UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
| SERIAL NO: 76/485006 APPLICANT: Hughes Electronics Corporation | |
| CORRESPONDENT ADDRESS: MICHAEL T. MURPHY ROYLANCE, ABRAMS, BERDO & GOODMAN, L.L.P 1300 19TH STREET, N.W. SUITE 600 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20036 | RETURN ADDRESS: Commissioner for Trademarks 2900 Crystal Drive Arlington, VA 22202-3514 ecom110@uspto.gov |
| MARK: DIRECWAY INTERACT | |
| 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 76/485006
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. Section 1052(d). TMEP section 704.01.
The recitation of services is unacceptable as indefinite because it is not clear what the applicant’s services are. The following wording is unacceptable since it is too vague and does not clearly state the services. “…Videoconferencing services; video streaming services; video messaging services; providing collaborative tools, application sharing, presentation broadcast, web page sharing, polling and instant messaging and application adaptation services, providing an interface for adaptation from user applications to other resources, transparent to those applications.” The applicant must more clearly specify the nature of the video conferencing services and the streaming services (see suggested wording below). Instant and video messaging services are acceptable as is. The wording “providing collaborative tools, application sharing, presentation broadcast, web page sharing, polling and application adaptation services, providing an interface…” is also unacceptable since these terms are too confusing and vague and could include many different types of services. The examining attorney cannot offer an accurate suggestion for these items since it is unclear what the services are. The applicant may wish to consult the on-line identification manual on the PTO homepage for acceptable common names of services.
http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/tac/doc/gsmanual/ The applicant may adopt any of the following recitations, if accurate:
“Telecommunications services, namely the transmission of voice, video, data and documents via satellite, telephone and computer, telecommunications gateway services; providing telecommunications connections to a global computer network; broadcasting programs via a global computer network; electronic transmission of messages and data; video broadcasting and video messaging services; audio broadcasting; and providing multiple-user access to a global computer information network.” International Class 38. (Is acceptable as listed).
“Providing facilities and equipment for video conferencing.” International Class 38.
“Streaming of video material on the Internet.” International Class 38.
“Instant messaging services and video messaging services.” International Class 38.
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 section 1402.06 and 1402.07. Therefore, the applicant may not amend to include any services that are not within the scope of services set forth in the present identification.
The applicant must insert a disclaimer of “INTERACT” in the application because it describes a feature of the services since they are telecommunications services that allow users to interact via, telephone, internet, etc. Trademark Act Section 6, 15 U.S.C. Section 1056; TMEP sections 1213 and 1213.08(a)(i).
A properly worded disclaimer should read as follows:
No claim is made to the exclusive right to use “INTERACT” apart from the mark as shown.
If the applicant has any questions or needs assistance in responding to this Office action, please telephone the assigned examining attorney.
/ras/
Rebecca A. Smith
Trademark Attorney
Law Office 110
(703) 308-9110 ext.231
ecom110@uspto.gov (formal responses only)
How to respond to this Office Action:
To respond formally using the Office’s Trademark Electronic Application System (TEAS), visit http://www.uspto.gov/teas/index.html and follow the instructions.
To respond formally via E-mail, visit http://www.uspto.gov/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.