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  76/656331

 

THIS IS A FINAL ACTION

 

This letter responds to the applicant’s communication filed on September 1, 2005.  The applicant argued against the refusal to register the mark under Section 2(e)(1) of the Trademark Act. The following is advised:

 

The Mark Is Merely Descriptive – Final Refusal

Registration was refused under Trademark Act Section 2(e)(1), 15 U.S.C. Section 1052(e)(1), because the subject matter for which registration is sought is merely descriptive of the identified goods.

 

The examining attorney has considered the applicant's arguments carefully but has found them unpersuasive.  For the reasons below, the refusal under Section 2(e)(1) is maintained and made FINAL.

 

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 service.  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 section 1209.01(b).

.

The applicant applied to register the mark QUICK START for “OUTDOOR FOOD GRILLING BARBEQUES.”  As noted in the initial office action, the mark describes a feature of the goods in that the barbeques provide a quick start feature for lighting. 

 

The applicant argued that a customer would not immediately convey the characteristic of the applicant’s goods to potential customers who had not been exposed to information which would further describe them.  However, the descriptiveness of a term is not determined in a vacuum, but in relation to the goods or services with which the term is being used, or is intended to be used. The question is not whether consumers, upon encountering QUICK START in itself, would fully comprehend the nature of the goods or services with which it is intended to be used. Instead, the question is whether consumers, upon seeing the mark being used in connection with barbeque grills, would immediately with no thought or imagination comprehend the informational significance of the term. See In re American Greetings Corp., 226 USPQ 365 (TTAB 1985).   In this case, no thought or imagination is necessary to make this descriptive correlation.  The term is clearly touting a specific feature of the goods.   

 

The applicant notes that the term QUICK START has numerous other meanings.  However, 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).  The term QUICK START or its variants is commonly used to describe a convenience feature of barbeque grills.  See attached.  For example, from the attached::

 

“Have you ever sat on your back porch or tailgate at a local sporting event, wishing you had a real charcoal barbecue that has little-to-no cleanup, is quick starting and self contained?”

 

“All our grills include: Convenient quick start charcoal accelerator Built-in waste disposal for easy clean up. Rotisserie Adjustable charcoal baskets to control heat zones.”

 

The two major reasons for not protecting descriptive marks are:  (1) to prevent the owner of a mark from inhibiting competition in the sale of particular goods or services; and (2) to avoid the possibility of costly infringement suits brought by the registrant.  This thus enables businesses and competitors to have the freedom to use common descriptive language when merely describing their own goods or services to the public in advertising and marketing materials.  In re Abcor Development Corp., 588 F.2d 811, 200 USPQ 215 (C.C.P.A. 1978); In re Colonial Stores, Inc., 394 F.2d 549, 157 USPQ 382, 383 (C.C.P.A. 1968); Armour & Co. v. Organon Inc., 245 F.2d 495, 114 USPQ 334, 337 (C.C.P.A. 1957); In re Styleclick.com Inc., 58 USPQ2d 1523, 1526-1527 (TTAB 2001); In re Styleclick.com Inc., 57 USPQ2d 1445, 1448 (TTAB 2000).  In this case, because use of the term QUICK START is so common in the industry, applicant should not be granted exclusive rights to that term, thereby depriving others of the right to use the term.  See TMEP section 1209.

 

The applicant has not shown that the mark is anything but merely descriptive of the goods.  Accordingly the mark is refused registration on the Principle Register under Section 2(e)(1).  The refusal to register the mark under Section 2(e)(1) is continued and made FINAL.

 

 

Options For Applicant

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 matters.  The petition fee is $100.  37 C.F.R. §2.6(a)(15).

 

 

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

 

 

 

 

/Brian Neville/

Trademark Examining Attorney

Law Office 114

(571) 272 - 9203

 

 

 

 

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.