UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
|
SERIAL NO: 76/436945
APPLICANT: Valent U.S.A. Corporation
|
|
|
CORRESPONDENT ADDRESS: RAYMOND I. GERALDSON, JR. PATTISHALL, MCAULIFFE, NEWBURY, HILLIARD 311 SOUTH WACKER DRIVE, SUITE 5000 CHICAGO, ILLINOIS 60606
|
RETURN ADDRESS: Commissioner for Trademarks 2900 Crystal Drive Arlington, VA 22202-3513 ecom105@uspto.gov
|
|
MARK: TETRASAN
|
|
|
CORRESPONDENT’S REFERENCE/DOCKET NO: N/A
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 76/436945
This letter responds to the applicant’s communication filed on December 16, 2002 in which the applicant addressed the following issues: 1) identification of goods, 2) application declaration and 3) significance of the mark.
The application declaration is acceptable.
The amended identification of goods is indefinite and not acceptable. For the reasons stated below, the refusal based on the identification of goods requirements is maintained and made FINAL.
IDENTIFICATION OF GOODS:
The amended identification of goods is unacceptable as indefinite because the wording is vague and overly broad. The applicant may adopt the following identification, if accurate:
Insecticides for _______(the applicant must specify the type of use, for instance, commercial use, domestic use,), namely, ornamentals, lawn care and nurseries, excluding crop use, in International 5.
TMEP §1402.01.
Please note that, while an application may be amended to clarify or limit the identification, additions to the identification are not permitted. 37 C.F.R. §2.71(a); TMEP §1402.06. Therefore, the applicant may not amend to include any goods that are not within the scope of goods set forth in the present identification.
The identification of goods or services should be clear, accurate and as concise as possible. See Procter & Gamble Co. v. Economics Laboratory, Inc., 175 USPQ 505 (TTAB 1972); In re Cardinal Laboratories, Inc., 149 USPQ 709 (TTAB 1966); California Spray-Chemical Corp. v. Osmose Wood Preserving Co. of America, Inc., 102 USPQ 321 (Comm'r Pats. 1954); Ex parte A.C. Gilbert Co., 99 USPQ 344 (Comm'r Pats. 1953).
Furthermore, the identification of goods and services must be specific and definite. In re Societe Generale des Eaux Minerales de Vittel S.A., 1 USPQ2d 1296 (TTAB 1986), rev'd on other grounds, 824 F.2d 957, 3 USPQ2d 1450 (Fed. Cir. 1987).
RESPONSE:
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's attorney has any questions or needs assistance in responding to this Office action, please telephone the assigned examining attorney.
/Marlene Bell/
Examining Attorney
LO 105
(703) 308-9105 X 173
ecom105@uspto.gov<mailto:ecom105@uspto.gov>
marlene.bell@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.