UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
|
SERIAL NO: 76/567026
APPLICANT: EPCglobal, Inc.
|
|
|
CORRESPONDENT ADDRESS: |
RETURN ADDRESS: Commissioner for Trademarks P.O. Box 1451 Alexandria, VA 22313-1451
|
|
MARK: EPC
|
|
|
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 76/567026
FINAL REFUSAL UNDER SECTION 2(E)(1)
This Office action responds to applicant’s correspondence and arguments filed January 14 and January 20, 2005. The prior pending applications cited as a potential barrier have been withdrawn because they have all abandoned. The standard character claim and amendment to the class heading are acceptable, and the only remaining issue is the refusal under Section 2(e)(1) that is made final as outlined below.
The examining attorney refused registration on the basis that the mark is merely descriptive under Trademark Act Section 2(e)(1), 15 U.S.C. §1052(e)(1), as amended. Applicant argues that although the mark may be suggestive, it is not descriptive; that “the service mark "EPC" does not immediately or directly name the service provided,” that “EPC” is not a dictionary term; that. "’EPC’" is an acronym that can stand for a combination of many words in the English Language and can be associated with many different definitions. However, to the contrary, the proposed mark is merely descriptive for the following reasons.
First, descriptiveness is considered in relation to the relevant goods and/or services. The fact that a term may have different meanings in other contexts is not controlling on the question of descriptiveness. In re Chopper Industries, 222 USPQ 258 (TTAB 1984); In re Bright-Crest, Ltd., 204 USPQ 591 (TTAB 1979); In re Champion International Corp., 183 USPQ 318 (TTAB 1974); TMEP §1209.03(e).
Second, the fact that a term is not found in the dictionary is not controlling on the question of registrability. In re Gould Paper Corp., 834 F.2d 1017, 5 USPQ2d 1110 (Fed. Cir. 1987); In re Orleans Wines, Ltd., 196 USPQ 516 (TTAB 1977); TMEP §1209.03(b).
Third, it is clear from readily available Internet evidence that the applicant’s services deal with electronic product codes. For instance, note the following quote taken from page 7 in the evidence from the initial Office action. “EPCGlobal is leading the development of industry driven standards for the Electronic Product Code (EPC) Network”
Clearly, the term immediately tells the viewer of the “mark” that the involved term is the subject matter of the services. As such, it identifies a key ingredient, characteristic or feature of the services and requires no imagination or pause in thought to discern immediately that a main characteristic or feature of the services involves electronic product codes.
Any term that serves as the common descriptor of a key ingredient, characteristic or feature of the goods is also generic and thus incapable of distinguishing source. A term need not relate solely to the name of the goods or services in order to be held incapable of serving as an indicator of origin. A.J. Canfield Co. v. Honickman, 808 F.2d 291, 1 USPQ2d 1364 (3rd Cir. 1986) (CHOCOLATE FUDGE generic for diet sodas); Miller Brewing Co. v G. Heileman Brewing Co., 561 F.2d 75, 80, 195 USPQ 281, 285 (7th Cir. 1977) (LITE generic for beer), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 1025, 196 USPQ 592 (1978); In re Sun Oil Co., 426 F.2d 401, 165 USPQ 718 (C.C.P.A. 1970) (CUSTOM BLENDED generic for gasoline); In re Helena Rubenstein, Inc., 410 F.2d 438, 161 USPQ 606 (C.C.P.A. 1969) (PASTEURIZED for face cream incapable); Roselux Chemical Co, Inc. v. Parsons Ammonia Co., Inc., 299 F.2d 855, 132 USPQ 627 (C.C.P.A. 1962) (SUDSY generic for ammonia); In re Reckitt & Colman, North America Inc., 18 USPQ2d 1389 (TTAB 1991) (PERMA PRESS generic for soil and stain removers); In re Ricci-Italian Silversmiths, Inc., 16 USPQ2d 1727 (TTAB 1990) (ART DECO generic for flatware); In re Bonni Keller Collections Ltd., 6 USPQ2d 1224 (TTAB 1987) (LA LINGERIE generic for stores that sell lingerie); In re National Patent Development Corp., 231 USPQ 823 (TTAB 1986) (ULTRA PURE for interferons for medical use incapable); In re Wickerware, Inc., 227 USPQ 970 (TTAB 1985) (WICKERWARE generic for mail order and distributorship services in the field of wicker furniture and accessories); In re Hask Toiletries, 223 USPQ 1254 (TTAB 1984) (HENNA 'N' PLACENTA generic of ingredients for hair conditioner); In re Bee Pollen From England Ltd., 219 USPQ 163 (TTAB 1983) (BEE POLLEN FROM ENGLAND for bee pollen incapable).
Consequently, because the proposed mark is merely descriptive under Trademark Act Section 2(e)(1), 15 U.S.C. §1052(e)(1); TMEP §§1209 et seq., this refusal is final.
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)); 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 matter. The petition fee is $100. 37 C.F.R. §2.6(a)(15).
If the applicant has any questions or needs assistance in responding to this Office action, please telephone the assigned examining attorney.
Current status and status date information is available, via push button telephone, for all federal trademark registration and application records maintained in the automated Trademark Reporting and Monitoring (TRAM) system. The information may be accessed by calling (703) 305-8747 from 6:30 a.m. until midnight, Eastern Time, Monday through Friday, and entering a seven-digit registration number or eight-digit application number, followed by the “#” symbol, after the welcoming message and tone. Callers may request information for up to five registration number or application number records per call.
Current status and status date information is also available on the United States Patent and Trademark Office web site at www.uspto.gov. In addition, all incoming responses and outgoing Office actions may be viewed on the web site.
No set form is required for response to this Office action. The applicant must respond to each point raised. The applicant should simply set forth the required changes or statements and request that the Office enter them. The applicant must sign the response. In addition to the identifying information required at the beginning of this letter, the applicant should provide a telephone number to speed up further processing.
The following authorities govern the processing of trademark and service mark applications: The Trademark Act, 15 U.S.C. §§1051 et seq., the Trademark Rules of Practice, 37 C.F.R. Part 2, and the Trademark Manual of Examining Procedure (TMEP).
“TMEP” refers to the Trademark Manual of Examining Procedure (3rd ed., Rev. 1, June, 2002), available on the United States Patent and Trademark Office web site at www.uspto.gov.
To ensure that its response is considered timely, applicant may wish to add the following completed “certificate of mailing” to the end of its response. Applicant should keep a photocopy of its response with the signed certificate, in case the response is lost or misplaced. See TMEP §§305.02 et seq.
CERTIFICATE OF MAILING
I hereby certify that this correspondence is being deposited with the United States Postal Service with sufficient postage as first class mail in an envelope addressed to: Commissioner for Trademarks, P.O. Box 1451, Alexandria, VA, 22313-1451, on the date below.
________________________________________________
(Typed or Printed Name of Person Signing Certificate)
________________________________________________
(Signature)
________________________________________________
(Date)
The certificate of mailing procedure does not apply to the initial filing of trademark applications. 37 C.F.R. §2.197(a)(2).
Please note: If the applicant submits a response electronically, an electronic signature is required. An applicant, registrant or attorney may sign an electronic communication by entering a “symbol” that he or she has adopted as a signature between two slashes. In addition, the Office will accept an electronic communication containing the “/s/” (“/(signature)/”) notation in lieu of a signature. A scanned image of a document signed in ink is also acceptable, as long as the image is attached in .jpg format. TMEP Section 304.08.
Effective January 31, 2005 and pursuant to the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2005, Pub. L. 108-447, the following are the fees that will be charged for filing a trademark application:
(1) $325 per international class if filed electronically using the Trademark Electronic Application System (TEAS); or
(2) $375 per international class if filed on paper
These fees will be charged not only when a new application is filed, but also when payments are made to add classes to an existing application. If such payments are submitted with a TEAS response, the fee will be $325 per class, and if such payments are made with a paper response, the fee will be $375 per class.
The new fee requirements will apply to any fees filed on or after January 31, 2005.
NOTICE: TRADEMARK OPERATION RELOCATION
The Trademark Operation has relocated to Alexandria, Virginia. Effective October 4, 2004, all Trademark-related paper mail (except documents sent to the Assignment Services Division for recordation, certain documents filed under the Madrid Protocol, and requests for copies of trademark documents) must be sent to:
Commissioner for Trademarks
P.O. Box 1451
Alexandria, VA 22313-1451
Applicants, attorneys and other Trademark customers are strongly encouraged to correspond with the USPTO online via the Trademark Electronic Application System (TEAS), at http://www.gov.uspto.report/teas/index.html.
/Paul F. Gast/
Trademark Attorney, Law Office 106
(571) 272 -9163 PHONE
(571) 273- 9106 FAX
How to respond to this Office Action:
You may respond formally using the Office's Trademark Electronic Application System (TEAS) Response to Office Action form (visit http://eteas.gov.uspto.report/V2.0/oa242/WIZARD.htm and follow the instructions therein, but you must wait until at least 72 hours after receipt if the office action issued via e-mail). PLEASE NOTE: Responses to Office Actions on applications filed under the Madrid Protocol (Section 66(a)) CANNOT currently be filed via TEAS.
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.