Offc Action Outgoing

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE

 

 

 

OFFICE ACTION

 

RESPONSE TIME LIMIT:  TO AVOID ABANDONMENT, THE OFFICE MUST RECEIVE A PROPER RESPONSE TO THIS OFFICE ACTION WITHIN 6 MONTHS OF THE MAILING OR E-MAILING DATE. 

 

MAILING/E-MAILING DATE INFORMATION:  If the mailing or e-mailing date of this Office action does not appear above, this information can be obtained by visiting the USPTO website at http://tarr.gov.uspto.report/, inserting the application serial number, and viewing the prosecution history for the mailing date of the most recently issued Office communication.

 

Serial Number  76/637897

 

This letter responds to applicant’s communication filed on June 5, 2006.  The applicant has amended the identification of services and argued against the Section 2(e)(1) merely descriptive refusal.  Please note that the amended identification has been accepted.  However, the argument has been rejected.

 

The following refusal is now made FINAL: Section 2(e)(1) merely descriptive refusal.  37 C.F.R. §2.64(a).

 

 

 

 

Final Refusal – Section 2(e)(1) Merely Descriptive

 

The refusal under Trademark Act Section 2(e)(1), 15 U.S.C. §1052(e)(1), is now made FINAL for the reasons set forth below.  37 C.F.R. §2.64(a).

 

The applicant argued that the “the combination of the words makes the mark incongruous”.  To the contrary, the combination of merely descriptive terms is still merely descriptive.  One would immediately perceive that OPPORTUNITY CORRIDOR is about opportunities in the Phoenix Corridor.

 

A mark that combines descriptive terms may be registrable if the composite creates a unitary mark with a separate, nondescriptive meaning.  However, if each component retains its descriptive significance in relation to the goods or services, the combination results in a composite that is itself descriptive.  In re Tower Tech, Inc., 64 USPQ2d 1314 (TTAB 2002) (SMARTTOWER merely descriptive of “commercial and industrial cooling towers and accessories therefor, sold as a unit”); In re Sun Microsystems Inc., 59 USPQ2d 1084 (TTAB 2001) (AGENTBEANS merely descriptive of computer software for use in development and deployment of application programs on global computer network); In re Putman Publishing Co., 39 USPQ2d 2021 (TTAB 1996) (FOOD & BEVERAGE ONLINE held to be merely descriptive of news and information service for the food processing industry); In re Copytele Inc., 31 USPQ2d 1540 (TTAB 1994) (SCREEN FAX PHONE merely descriptive of “facsimile terminals employing electrophoretic displays”); In re Entenmann’s Inc., 15 USPQ2d 1750 (TTAB 1990), aff’d per curiam, 928 F.2d 411 (Fed. Cir. 1991) (OATNUT held to be merely descriptive of bread containing oats and hazelnuts).

 

The applicant then argued that the term CORRIDOR “is generally defined as hallway or passageway”.  Descriptiveness is considered in relation to the relevant goods and/or services.  The fact that a term may have different meanings in other contexts is not controlling on the question of descriptiveness.  In re Chopper Industries, 222 USPQ 258 (TTAB 1984); In re Bright-Crest, Ltd., 204 USPQ 591 (TTAB 1979); In re Champion International Corp., 183 USPQ 318 (TTAB 1974); TMEP §1209.03(e).

 

Please see attached evidence with the common usage of Phoenix Corridor and dictionary definition of the term OPPORTUNITY.  Sample search summary page(s) and representative stories from the search have both been provided.  Search result summary pages have probative value since search engine results as well as Web site contents are equally accessible to the consuming public and both constitute evidence that the public may be exposed to the term.  See In re Fitch ICBA Inc., 64 USPQ2d 1058 (TTAB 2002). Printouts of articles downloaded from the Internet are admissible as evidence of information available to the general public, and of the way in which a term is being used by the public.  TMEP §710.01(b).   In re Total Quality Group Inc., 51 USPQ2d 1474, 1475-76 (TTAB 1999); Raccioppi v. Apogee Inc., 47 USPQ2d 1368, 1370-1 (TTAB 1998).  With regard to evidence the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board has also stated that newswire stories have probative value because of the increasing use of the personal computer to obtain news and information, see In re Cell Therapeutics Inc., 67 USPQ2d 1795 (TTAB 2003); and that foreign publications and English language websites have probative value since the Internet is a tool widely available to all.  See In re Remacle, 66 USPQ2d 1222 (TTAB 2002) at note 5.

 

The applicant argued that there are registrations containing the term CORRIDOR on the Principle Register.  However, the registrations cited by the applicant are distinguishable from this application.   For Registration Nos. 3041647 and 2870436, the marks are not merely descriptive when applied to specified goods and services.  Please note that the goods or services in these two registrations are very different from applicant’s services.  For Registration No. 2628376, the mark ECORRIDOR is not merely descriptive of the specified services because unlike the term OPPORTUNITY in the proposed mark, the letter E is not merely descriptive of opportunities.  For Registration 2642762 (Please note that applicant has mistakenly inverted the last two digits of the registration number), the mark is not merely descriptive of the consulting services.

 

Third-party registrations are not conclusive on the question of descriptiveness.  Each case must be considered on its own merits.  A proposed mark that is merely descriptive does not become registrable simply because other similar marks appear on the register.  In re Scholastic Testing Service, Inc., 196 USPQ 517 (TTAB 1977); TMEP §1209.03(a).

 

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).

 

 Accordingly, the refusal made under Section 2(e)(1) is maintained and made FINAL.

 

Proper Response to Final Action

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).

 

 

 

/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:

• ONLINE RESPONSE:  You may respond using the Office’s Trademark Electronic Application System (TEAS) Response to Office action form available on our website at http://www.gov.uspto.report/teas/index.html.  If the Office action issued via e-mail, you must wait 72 hours after receipt of the Office action to respond via TEAS.  NOTE:  Do not respond by e-mail.  THE USPTO WILL NOT ACCEPT AN E-MAILED RESPONSE.
• REGULAR MAIL RESPONSE:  To respond by regular mail, your response should be sent to the mailing return address above, and include the serial number, law office number, and examining attorney’s name.  NOTE:  The filing date of the response will be the date of receipt in the Office, not the postmarked date.  To ensure your response is timely, use a certificate of mailing.  37 C.F.R. §2.197.

 

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.