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  76/538420

 

This letter responds to applicant’s communication filed on March 22, 2004.  The applicant has traversed the Section 2(e)(1) refusal.  For the following reason, the refusal is continued and made FINAL.

 

Section 2(e)(1) Refusal – Final

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).

 

The applicant has applied to register QUIET DRIVE TECHNOLOGY for air compressors, in International Class 7.

 

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).

 

The determination of whether a mark is merely descriptive is considered in relation to the identified goods and/or services, 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).

 

The proposed mark is merely descriptive of a special feature of the identified goods.  Because air compressors are typically very noisy, the special feature of having a “quiet drive technology” stands out.

 

The following definitions demonstrate the common understanding and the merely descriptiveness of the words in the proposed mark:

 

qui·et (kwì¹ît) adjective

qui·et·er, qui·et·est

1.    Making no noise; silent: a quiet audience at the concert.

2.    Free of noise; hushed: a quiet place for studying.[1]

 

drive (drìv)

noun

4.   a. The means or apparatus for transmitting motion or power to a machine or from one machine part to another. .[2]

 

tech·nol·o·gy (tèk-nòl¹e-jê) noun

plural tech·nol·o·gies

Abbr. technol.

1.   a. The application of science, especially to industrial or commercial objectives. b. The scientific method and material used to achieve a commercial or industrial objective.[3]

 

The examining attorney attaches evidence on the Internet demonstrating the merely descriptive uses of the proposed mark on air compressors.  See attachment.  The wording “QUIET DRIVE TECHNOLOGY” is used to promote a feature of the air compressors.

 

The wording is merely descriptive in relation to the identified goods.  Therefore, the disclaimer requirement is continued and made FINAL.

 

Supplemental Register Not Eligible

A mark in an application under Trademark Act Section 1(b) is not eligible for registration on the Supplemental Register until an acceptable amendment to allege use under 37 C.F.R. §2.76 or statement of use under 37 C.F.R. §2.88 has been filed.  37 C.F.R. §§2.47(d) and 2.75(b); TMEP §1102.03.  When a Section 1(b) application is amended to the Supplemental Register, the effective filing date of the application is the date of filing of the allegation of use.  37 C.F.R. §2.75(b); TMEP §§206.01 and 1102.03.

 

Proper Response to Final Action

Applicant may respond to this final action by either:  (1) submitting a timely response that fully satisfies any outstanding requirements, if feasible; or (2) timely filing an appeal of this final action to the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board.  37 C.F.R. §2.64(a); TMEP §715.01.  If applicant fails to respond within six months of the mailing date of this refusal, the application will be abandoned.  37 C.F.R. §2.65(a).

 

 

 

 

 

/Sophia S. Kim/

Examining Attorney

Law Office 106

703-308-9106 x236

703-746-6470

sophia.kim@uspto.gov - inquiry only

 

 

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.