UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
SERIAL NO: 76/543526
APPLICANT: Mondshein, Seymour
|
|
CORRESPONDENT ADDRESS: SEYMOUR MONDSHEIN MAPLE LEATHER COMPANY 224 SANDY RIDGE/ MOUNT AIRY ROAD STOCKTON, NEW JERSEY 08559
|
RETURN ADDRESS: Commissioner for Trademarks 2900 Crystal Drive Arlington, VA 22202-3514 ecom112@uspto.gov
|
MARK: HANDSFREE
|
|
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 76/543526
The assigned trademark examining attorney has reviewed the referenced application filed on 8/27/03, and has determined the following.
Search Results
The Office records have been searched and no similar registered or pending mark has been found that would bar registration under Trademark Act Section 2(d), 15 U.S.C. §1052(d). TMEP §704.02.
Section 2(e)(1) - Descriptive Refusal
Registration is refused because the proposed mark merely describes a feature, characteristic of the applicant’s goods. Trademark Act Section 2(e)(1), 15 U.S.C. §1052(e)(1); TMEP §§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 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 applicant has applied to register “HANDSFREE” for “purses, handbags, fanny packs, carry-on bags, satchels, shoulder bags, tote bags, and travel bags.”
The adjective “hands-free” is relevantly defined as: operable without using hands: able to be used or operated without being touched or moved by the hands.[1]
The applicant provides bags that allow the user to carry them without the use of hands.
To further bolster the refusal to register, the examining attorney provides printouts from a cursory search of the Google online search engine that evidences the descriptive nature of what the applicant is attempting to register. See attachments. The Trademark Trial and Appeal Board has held that materials obtained through computerized text searching are competent evidence to show the descriptive use of terms under Trademark Act Section 2(e)(1), 15 U.S.C. Section 1052(e)(1). In re National Data Corp., 222 USPQ 515, 517 n.3 (TTAB 1984).
Printouts of articles downloaded from the Internet are admissible as evidence of information available to the general public, and of the way in which a term is being used by the public. TMEP §710.01(b). In re Total Quality Group Inc., 51 USPQ2d 1474, 1475-76 (TTAB 1999); Raccioppi v. Apogee Inc., 47 USPQ2d 1368, 1370-1 (TTAB 1998).
The fact that an applicant may be the first and sole user of a merely descriptive or generic designation does not justify registration where the evidence shows that the term is merely descriptive of the identified goods and/or services. In re Acuson, 225 USPQ 790 (TTAB 1985) (COMPUTED SONOGRAPHY descriptive of ultrasonic imaging instruments); In re National Shooting Sports Foundation, Inc., 219 USPQ 1018 (TTAB 1983) (SHOOTING, HUNTING, OUTDOOR TRADE SHOW AND CONFERENCE held apt descriptive name for conducting and arranging trade shows in the hunting, shooting and outdoor sports products field); TMEP §1209.03(c).
The dictionary definitions and Internet evidence demonstrate that the composite wording HANDSFREE is merely descriptive of a characteristic or feature of the relevant goods. Accordingly, the mark is refused registration under section 2(e)(1).
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.
/R.L.F./
Ronald L. Fairbanks
Trademark Attorney,
Law Office 112
(703) 308-9112, ext. 137
ecom112@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.
FOR INQUIRIES OR QUESTIONS ABOUT THIS OFFICE ACTION, PLEASE CONTACT THE ASSIGNED EXAMINING ATTORNEY.