Offc Action Outgoing

This letter responds to the applicant’s amended response filed on September 29, 2004. The finding of likelihood of confusion is withdrawn and finding of mere descriptiveness. The standard character claim is accepted. However, the applicant has not identified its goods in an appropriate manner. Therefore this FINAL REFUSAL is issued.

Goods Remain Indefinite

The identification of goods is indefinite. The applicant must clarify the identification of goods to specify the common commercial or generic name for the goods. If there is no common commercial or generic name, then applicant must describe the product and intended consumer as well as its main purpose and intended uses. The applicant has identified goods that fall into more than one International Class at a greater cost to the applicant. In general, household plastic goods belong in Int. Cl. 16 while industrial plastic goods belong in Int. Cl. 17. The examining attorney does not understand “stretch tapes” but assumes that this is a tape with adhesive qualities. Applicant may adopt the following identification of goods, if accurate: TMEP § 1402.01.

Blown film plastic products, namely trash bags and stretch adhesive tapes for household use in Int. Cl. 16.

Blown film plastic products, namely plastic sheeting for construction use and stretch adhesive tapes for industrial use in Int. Cl. 17.

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. §2.71(a); TMEP §1402.06. Therefore, the applicant may not amend to include any goods that are not within the scope of goods set forth in the present identification.

The identification of goods or services must be specific, definite, clear, accurate and concise. See In re Societe Generale des Eaux Minerales de Vittel S.A., 1 USPQ2d 1296 (TTAB 1986), rev’d on other grounds, 824 F.2d 957, 3 USPQ2d 1450 (Fed. Cir. 1987); Procter & Gamble Co. v. Economics Laboratory, Inc., 175 USPQ 505 (TTAB 1972), modified without opinion, 498 F.2d 1406, 181 USPQ 722 (C.C.P.A. 1974); In re Cardinal Laboratories, Inc., 149 USPQ 709 (TTAB 1966); California Spray-Chemical Corp. v. Osmose Wood Preserving Co. of America, Inc., 102 USPQ 321 (Comm’r Pats. 1954); Ex parte A.C. Gilbert Co., 99 USPQ 344 (Comm’r Pats. 1953). The accuracy of identification language in the original application is important because the identification cannot later be expanded. See 37 C.F.R. §2.71(a); TMEP §§1402.06 and 1402.07 et seq.; In re M.V Et Associes, 21 USPQ2d 1628 (Comm’r Pats. 1991).

Multi-class Applications

If the applicant prosecutes this application as a combined, or multiple‑class, application, the applicant must comply with each of the following.

(1) The applicant must list the goods/services by international class with the classes listed in ascending numerical order. TMEP §1403.01.

(2) The applicant must submit a filing fee for each international class of goods/services not covered by the fee already paid. 37 C.F.R. §§2.6(a)(1) and 2.86(a); TMEP §§810.01 and 1403.01. Effective January 1, 2003, the fee for filing a trademark application is $335 for each class. This applies to classes added to pending applications as well as to new applications filed on or after that date.

Options

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).

NOTICE: TRADEMARK OPERATION RELOCATING OCTOBER AND NOVEMBER 2004

The Trademark Operation is relocating to Alexandria, Virginia, in October and November 2004. 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, registration owners, attorneys and other Trademark customers are strongly encouraged to correspond with the USPTO online via the Trademark Electronic Application System (TEAS), at www.uspto.gov.

/srb/

Steven R. Berk

Examining Attorney

Law Office 102

(571)272-9246 (phone/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.

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.