UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
SERIAL NO: 76/637897
APPLICANT: City of Phoenix
|
|
CORRESPONDENT ADDRESS: |
RETURN ADDRESS: Commissioner for Trademarks P.O. Box 1451 Alexandria, VA 22313-1451
|
MARK: OPPORTUNITY CORRIDOR
|
|
CORRESPONDENT’S REFERENCE/DOCKET NO: City of Phoe
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 76/637897
The assigned trademark examining attorney has reviewed the referenced application and has determined the following.
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. §1052(d). TMEP §704.02.
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 and/or 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). A mark that describes an intended user of a product or service is also merely descriptive within the meaning of Section 2(e)(1). Hunter Publishing Co. v. Caulfield Publishing Ltd., 1 USPQ2d 1996 (TTAB 1986); In re Camel Mfg. Co., Inc., 222 USPQ 1031 (TTAB 1984); In re Gentex Corp., 151 USPQ 435 (TTAB 1966).
In the present instance, the proposed mark OPPORTUNITIES CORRIDOR is merely descriptive of a characteristic of the services, namely, promoting opportunities as described by the applicant in the identification of goods in the Phoenix area or corridor. Please see attached registrations in which similar marks have been held merely descriptive for similar or related services.
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).
A term need not describe all of the purposes, functions, characteristics or features of the goods and/or services to be merely descriptive. For the purpose of a Section 2(e)(1) analysis, it is sufficient that the term describe only one attribute of the goods and/or services to be found merely descriptive. 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).
Accordingly, the proposed mark is refused under Section 2(e)(1).
Advisory – Section 1(b) Application Not Eligible for Supplemental Register Until Allegation of Use is Filed
A mark in an application under Trademark Act Section 1(b) is not eligible for registration on the Supplemental Register until an acceptable amendment to allege use under 37 C.F.R. §2.76 or statement of use under 37 C.F.R. §2.88 has been filed. 37 C.F.R. §§2.47(d) and 2.75(b); TMEP §1102.03. When a Section 1(b) application is amended to the Supplemental Register, the effective filing date of the application is the date of filing of the allegation of use. 37 C.F.R. §2.75(b); TMEP §§206.01 and 1102.03.
Although the trademark examining attorney has refused registration, 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 respond to the following requirement(s).
The identification of services is unacceptable as indefinite because the wording of promoting “economic and educational opportunities” is vague and too broad. It may include services in other classes. The applicant must clarify the nature of the services for the record. The applicant may adopt the following identification, if accurate: TMEP §1402.01.
Class 035: promoting economic development in the city of Phoenix, Arizona; chamber of commerce services, namely, promoting business and tourism in the city of phoenix, Arizona; promoting public awareness of economic and educational opportunities in the city of Phoenix, Arizona.
To the extent the suggested identification of goods/services is incomplete or inaccurate, the applicant is advised that the Trademark Acceptable Identification of Goods and Services Manual is accessible via the USPTO homepage at www.uspto.gov under the heading Trademarks and the subheadings Guidance and Manuals and Legal Resources or at http://www.gov.uspto.report/web/offices/tac/doc/gsmanual./
Please note that, while the identification of goods/services may be amended to clarify or limit the goods/services, adding to the goods/services or broadening the scope of the goods/services is not permitted. 37 C.F.R. §2.71(a); TMEP §1402.06. Therefore, applicant may not amend the identification to include goods/services that are not within the scope of the goods/services set forth in the present identification.
/sshih/
Sally Shih
Trademark Examining Attorney
Law Office 106
USPTO
(tel) 571-272-9712
(fax) 571-273-9106
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.