UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
SERIAL NO: 76/570563
APPLICANT: Vector Products, Inc.
|
|
CORRESPONDENT ADDRESS: |
RETURN ADDRESS: Commissioner for Trademarks P.O. Box 1451 Alexandria, VA 22313-1451
|
MARK: PRO GRADE
|
|
CORRESPONDENT’S REFERENCE/DOCKET NO: T34493US0
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 76/570563
This letter responds to applicant’s communication filed on 2/18/05.
ONLY THE FOLLOWING REMAINS AT ISSUE:
Section 2(e)(1) - Descriptive Refusal
Applicant’s response has been carefully considered, however, the refusal to register under Trademark Act Section 2(e)(1), 15 U.S.C. §1052(e)(1) is made FINAL. The proposed mark PRO GRADE is the equivalent of “professional grade.” See the relevant dictionary definitions previously of record. See also the copies of registrations, of record, showing relevant use of the terms “pro grade” or “professional grade,” disclaimed or registered on the Supplemental Register. Such wording describes a characteristic of the goods such as the quality of the goods as with professional grade flashlights. See the attached Google search information showing merely descriptive use of “pro grade” or “professional grade” as applied to consumer products and in connection with heavy duty goods. Applicant’s identification of goods encompass professional grade jump start cables, power invertors, flashlights and spotlights.
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).
Request for Information
To aid in the examination of this application, and not merely for description of the goods, applicant must submit any informative literature regarding the goods, for which applicant has asserted a bona fide intent to use the mark. 37 C.F.R. Section 2.61(b); TMEP section 814. If none are available applicant must so state for the record.
The above requirements are also made FINAL
The typo in the word “inverters” in the amended identification of goods is corrected in the data base, please correct the wording by amendment.
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 matter. The petition fee is $100. 37 C.F.R. §2.6(a)(15).
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.
/Fred Mandir/
Examining Attorney
Law Office 105
(571) 272-9192
HOW TO RESPOND TO THIS OFFICE ACTION:
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.