UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
|
SERIAL NO: 76/592895
APPLICANT: REBEL FORCES, LLC
|
|
|
CORRESPONDENT ADDRESS: |
RETURN ADDRESS: Commissioner for Trademarks P.O. Box 1451 Alexandria, VA 22313-1451
|
|
MARK: YH
|
|
|
CORRESPONDENT’S REFERENCE/DOCKET NO: REB-4-TM
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 76/592895
The assigned examining attorney has reviewed the referenced application and determined the following:
Registration is refused on the Principal Register because the proposed mark, as used on the specimen of record, is a decorative or ornamental feature of the goods and would not be perceived as a mark by the purchasing public. Trademark Act Sections 1, 2 and 45, 15 U.S.C. §§1051, 1052 and 1127; See In re Owens‑Corning Fiberglass Corp., 774 F.2d 1116, 227 USPQ 417 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re David Crystal, Inc., 296 F.2d 771, 132 USPQ 1 (C.C.P.A. 1961); In re Villeroy & Boch S.A.R.L., 5 USPQ2d 1451 (TTAB 1987); TMEP §§1202.03 et seq.
The specimen consists of a hat, and the proposed mark is ornamental as used on the specimen because the mark is seen in a large non-trademark manner across the front of the hat.
Applicant may overcome the stated ornamental refusal by doing one of the following, as appropriate:
(1) submitting evidence that the proposed mark has acquired distinctiveness of the applicant’s goods in commerce under Trademark Act Section 2(f), 15 U.S.C. §1052(f). Evidence may consist of examples of advertising and promotional materials that specifically promote the subject matter for which registration is sought as a mark, dollar figures for advertising devoted to such promotion, dealer and consumer statements of recognition of the subject matter as a mark and any other evidence that establishes recognition of the matter as a mark for the goods. See TMEP §1202.03(d); or
(2) submitting evidence that the proposed mark is an indicator of secondary source or sponsorship for the identified goods. University Book Store v. University of Wisconsin Board of Regents, 33 USPQ2d 1385, 1405 (TTAB 1994); In re Olin Corp., 181 USPQ 182 (TTAB 1982). That is, applicant may submit evidence showing that the proposed mark would be recognized as a trademark or service mark through applicant’s use of the proposed mark with goods or services other than those identified here. In re Original Red Plate Co., 223 USPQ 836, 837 (TTAB 1984). Applicant must establish that, as a result of this use on other goods or services, the public would recognize applicant as the secondary source of, or sponsor for, the identified goods. See TMEP §1202.03(c); or
(3) submitting a substitute specimen that shows proper non-ornamental trademark use, along with a statement that <”the substitute specimen was in use in commerce at least as early as the application filing date”/”the substitute specimen was in use in commerce prior to the filing of the amendment to allege use”/”the substitute specimen was in use in commerce prior to the expiration of time allowed to applicant for filing a statement of use”>, verified with a notarized affidavit or a signed declaration under 37 C.F.R. §2.20. 37 C.F.R. §<2.59(a)/2.59(b)(1)/2.59(b)(2)>; or
(4) amending the application to seek registration on the Supplemental Register. Trademark Act Section 23, 15 U.S.C. §1091; 37 C.F.R. §§2.47 and 2.75(a); TMEP §§801.02(b), 815 and 816 et seq.
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 applicant chooses to respond to the refusal(s) to register, then applicant must also respond to the following requirement(s).
The applicant must clarify whether the LLC is a Limited Liability Corporation or is a Limited Liability Company.
If accurate, the applicant must change the “Applicant’s Name” and “Applicant’s Entity Type” sections of the application to the following, if accurate:
“Rebel Forces, LLC, a limited liability company organized under the laws of New Jersey.” TMEP §803.03(h).
NO SIMILAR MARKS FOUND
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.
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.
/Dezmona Mizelle-Howard/
Dezmona Mizelle-Howard
USPTO
Law Office 110
571.272.9368
Dezmona.Mizelle@uspto.gov
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.