UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE

 

 

 

OFFICE ACTION

 

RESPONSE TIME LIMIT:  TO AVOID ABANDONMENT, THE OFFICE MUST RECEIVE A PROPER RESPONSE TO THIS OFFICE ACTION WITHIN 6 MONTHS OF THE MAILING OR E-MAILING DATE. 

 

MAILING/E-MAILING DATE INFORMATION:  If the mailing or e-mailing date of this Office action does not appear above, this information can be obtained by visiting the USPTO website at http://tarr.gov.uspto.report/, inserting the application serial number, and viewing the prosecution history for the mailing date of the most recently issued Office communication.

 

Serial Number  76/466566

 

On November 6, 2003, action on this application was suspended pending the disposition of Application Serial Nos. 76129741 and 78032610.  The referenced pending application have since abandoned.  Therefore, prosecution is now resumed and the refusal under Trademark Act Section 2(e)(1), 15 U.S.C. §1052(e)(1), is now made FINAL for the reasons set forth below.  37 C.F.R. §2.64(a).

 

Refusal Made Final -- Descriptive

 

Registration was refused because the proposed mark merely described the applicant’s goods.  Trademark Act Section 2(e)(1), 15 U.S.C. §1052(e)(1); TMEP §§1209 et seq.  The trademark examining attorney has considered applicant’s arguments carefully and found them unpersuasive for the reason(s) below.

 

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 and/or services.  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 §1209.01(b).  A mark that describes an intended user of a product or service is also merely descriptive within the meaning of Section 2(e)(1).  Hunter Publishing Co. v. Caulfield Publishing Ltd., 1 USPQ2d 1996 (TTAB 1986); In re Camel Mfg. Co., Inc., 222 USPQ 1031 (TTAB 1984); In re Gentex Corp., 151 USPQ 435 (TTAB 1966).

 

In this case, the applicant is seeking registration of the proposed mark “SMART PLUG” for automotive spark plugs. The applicant argues that the proposed mark is merely suggestive.  Here, the applicant argues that registration is proper because there is no need for competitors to used the specific wording in describing their goods and because as related to the goods, imagination, thought and perception are required to discern the exact nature of the goods.

 

The determination of whether a mark is merely descriptive is considered in relation to the identified goods, not in the abstract.  In re Polo International Inc., 51 USPQ2d 1061 (TTAB 1999) (Board found that DOC in DOC-CONTROL would be understood to refer to the “documents” managed by applicant’s software, not “doctor” as shown in dictionary definition); In re Digital Research Inc., 4 USPQ2d 1242 (TTAB 1987) (CONCURRENT PC-DOS found merely descriptive of “computer programs recorded on disk;” it is unnecessary that programs actually run “concurrently,” as long as relevant trade clearly uses the denomination “concurrent” as a descriptor of this particular type of operating system); In re Venture Lending Associates, 226 USPQ 285 (TTAB 1985); In re American Greetings Corp., 226 USPQ 365, 366 (TTAB 1985) (“Whether consumers could guess what the product is from consideration of the mark alone is not the test”); TMEP §1209.01(b). 

 

In the context of the relevant goods, the proposed mark is merely descriptive.  The term “smart” has been held merely descriptive of automated devices.  See In re Cryomedical Sciences Inc., 32 USPQ2d 1377, 1378 (TTAB 1994) (SMARTPROBE merely descriptive of disposable cryosurgical probes); See also In re Tower Tech, Inc., 64 USPQ2d 1314 (TTAB 2002) (SMARTTOWER merely descriptive of “commercial and industrial cooling towers and accessories therefor, sold as a unit”).  Moreover, with respect to vehicles and the automotive industry, consumers recognize this descriptive meaning.  Terms such as smart cars, smart engines, and smart carburetors, each describes various automotive equipment similar to the applicant’s, when containing “smart” technology.  As such, when encountering the proposed mark, consumers will immediately perceive the wording as describing similar goods with similar “smart” technology.   Please see the attached evidence and third-party registrations.  Therefore, when combined with the additional descriptive PLUG element, the entire mark retains its descriptive meaning – i.e., spark plugs containing microprocessor technology.

 

For the reasons above, the refusal under Trademark Act Section 2(e)(1), 15 U.S.C. §1052(e)(1), is now made FINAL for the reasons set forth below.  37 C.F.R. §2.64(a).

 

OPTIONS

 

If applicant fails to respond to this final action within six months of the mailing date, the application will be abandoned.  15 U.S.C. §1062(b); 37 C.F.R. §2.65(a).  Applicant may respond to this final action by: 

 

(1)   submitting a response that fully satisfies all outstanding requirements, if feasible (37 C.F.R. §2.64(a)); and/or

 

(2)   filing an appeal to the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board, with an appeal fee of $100 per class (37 C.F.R. §§2.6(a)(18) and 2.64(a); TMEP §§715.01 and 1501 et seq.; TBMP Chapter 1200).

 

In certain circumstances, a petition to the Director may be filed to review a final action that is limited to procedural issues, pursuant to 37 C.F.R. §2.63(b)(2).  37 C.F.R. §2.64(a).  See 37 C.F.R. §2.146(b), TMEP §1704, and TBMP Chapter 1201.05 for an explanation of petitionable matters.  The petition fee is $100.  37 C.F.R. §2.6(a)(15).

 

 

 

/Ingrid C. Eulin/

Ingrid C. Eulin

Examining Attorney

Law Office 111

(571) 272-9380

(571) 273 -9380 (fax)

 

 

HOW TO RESPOND TO THIS OFFICE ACTION:

• ONLINE RESPONSE:  You may respond formally using the Office’s Trademark Electronic Application System (TEAS) Response to Office Action form (visit http://www.gov.uspto.report/teas/index.html and follow the instructions, but if the Office Action has been issued via email, you must wait 72 hours after receipt of the Office Action to respond via TEAS).
• REGULAR MAIL RESPONSE:  To respond by regular mail, your response should be sent to the mailing return address above and include the serial number, law office number and examining attorney’s name in your response.

 

STATUS OF APPLICATION: To check the status of your application, visit the Office’s Trademark Applications and Registrations Retrieval (TARR) system at http://tarr.uspto.gov.

 

VIEW APPLICATION DOCUMENTS ONLINE: Documents in the electronic file for pending applications can be viewed and downloaded online at http://portal.gov.uspto.report/external/portal/tow.

 

GENERAL TRADEMARK INFORMATION: For general information about trademarks, please visit the Office’s website at http://www.gov.uspto.report/main/trademarks.htm

 

FOR INQUIRIES OR QUESTIONS ABOUT THIS OFFICE ACTION, PLEASE CONTACT THE ASSIGNED EXAMINING ATTORNEY SPECIFIED ABOVE.