UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
SERIAL NO: 76/424590
APPLICANT: Superchips, Inc
|
|
CORRESPONDENT ADDRESS: DAVID L. SIGALOW PO BOX 3791 ORLANDO FL 32802-3791
|
RETURN ADDRESS: Commissioner for Trademarks 2900 Crystal Drive Arlington, VA 22202-3514 ecom113@uspto.gov
|
MARK: SUPERCHIPS INC.
|
|
CORRESPONDENT’S REFERENCE/DOCKET NO: 31016
CORRESPONDENT EMAIL ADDRESS:
|
Please provide in all correspondence:
1. Filing date, serial number, mark and applicant's name. 2. Date of this Office Action. 3. Examining Attorney's name and Law Office number. 4. Your telephone number and e-mail address.
|
Serial Number 76/424590
This letter responds to the applicant's communication filed on April 18, 2003.
The entire mark is descriptive, therefore the disclaimer is not acceptable.
The identification of goods and substitute drawing are acceptable.
Registration was refused under Trademark Act Section 2(e)(1), 15 U.S.C. Section 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.
The applicant applied to register the mark SUPERCHIPS INC. for automotive computer chips and hand held electronic computers for use in programming automotive computers. The term “super” is laudatory and means “very large, great, or extreme; excellent; first-rate”. The term superchip refers to a great, first-rate, excellent chip. The examining attorney refers to the definition attached to the examining attorney’s first office action. Laudatory terms, those which attribute quality or excellence to goods or services, are equivalent to other descriptive terms under Trademark Act Section 2(e)(1), 15 U.S.C. §1052(e)(1); TMEP §1209.03(k). That is, laudatory terms are nondistinctive and unregistrable without proof of acquired distinctiveness. In re Nett Designs Inc., 236 F.3d 1339, 57 USPQ2d 1564 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (THE ULTIMATE BIKE RACK); In re Best Software Inc., 58 USPQ2d 1314 (TTAB 2001) (BEST and PREMIER); In re Dos Padres Inc., 49 USPQ2d 1860 (TTAB 1998) (QUESO QUESADILLA SUPREME); In re Consolidated Cigar Co., 35 USPQ2d 1290 (TTAB 1995) (SUPER BUY); General Foods Corp. v. Ralston Purina Co., 220 USPQ 990 (TTAB 1984) (ORIGINAL BLEND); In re Wileswood, Inc., 201 USPQ 400 (TTAB 1978) (AMERICA’S FAVORITE POPCORN). Therefore, the mark is descriptive of a quality and feature of the goods. Note that the applicant’s prior registration was under Section 2(f), thus, it had been treated as descriptive. The term “inc” is merely an indicator that applicant is a corporation and does not alter the descriptive nature of the mark.
NOTE that applicant has suggested that it might consider a “possible amendment pursuant to Section 2(f)”. The applicant should note that the applicant’s mark has been in use only since 2000, and that the prior registration was only for the computer chips and not for the hand held electronic computers, therefore, that prior registration would not suffice to show 2f evidence for the mark in relation to the present goods.
Accordingly, the mark is refused registration on the Principal Register under Section 2(e)(1). The refusal under Section 2(e)(1) is continued and made FINAL.
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.
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. Section 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. Section 2.65(a).
If the applicant has any questions or needs assistance in responding to this Office action, please telephone the assigned examining attorney. If the applicant has questions regarding the status of the application, the applicant should telephone the status line at 703-305-8747.
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.
/Rebecca L. Gilbert/
Trademark Attorney
Law Office 113
703-308-9113 ex 419
ecom113@uspto.gov
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.
FOR INQUIRIES OR QUESTIONS ABOUT THIS OFFICE ACTION, PLEASE CONTACT THE ASSIGNED EXAMINING ATTORNEY.