Offc Action Outgoing

ELLINGTON

Baldwin Pianos, Inc.

Offc Action Outgoing

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE

 

    SERIAL NO: 76/454163

 

    APPLICANT:                          Baldwin Pianos, Inc.

 

 

        

 

    CORRESPONDENT ADDRESS:

    LUCIAN WAYNE BEAVERS

    WADDEY & PATTERSON

    414 UNION STREET, SUITE 2020

    BANK OF AMERICA PLAZA

    NASHVILLE, TN 37219

RETURN ADDRESS: 

Commissioner for Trademarks

2900 Crystal Drive

Arlington, VA 22202-3513

ecom114@uspto.gov

 

 

 

    MARK:          ELLINGTON

 

 

 

    CORRESPONDENT’S REFERENCE/DOCKET NO:   N8027

 

    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.

 

 

 

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  76/454163

 

The assigned examining attorney has reviewed the referenced application and determined the following.

 

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

 

The examining attorney refuses registration on the Principal Register because the mark is primarily merely a surname.  Trademark Act Section 2(e)(4), 15 U.S.C. §1052(e)(4); TMEP §1211.  The examining attorney must consider the primary significance of the mark to the purchasing public to determine whether a term is primarily merely a surname.  In re Kahan & Weisz Jewelry Mfg. Corp., 508 F.2d 831, 184 USPQ 421 (C.C.P.A. 1975).  Please see the attached evidence from a computerized phone directory database, establishing the surname significance of the mark.  TMEP §§1211 et seq. 

 

An applicant may register a surname under Trademark Act Section 2(f), 15 U.S.C. §1052(f), by establishing acquired distinctiveness.  The applicant may present any of the following to establish distinctiveness.  TMEP §§1211 and 1212.02(a). 

 

(1) The applicant may rely on a claim of ownership of one or more prior registrations on the Principal Register for a mark which is the same as the mark in this application for the same or related goods.  37 C.F.R. §2.41(b); TMEP §§1212.04 et seq.

 

(2) The applicant may provide a statement that the mark has become distinctive of the applicant’s goods/services by reason of substantially exclusive and continuous use in commerce by the applicant for the five years next preceding the date of the statement.  The applicant must verify this statement with an affidavit or a declaration under 37 C.F.R. §2.20.  37 C.F.R. §2.41(b); TMEP §§1212.05 et seq.

 

(3) The applicant may submit actual evidence of acquired distinctiveness.  37 C.F.R. §2.41(a); TMEP §§1212.06 et seq.

 

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.

 

The examining attorney also refuses registration because the mark consists of or comprises matter which may falsely suggest a  connection with the well-known musician Duke Ellington and/or his estate.  Trademark Act Section 2(a), 15 U.S.C. §1052(a); TMEP §§1203.03, 1203.03(e) and 1203.03(f).  See generally University of Notre Dame du Lac v. J.C. Gourmet Food Imports Co., 703 F.2d 1372, 217 USPQ 505 (Fed. Cir. 1983); University of Alabama v. BAMA‑Werke Curt Baumann, 231 USPQ 408 (TTAB 1986); In re Cotter & Co., 228 USPQ 202 (TTAB 1985); Buffett v. Chi‑Chi’s, Inc., 226 USPQ 428 (TTAB 1985).

 

NOTE: Following response to the above, prosecution will be suspended pending disposition of the opposition proceeding pending with respect to applicant’s copending SN 76/366420.

 

Further action awaits response to the above.

 

 

 

 

 

/David H. Stine/

Trademark Attorney

Law Office 114

(703)308-9114 x154

ecom114@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.

 

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.

 


uspto.report is an independent third-party trademark research tool that is not affiliated, endorsed, or sponsored by the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) or any other governmental organization. The information provided by uspto.report is based on publicly available data at the time of writing and is intended for informational purposes only.

While we strive to provide accurate and up-to-date information, we do not guarantee the accuracy, completeness, reliability, or suitability of the information displayed on this site. The use of this site is at your own risk. Any reliance you place on such information is therefore strictly at your own risk.

All official trademark data, including owner information, should be verified by visiting the official USPTO website at www.uspto.gov. This site is not intended to replace professional legal advice and should not be used as a substitute for consulting with a legal professional who is knowledgeable about trademark law.

© 2024 USPTO.report | Privacy Policy | Resources | RSS Feed of Trademarks | Trademark Filings Twitter Feed