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  76/660235

 

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

SEARCH RESULTS

 

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.

 

TRADEMARK ACT SECTION 2(e)(1)

DESCRIPTIVENESS REFUSAL TO REGISTER

 

Registration is refused because the proposed mark merely describes a feature, characteristic or quality 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 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).

 

The determination of whether a mark is merely descriptive is considered in relation to the identified 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 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.  The latter is the case in this instance.  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).

 

What’s more, laudatory terms, i.e., those terms that attribute quality or excellence to goods or services, are considered descriptive terms under Trademark Act Section 2(e)(1), 15 U.S.C. §1052(e)(1); TMEP §1209.03(k).  That is, laudatory terms, phrases and slogans are nondistinctive and unregistrable without proof of acquired distinctiveness.  In this instance, the word “FOREMOST” is a laudatory term.  In re Nett Designs Inc., 236 F.3d 1339, 57 USPQ2d 1564 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (THE ULTIMATE BIKE RACK); In re Boston Beer Co. L.P., 198 F.3d 1370, 53 USPQ2d 1056 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (THE BEST BEER IN AMERICA); In re Dos Padres Inc., 49 USPQ2d 1860 (TTAB 1998) (QUESO QUESADILLA SUPREME); In re Consolidated Cigar Co., 35 USPQ2d 1290 (TTAB 1995) (SUPER BUY); General Foods Corp. v. Ralston Purina Co., 220 USPQ 990 (TTAB 1984) (ORIGINAL BLEND).

 

In the instant case, the applicant seeks registration of the mark FOREMOST EDUCATION ONLINE (standard characters) for “educational services, namely providing courses, seminars, and online training in the field of insurance”.  The proposed mark merely describes a feature, characteristic or quality of the applicant’s services.  The proposed mark merely indicates that the applicant’s services feature the chief or most important program of instruction accessible via a computer or computer network.  Please see the attached dictionary definitions of “foremost,” “education” and “online.”  In addition, please see the attached third-party registrations showing similarly constructed marks registered on the Supplemental Register and Principal Register under Section 2(f).  In addition, please see the attached third-party registrations disclaiming “FOREMOST,” “EDUCATION” and “ONLINE.”  Therefore, the proposed mark is merely descriptive of the applicant’s services and registration on the Principal Register must be refused under Trademark Act Section 2(e)(1).

 

Accordingly, registration is refused under Trademark Act Section 2(e)(1) based on descriptiveness.

Responding to the Trademark Act Section 2(e)(1) Descriptiveness Refusal to Register

 

Although the trademark examining attorney has refused registration, applicant may respond to the Trademark Act Section 2(e)(1) descriptiveness refusal to register by submitting evidence and arguments in support of registration.

Overcoming the Trademark Act Section 2(e)(1) Descriptiveness Refusal to Register

 

PLEASE NOTE THAT although the trademark examining attorney has refused registration on the Principal Register, applicant may respond to the stated descriptiveness refusal under Trademark Act Section 2(e)(1) by 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 Supplemental Register registration does not afford all the benefits of registration on the Principal Register, it does provide the following advantages:

 

• The registrant may use the registration symbol ®;
• The registration is protected against registration of a confusingly similar mark under §2(d) of the Trademark Act, 15 U.S.C. §1052(d);
• The registrant may bring suit for infringement in federal court; and
• The registration may serve as the basis for a filing in a foreign country under the Paris Convention and other international agreements.

INFORMALITIES

 

If applicant chooses to respond to the Trademark Act Section 2(e)(1) Descriptiveness refusal to register, then applicant must also respond to the following requirements.

 

DISCLAIMER REQUIREMENT

 

Please note that if registration of the mark is sought on the Supplemental Register or on the Principal Register under Section 2(f), the Office may require applicant to disclaim “EDUCATION ONLINE” because such wording may be generic in the context of applicant’s services.  In re Wella Corp., 565 F.2d 143, 196 USPQ 7 (C.C.P.A. 1977); In re Creative Goldsmiths of Washington, Inc., 229 USPQ 766 (TTAB 1986); In re Carolyn’s Candies, Inc., 206 USPQ 356 (TTAB 1980); TMEP §1213.03(b).

 

The Office can require an applicant to disclaim exclusive rights to an unregistrable part of a mark, rather than refuse registration of the entire mark.  Trademark Act Section 6(a), 15 U.S.C. §1056(a).  Under Trademark Act Section 2(e), 15 U.S.C. §1052(e), the Office can refuse registration of the entire mark where it is determined that the entire mark is merely descriptive, deceptively misdescriptive, or primarily geographically descriptive of the goods.  Thus, the Office may require the disclaimer of a portion of a mark which, when used in connection with the goods or services, is merely descriptive, deceptively misdescriptive, primarily geographically descriptive, or otherwise unregistrable (e.g., generic).  TMEP §1213.03(a).  If an applicant does not comply with a disclaimer requirement, the Office may refuse registration of the entire mark.  TMEP §1213.01(b).

 

A “disclaimer” is thus a written statement that an applicant adds to the application record that states that applicant does not have exclusive rights, separate and apart from the entire mark, to particular wording and/or to a design aspect.  The appearance of the applied-for mark does not change.

 

A disclaimer does not physically remove the disclaimed matter from the mark, but rather is a written statement that applicant does not claim exclusive rights to the disclaimed wording and/or design separate and apart from the mark as shown in the drawing.

 

The following cases explain the disclaimer requirement more fully:  Dena Corp. v. Belvedere Int’l Inc., 950 F.2d 1555, 21 USPQ2d 1047 (Fed. Cir. 1991); In re Kraft, Inc., 218 USPQ 571 (TTAB 1983); In re EBS Data Processing, Inc., 212 USPQ 964 (TTAB 1981); In re National Presto Industries, Inc., 197 USPQ 188 (TTAB 1977).

 

Applicant must disclaim the descriptive wording “EDUCATION ONLINE” apart from the mark as shown because it merely describes a feature or characteristic of the applicant’s services.  The wording “EDUCATION ONLINE” merely indicates that the applicant’s services feature a program of instruction accessible via a computer or computer network.  Please see the attached dictionary definitions of “education” and “online.”  In addition, please see the attached third-party registrations disclaiming “EDUCATION” and “ONLINE” for similar services.  Trademark Act Section 6, 15 U.S.C. §1056; TMEP §§1213 and 1213.03(a).

 

The computerized printing format for the Office’s Trademark Official Gazette requires a standardized format for a disclaimer.  TMEP §1213.08(a)(i).  The following is the standard format used by the Office:

 

No claim is made to the exclusive right to use “EDUCATION ONLINE” apart from the mark as shown.

 

See In re Owatonna Tool Co., 231 USPQ 493 (Comm’r Pats. 1983).

 

RESPONDING TO THIS OFFICE ACTION

 

To expedite prosecution of this application, applicant is encouraged to file its response to this Office action through the Trademark Electronic Application System (TEAS), available at http://www.gov.uspto.report/teas/index.html.

 

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.

 

/Tina Brown/

Trademark Examining Attorney

Law Office 105

Phone: (571) 272-8864

Fax: (571) 273-8864

 

 

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.