Register, the applicant may amend the application to seek registration on the Supplemental Register.  Trademark Act Section 23, 15 U.S.C. §1091; 37 C.F.R. §§2.47 and 2.75(a); TMEP §§801.02(b), 815 and 816 et seq.

 

Final Refusal Response Guidelines:  Please note that the only appropriate responses to a final action are either (1) compliance with the outstanding requirements, if feasible, or (2) filing of an appeal to the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board.  37 C.F.R. §2.64(a).  If the applicant fails to respond within six months of the mailing date of this refusal, this Office will declare the application abandoned.  37 C.F.R. §2.65(a).

 

 

 

/Martha L. Fromm/

Trademark Attorney

Law Office 106

Phone: (703) 308-9106 ext. 221

Fax:  (703) 746-8106

 

 

 

Fee increase effective January 1, 2003:

Effective January 1, 2003, the fee for filing an application for trademark registration will be increased to $335.00 per International Class.  The USPTO will not accord a filing date to applications that are filed on or after that date that are not accompanied by a minimum of $335.00. 

 

Additionally, the fee for amending an existing application to add an additional class or classes of goods or services will be $335.00 per class for classes added on or after January 1, 2003.

 

How to respond to this Office Action:

 

To respond formally using the Office’s Trademark Electronic Application System (TEAS), visit http://www.gov.uspto.report/teas/index.html and follow the instructions.

 

To respond formally via E-mail, visit http://www.gov.uspto.report/web/trademarks/tmelecresp.htm and follow the instructions.

 

To respond formally via regular mail, your response should be sent to the mailing Return Address listed above and include the serial number, law office and examining attorney’s name on the upper right corner of each page of your response.

 

To check the status of your application at any time, visit the Office’s Trademark Applications and Registrations Retrieval (TARR) system at http://tarr.gov.uspto.report/

 

For general and other useful information about trademarks, you are encouraged to visit the Office’s web site at http://www.gov.uspto.report/main/trademarks.htm

 

FOR INQUIRIES OR QUESTIONS ABOUT THIS OFFICE ACTION, PLEASE CONTACT THE ASSIGNED EXAMINING ATTORNEY.