Offc Action Outgoing

OC

BFG TECHNOLOGIES, INC.

Offc Action Outgoing

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE

 

    SERIAL NO: 76/586017

 

    APPLICANT:                          BFG TECHNOLOGIES, INC.

 

 

        

*76586017*

    CORRESPONDENT ADDRESS:

    RAKESH M. AMIN

    AMIN LAW

    217 NORTH JEFFERSON STREET, STE. 500

    CHICAGO, IL 60661

   

RETURN ADDRESS: 

Commissioner for Trademarks

P.O. Box 1451

Alexandria, VA 22313-1451

 

 

 

 

    MARK:          OC

 

 

 

    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.

 

 

 

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  76/586017

 

The assigned examining attorney has reviewed the referenced application and determined the following.

 

NO LIKELIHOOD OF CONFUSION

 

The examining attorney has searched the Office records and has found no similar registered or pending mark which would bar registration under Trademark Act Section 2(d), 15 U.S.C. Section 1052(d).  TMEP section 1105.01.

 

APPLICANT’S MARK IS MERELY DESCRIPTIVE

 

The examining attorney refuses registration on the Principal Register because the proposed mark merely describes the goods/services.  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/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).

 

The examining attorney must consider whether a mark is merely descriptive in relation to the identified goods/services, not in the abstract.  In re Omaha National Corp., 819 F.2d 1117, 2 USPQ2d 1859 (Fed. Cir. 1987); In re Abcor Development Corp., 588 F.2d 811, 200 USPQ 215 (C.C.P.A. 1978); In re Venture Lending Associates, 226 USPQ 285 (TTAB 1985); In re American Greetings Corp., 226 USPQ 365 (TTAB 1985).  TMEP §1209.01(b). 

 

It is not necessary that a term describe all of the purposes, functions, characteristics or features of the goods/services to be merely descriptive.  It is enough if the term describes one attribute of the goods/services.  In re H.U.D.D.L.E., 216 USPQ 358 (TTAB 1982); In re MBAssociates, 180 USPQ 338 (TTAB 1973).  TMEP §1209.01(b). 

 

In this case, the proposed mark, OC, identifies the applicant’s goods.  As evidenced by the attached dictionary definition, the acronym “OC” refers to “optical carrier.”  As the applicant’s goods would include “optical carrier” circuits, the proposed mark merely describes the goods. 

 

The applicant should note the following additional grounds for refusal.

 

FAILS TO FUNCTION AS A TRADEMARK

 

The examining attorney refuses registration because the proposed mark does not function as a trademark.  Trademark Act Sections 1, 2 and 45, 15 U.S.C. §§1051, 1052 and 1127.  The proposed mark neither identifies and distinguishes the goods of the applicant from those of others nor indicates their source.  In Re Remington Products Inc., 3 USPQ2d 1714 (TTAB 1987).  TMEP §§1202 et seq.

 

To determine whether a term is being used as a trademark, the examining attorney must consider the specimen of record, together with any other evidence submitted with the application.  In re Bose Corp., 546 F.2d 893, 192 USPQ 213 (C.C.P.A. 1976); In re Restonic Corp., 189 USPQ 248 (TTAB 1975).  Not all words, designs, symbols or slogans used in the sale or advertising of goods or services function as trademarks, regardless of the applicant’s intent.  A term does not function as a trademark unless it is used in a manner which clearly projects to purchasers a single source of the goods or services.  In re Morganroth, 208 USPQ 284 (TTAB 1980).  TMEP §§1202 et seq.

 

In this case, the term OC appears merely to provide information about the goods referred to as BFG GeForce.  In particular, OC appears to describe the model or function of the goods.

 

APPLICANT MAY RESPOND

 

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.  If the applicant chooses to respond to the refusal to register, the applicant must also respond to the following requirements.

 

STANDARD CHARACTER CLAIM REQUIRED

 

The Trademark Rules pertaining to drawings were amended on November 2, 2003.  The applicant’s drawing has been presented in a format that prior to November 2, 2003 would have been acceptable as a typed drawing.  This drawing is acceptable as a standard character drawing and the drawing will be found to match the specimen of use if the applicant provides a standard character claim.  TMEP Section 707.02.  Exam Guide 1-03(IA3).

 

Applicant must submit the following standard character claim:  “The mark is presented in standard characters without claim to any particular font style, size, or color.”  37 C.F.R. §2.52(a).

 

DRAWING DIFFERS FROM SPECIMENS

 

The drawing displays the mark as OC.  However, this differs from the display of the mark on the specimen, where it appears as BFG GeForce FX 5900XT OC.  The applicant cannot amend the drawing to conform to the display on the specimen because the character of the mark would be materially altered.  37 C.F.R. §2.72(a); TMEP §§807.14, 807.14(a) and 807.14(a)(i).

Therefore, the applicant must submit a substitute specimen that shows use of the mark as it appears on the drawing.  37 C.F.R. §2.51; TMEP §807.14.  The applicant must verify, with an affidavit or a declaration under 37 C.F.R. §2.20, that the substitute specimen was in use in commerce at least as early as the filing date of the application.  37 C.F.R. §§2.59(a) and 2.72(a); TMEP §904.09.

 

The statement supporting use of the substitute specimen must read as follows: 

 

The substitute specimen was in use in commerce at least as early as the filing date of the application.

 

The applicant must sign this statement either in affidavit form or with a declaration under 37 C.F.R. Section 2.20.  The following is a properly worded declaration under 37 C.F.R. Section 2.20.  At the end of the response, the applicant should insert the declaration signed by someone authorized to sign under 37 C.F.R. Section 2.33(a).

 

The undersigned, being hereby warned that willful false statements and the like so made are punishable by fine or imprisonment, or both, under 18 U.S.C. 1001, and that such willful false statements may jeopardize the validity of the application or any resulting registration, declares that the facts set forth in this application are true; all statements made of his/her own knowledge are true; and all statements made on information and belief are believed to be true.

 

                                                                                                _____________________________                                   

                                                                                                (Signature)

                                                                                                _____________________________

                                                                                                (Print or Type Name and Position)

                                                                                                _____________________________

                                                                                                (Date) 

 

SUBSTITUTING A BASIS

 

If the applicant cannot comply with the requirement for a specimen of use for the Section 1(a) basis asserted, the applicant may substitute a different basis for filing if the applicant can meet the requirements for the new basis.  In this case, the applicant may wish to amend the application to assert a Section 1(b) basis.

 

To base the application on a bona fide intention to use the mark in commerce, the applicant must submit the following statement:

 

The applicant has had a bona fide intention to use the mark in commerce on or in connection with the goods or services listed in the application since the filing date of the application.

 

This statement must be must be verified, i.e., supported either by an affidavit or by a declaration under 37 C.F.R. Sections 2.20 and 2.33. Trademark Act Section 1(b), 15 U.S.C. Section 1051(b);  37 C.F.R. Section 2.34(a)(2)(i).  The form for a properly worded declaration under 37 C.F.R. Section 2.20 is set forth above.

 

RESPONSE GUIDELINES

 

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.

 

If the applicant’s has questions regarding the status of the application, the Trademark Applications and Registrations Retrieval (TARR) database on the USPTO website at http://tarr.uspto.gov provides detailed, up to the minute information about the status and prosecution history of trademark applications and registrations.  Please note that an application serial number or registration number is needed to be able to access this database.  TARR is available 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.

 

If the applicant has any questions or needs assistance in responding to this Office action, please telephone the assigned examining attorney.

 

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.

 

 

 

/Verna Beth Ririe/

Trademark Attorney

Law Office 105

(571) 272-9310

(571) 273-9105 (office 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.

 

Offc Action Outgoing [image/jpeg]


uspto.report is an independent third-party trademark research tool that is not affiliated, endorsed, or sponsored by the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) or any other governmental organization. The information provided by uspto.report is based on publicly available data at the time of writing and is intended for informational purposes only.

While we strive to provide accurate and up-to-date information, we do not guarantee the accuracy, completeness, reliability, or suitability of the information displayed on this site. The use of this site is at your own risk. Any reliance you place on such information is therefore strictly at your own risk.

All official trademark data, including owner information, should be verified by visiting the official USPTO website at www.uspto.gov. This site is not intended to replace professional legal advice and should not be used as a substitute for consulting with a legal professional who is knowledgeable about trademark law.

© 2024 USPTO.report | Privacy Policy | Resources | RSS Feed of Trademarks | Trademark Filings Twitter Feed