UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE

 

 

PRIORITY ACTION

 

 

RESPONSE TIME LIMIT:  To avoid abandonment, the Office must receive a proper response to this Office action within six-months of the mailing or e-mailing date.  If applicant responds to the issues below within two months of the above mailing or e-mailing  date, this case will be given priority handling.  TMEP §708.01.

 

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.

 

OFFICE RECORDS SEARCH:  The Office records have been searched and no similar registered or pending mark has been found that would bar registration under Trademark Act Section 2(d), 15 U.S.C. §1052(d).  TMEP §704.02.

 

QUESTIONS:  Please contact the assigned trademark examining attorney with any questions.

 

Serial Number  76/653452

 

The following were discussed in communication with Robert Davis on June 30, 2006.  Applicant must respond to each refusal and/or requirement raised below.

 

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

 

Search Results

 

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. However, the applicant must address the following.

 

Registration Refused – Descriptiveness

 

Registration is refused because the proposed mark merely describes the purpose of applicant’s 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).

 

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).

 

The specimens provided with the application show that the applicant’s business is focused on stucco repair. The only time a home owner would be concerned with repairing stucco would be when it is damaged or otherwise marred. The attached definition of “ugly” from the Merriam-Webster online dictionary reads, in part:

 

Main Entry: ¹ug·ly
Function: adjective
Inflected Form(s): ug·li·er; -est
1 : FRIGHTFUL, DIRE
2 a : offensive to the sight : HIDEOUS b : offensive or unpleasant to any sense

 

Accordingly, applicant’s service is the repair of stucco that is offensive to the sight or unpleasant to any sense. This makes the wording WE FIX UGLY STUCCO descriptive.

 

Applicant indicated in the communication of June 30, 2006 that the mark has been in use for many years. If applicant believes that its mark has acquired distinctiveness, that is, that it has become a distinctive source-indicator for the goods and/or services, applicant may seek registration on the Principal Register under Section 2(f) of the Trademark Act.  15 U.S.C. §1052(f).  The Office will decide each case on its own merits.

 

To determine whether the proposed mark has acquired distinctiveness, the following factors will be considered: (1) how long applicant has used the mark; (2) the type and amount of advertising of the mark; and (3) applicant’s efforts to associate the mark with the goods or services identified in the application.  See Ralston Purina Co. v. Thomas J. Lipton, Inc., 341 F. Supp. 129, 173 USPQ 820 (S.D.N.Y. 1972); In re Packaging Specialists, Inc., 221 USPQ 917 (TTAB 1984); 37 C.F.R. §2.41; TMEP §§1212, 1212.01 and 1212.06. 

 

Applicant has indicated that he will amend his dates of first use to correctly reflect the first use dates of the mark, and make the necessary other statements and amendments in response to this office action. At that time the examining attorney will reconsider the refusal in light of the new evidence.

 

Response Guidelines

 

Please note, there is no required format or form for responding to this Office action.  The Office recommends applicants use the Trademark Electronic Application System (TEAS) to respond to Office actions online at <http://www.gov.uspto.report/teas/index.html>.  However, if applicant responds on paper via regular mail, the response should include the following information:  (1) the name and law office number of the examining attorney; (2) the serial number of this application; (3) the mailing date of this Office action; and, (4) applicant's telephone number.

 

When responding to this Office action, applicant must make sure to respond to each refusal and requirement raised.  If there is a refusal to register the proposed mark, then applicant may wish to argue against the refusal, i.e., submit arguments and/or evidence as to why the refusal should be withdrawn and why the mark should register.  If there are other requirements, then applicant should simply set forth in writing the required changes or statements and request that the Office enter them into the application record.  Applicant must also sign and date its response.

 

If applicant has questions about its application or needs assistance in responding to this Office action, please telephone the assigned trademark examining attorney directly at the number below.

 

 

/Fred Carl III/

Trademark Examining Attorney

Law Office 108

571-272-8867  voice

571-273-9108  fax for official communications only

 

 

 

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