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  76/413753.

 

Refusal Based on Section 2(e)(1) - Mark is Merely Descriptive of the Goods

The examining attorney refuses registration on the Principal Register because the proposed mark merely describes the goods.  Trademark Act Section 2(e)(1), 15 U.S.C. Section 1052(e)(1); TMEP section 1209 et seq.

 

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 section 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 (CCPA 1978); In re Venture Lending Associates, 226 USPQ 285 (TTAB 1985).  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).

 

Under the standards set forth above, the examining attorney concludes that the mark HEADACHE RELIEF is merely descriptive of the applicant's vitamin and mineral supplements, which appear to provide headache relief.  The attached copies of the entries taken from The American Heritage Dictionary show that the term "headache" means "a pain in the head," and the term "relief" means "something that alleviates pain or distress."  For a mark that combines descriptive terms to be registrable, the composite must create a unitary mark with a separate, nondescriptive meaning.  In re Ampco Foods, Inc., 227 USPQ 331 (TTAB 1985).  The mark HEADACHE RELIEF does not have a meaning separate from the meanings of the individual terms.

 

For the reasons stated above, the examining attorney finds that because the proposed mark merely describes the applicant's goods, registration of the applicant's mark is barred under Section 2(e)(1) of the Trademark Act.

 

If the goods do not provide headache relief, and the idea conveyed by the mark is false but plausible, then the mark is deceptively misdescriptive and also unregistrable under Trademark Act Section 2(e)(1), 15 U.S.C. Section 1052(e)(1).  In re Woodward & Lothrop Inc., 4 USPQ2d 1412 (TTAB 1987); In re Ox‑Yoke Originals, Inc., 222 USPQ 352 (TTAB 1983).

 

Request for Additional Information

The applicant must provide information to permit the examining attorney to reach an informed final determination concerning the proposed mark.  The applicant must submit available advertising, promotional, or explanatory material concerning the goods, particularly any material specifically related to the features of the mark.  The applicant may also furnish any other evidence that the applicant considers relevant to the registrability of the proposed mark.

 

Search of Office Records

The examining attorney has searched the Office records and has found no similar registered or pending mark that would bar registration under Trademark Act Section 2(d), 15 U.S.C. Section 1052(d).  TMEP section 704.02.

 

                                                                                            Leigh Caroline Case

     /Leigh Caroline Case/

                                                                                                Trademark Attorney, Law Office 105

 

                  Ecom105@uspto.gov    Law Office e-mail                  (703) 872-9875                     Law Office Fax

                  (703) 308-9105               Law Office phone                  (703) 308-9105 x 148                  Attorney phone

 

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/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.