To: | Micronetics Wireless, Inc. (kalinlaw@yahoo.com) |
Subject: | TRADEMARK APPLICATION NO. 76448402 - MICROWAVE & VIDEO SYSTEMS |
Sent: | 1/27/03 5:23:44 PM |
Sent As: | ECom103 |
Attachments: | Attachment - 1 Attachment - 2 Attachment - 3 |
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
SERIAL NO: 76/448402
APPLICANT: Micronetics Wireless, Inc.
|
|
CORRESPONDENT ADDRESS: JENIFER LAND KALIN & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 494 8TH AVENUE SUITE 800 NEW YORK NY 10001
|
RETURN ADDRESS: Commissioner for Trademarks 2900 Crystal Drive Arlington, VA 22202-3513 ecom103@uspto.gov
|
MARK: MICROWAVE & VIDEO SYSTEMS
|
|
CORRESPONDENT’S REFERENCE/DOCKET NO: N/A
CORRESPONDENT EMAIL ADDRESS: kalinlaw@yahoo.com |
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.
|
The assigned examining attorney has reviewed the referenced application and determined the following:
Search Results
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).
In this case, the applicant seeks registration for MICROWAVE & VIDEO SYSTEMS for manufacture of radio frequency microwave diode switches, switch filter banks and integrated assemblies. As the attached definitions demonstrate, the terms are descriptive individually as well as in whole in connection with the described goods. The applicant’s own identification of goods indicates the descriptiveness of the term MICROWAVE & VIDEO SYSTEMS as well. Since the mark merely describes the applicant’s goods, registration is refused.
Although the examining attorney has refused registration, the applicant may respond to the refusal to register by submitting evidence and arguments in support of registration. If the applicant chooses to respond to the refusal to register, the applicant must also respond to the following:
The identification of goods is unacceptable as indefinite because the preamble term “manufacture” makes it unclear whether applicant seeks registration for goods or services. The specimen of record indicates that the applicant likely intends to describe goods only but the applicant should clarify the issue. The applicant may adopt the following, if accurate (TMEP§1402.11) (suggestions shown in bold type below):
Class 9: Manufacture of Radio frequency microwave diode switches, switch filter banks and integrated circuit
assemblies.
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. Section 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.
/Heather D. Thompson/
Trademark Examining Attorney
Law Office 103
703.308.9103 ext. 223 [phone]
703.746.8103 [fax]
ecom103@uspto.gov
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.
FOR INQUIRIES OR QUESTIONS ABOUT THIS OFFICE ACTION, PLEASE CONTACT THE ASSIGNED EXAMINING ATTORNEY.