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  76/446068

 

This letter responds to the Applicant’s communication dated November 24, 2003. 

 

The applicant submitted a substitute specimen and supporting declaration.  This submission is acceptable and has been entered into the record. 

 

Mark is Merely Descriptive

 

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.

 

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 applicant applied to register the mark AXIAL VIEWER for use in connection with a “x-ray diagnostic apparatus.”  The examining attorney finds that the mark taken in its entirety is descriptive of the nature of the goods offered by the applicant.  

 

AXIAL is defined as an x-ray image “obtained by rotating around the axis of the body, producing a transverse planar image.” (http://216.251.232.159/semdweb/InternetSOMD/ASP/1494240.asp).  In the field of radiology, an AXIAL view is a recognized x-tray method.  (http://en.wikipedia.org/; http://www.esrf.fr/info/science/; http://www.northernontario.org/therapeuticriding/). 

 

VIEWER is defined as “an optical device used in viewing.”  (http://www.m-w.com).  It is also defined as “any optical device for illuminating and magnifying a photographic transparency, videotape, or motion picture film.”  (http://encarta.msn.com). 

 

In this case, together the terms describe characteristics and features of the goods, namely, an optical device for use in generating axial x-tray images. 

 

The applicant argued that when used together, the terms AXIAL and VIEWER are “meant to be confusing and enigmatic.”  The applicant’s argument is not persuasive.  The mere combination of descriptive words does not automatically create a new non-descriptive term.  The combination of descriptive words may also result in nothing more than the combination of descriptive words.  In re Quik-Print Copy Shop, Inc., 205 USPQ 505 (CCPA 1980); In re IBP, Inc., 228 USPQ 303 (TTAB 1985); In re Wink Corp., 218 USPQ 739 (TTAB 1983).  Combinations of merely descriptive components are registrable only if the juxtaposition the terms invents or evokes a unique commercial impression or if the term has a bizarre or incongruous meaning as applied to the goods.  In re Shutts, 217 USPQ 363 (TTAB 1983); In re TBG Inc., 229 USPQ 759 (TTAB 1986).  However, where the combination of descriptive words creates no incongruity, and no imagination is required to understand the nature of the goods or services, the mark remains merely descriptive.  In re Gould Paper Corp., 5 USPQ2d 1110 (Fed. Cir. 1987); In re Associated Theatre Clubs Co., 9 USPQ2d 1660 (TTAB 1988); In re Orleans Wines, Ltd., 196 USPQ 516 (TTAB 1977); In re Scholastic Testing Service, Inc., 196 USPQ 517 (TTAB 1977); In re MBAssociates, 180 USPQ 338 (TTAB 1973.)  Such is clearly the case here.

 

In sum, the proposed mark is merely descriptive under the guidelines set forth in Trademark Act Section 2(e)(1).  Therefore, the refusal to register is maintained and made final. 

 

Response Guidelines

 

Please note that the only appropriate responses to a final action refusal are either:  (1) compliance with outstanding requirements, if feasible, or (2) filing 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).

 

 

 

/Toni Y. Hickey/

Trademark Examining Attorney

Law Office 115

(703) 308-9115 X134

 

 

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 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.