UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE

 

 

 

OFFICE ACTION

 

TO AVOID ABANDONMENT, THE OFFICE MUST RECEIVE A PROPER RESPONSE TO THIS OFFICE ACTION WITHIN 6 MONTHS OF THE ISSUE/MAILING DATE.

 

ISSUE/MAILING DATE:

 

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.

 

2(e)(1) – Merely Descriptive Refusal

 

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

 

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).

 

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., 57 USPQ2d 1445, 1448 (TTAB 2000).

 

The applicant has applied to register the mark STOUT MOUNT for “consoles for mounting computers in automotive vehicles.”

 

Here, the mark STOUT MOUNT is merely descriptive of a characteristic and function of applicant’s goods.  Please refer to the attached evidence from Dictionary.com, labeled Exhibits 1 and 2, which define the terms STOUT and MOUNT as “strong in body; sturdy;” and “a support, backing, setting, or the like, on or in which something is, or is to be, mounted or fixed.”    Specifically, a STOUT MOUNT is a sturdy support on which computers will be mounted in automotive vehicles.  The applicant’s identification of its goods, which identifies the function of “mounting,” supports this analysis.    

 

A mark that combines descriptive terms may be registrable if the composite creates a unitary mark with a separate, nondescriptive meaning.  In re Colonial Stores, Inc., 394 F.2d 549, 157 USPQ 382 (C.C.P.A. 1968) (holding SUGAR & SPICE not to be merely descriptive of bakery products).  However, the mere combination of descriptive words does not automatically create a new nondescriptive word or phrase.  E.g., In re Associated Theatre Clubs Co., 9 USPQ2d 1660, 1662 (TTAB 1988) (finding GROUP SALES BOX OFFICE descriptive for theater ticket sales services).  The registrability of a mark created by combining only descriptive words depends on whether a new and different commercial impression is created, and/or the mark so created imparts an incongruous meaning as used in connection with the goods and/or services.  Where, as in the present case, the combination of the descriptive words creates no incongruity, and no imagination is required to understand the nature of the goods and/or services, the mark is merely descriptive.  E.g., In re Copytele Inc., 31 USPQ2d 1540, 1542 (TTAB 1994); Associated Theatre Clubs, 9 USPQ2d at 1662. 

 

This evidence confirms the descriptive significance of the applied for mark in relation to applicant’s goods.  Because applicant’s good is a STOUT MOUNT, the mark is merely descriptive.

 

Accordingly, registration is denied on the Principal Register.

 

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.

Supplemental Register

 

Although the examining attorney has refused registration on the Principal Register, the applicant may amend 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 Ò;

·        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.

 

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, “MOUNT” because such wording may be generic in the context of applicant’s goods and/or 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).

 

Applicant should note the following additional ground for refusal.

 

Failure to Function as a Trademark

 

Registration is refused because the proposed mark, as used on the specimen of record, does not function as a trademark to identify and distinguish applicant’s goods from those of others and to indicate their source.  Trademark Act Sections 1, 2 and 45, 15 U.S.C. §§1051-1052 and 1127; In re Remington Prods., Inc., 3 USPQ2d 1714 (TTAB 1987); TMEP §§1202 et seq.

 

The proposed mark, as used on the specimen, does not function as a trademark because purchasers would not view the proposed mark as a source identifying indicia as presented in the specimen.

 

The proposed mark, as used on the specimen of record, merely identifies a model, style or grade designation; it does not function as a trademark to identify and distinguish applicant’s goods from those of others and to indicate their source.  Trademark Act Sections 1-2 and 45, 15 U.S.C. §§1051-1052 and 1127; In re Dana Corp., 12 USPQ2d 1748 (TTAB 1989); TMEP §1202.10.

 

Matter used as a model, style or grade designation serves only to describe the particular product in terms of its quality, size or type, and does not identify the source of the goods.  However, if the matter sought to be registered has come to be perceived by consumers as a source indicator in addition to its other function as a model or grade designation, the term may be registrable as a trademark.  In re Petersen Mfg. Co., 229 USPQ 466, 468 (TTAB 1986).

 

Moreover, the mark appears to be “buried” in the text of the specimen and is not distinguishable as a source identifier. Thus, it fails to show proper use of the applied-for mark in the sale or advertising of the services.  The mark should appear prominently and conspicuously on the submitted specimen and not within any additional informational matter on the specimen without any discernable difference in font, size, or spacing.  Instead applicant’s proposed mark appears as a natural part of the text.  Potential purchasers must carefully search the specimen to find the term and, once found, will not perceive the term as indicating a particular source of the services.  Accordingly, the mark fails to function as a service mark.  37 C.F.R. §2.56.  In re A La Vieille Russie Inc., 60 USPQ2d 1895 (TTAB 2001).

 

Therefore, applicant must submit the following:

 

(1)   A substitute specimen showing the mark in use in commerce for the services specified in the application; and

 

(2)   The following statement, verified with an affidavit or signed declaration under 37 C.F.R. §2.20:  “The substitute specimen was in use in commerce at least as early as the filing date of the application.”  37 C.F.R. §2.59(a); TMEP §904.09.  If submitting a specimen requires an amendment to the dates of use, applicant must also verify the amended dates.  37 C.F.R. §2.71(c).

 

Examples of specimens for services are signs, photographs, brochures, website printouts or advertisements that show the mark used in the sale or advertising of the services.  TMEP §§1301.04 et seq.

 

The following is a sample declaration under 37 C.F.R. §2.20 with a supporting statement for a substitute specimen:

 

The undersigned being warned that willful false statements and the like are punishable by fine or imprisonment, or both, under 18 U.S.C. §1001, and that such willful false statements and the like may jeopardize the validity of the application or document or any registration resulting there from, declares that the substitute specimen was in use in commerce at least as early as the filing date of the application; all statements made of his/her own knowledge are true; and all statements made on information and belief are believed to be true.

 

 

_____________________________

(Signature)

 

_____________________________

(Print or Type Name and Position)

 

_____________________________

(Date)

 

Amendment to Section 1(b)

 

If applicant cannot satisfy the above requirements, applicant may amend the Section 1(a) filing basis (use in commerce) to Section 1(b) (intent to use basis), for which no specimen is required.  However, should applicant amend the basis to Section 1(b), registration cannot be granted until applicant later amends the application back to use in commerce by filing an acceptable allegation of use with a proper specimen.  15 U.S.C. §1051(c); 37 C.F.R. §§2.76, 2.88; TMEP Chapter 1100. 

 

In order to amend to Section 1(b), applicant must submit the following statement, verified with an affidavit or signed declaration under 37 C.F.R. §2.20:  “Applicant has had a bona fide intention to use the mark in commerce on or in connection with the goods or services listed in the application as of the filing date of the application.”  15 U.S.C. §1051(b); 37 C.F.R. §§2.34(a)(2) and 2.35(b)(1); TMEP §806.01(b).

 

Pending a proper response, registration is refused because the specimen does not show the applied-for mark in use in commerce for the services specified in the application.  15 U.S.C. §§1051-1053 and 1127; 37 C.F.R. §§2.34(a)(1)(iv) and 2.56.

 

If applicant chooses to respond to the refusal(s) to register, then applicant must also respond to the following requirement(s).

 

Identification of Goods

 

The current wording used to describe the goods needs clarification because the wording is indefinite.  In particular, the applicant must more clearly specify the nature of its goods and/or the manner of their use.  Applicant may adopt the following identification of goods, if accurate (please note suggested language in bold type): 

 

International Class 009 – “mounting racks for on-board computers, namely, consoles for mounting computers in automotive vehicles.” 

TMEP §1402.01.

 

For assistance with identifying and classifying goods and/or services in trademark applications, please see the online searchable Manual of Acceptable Identifications of Goods and Services at http://tess2.gov.uspto.report/netahtml/tidm.html.

 

Please note that, while the identification of goods may be amended to clarify or limit the goods, adding to the goods or broadening the scope of the goods is not permitted.  37 C.F.R. §2.71(a); TMEP §1402.06.  Therefore, applicant may not amend the identification to include goods that are not within the scope of the goods set forth in the present identification.

 

Standard Character Advisory

 

Because of the degree of stylization of the font used to depict the mark on the drawing page, applicant must clarify whether a standard character drawing format or a special-form drawing format was intended.  TMEP §§807.03 et seq. and 807.04 et seq.  If a standard character drawing was intended, then applicant must submit the following statement:  “The mark consists of standard characters without claim to any particular font, style, size, or color.”  37 C.F.R. §2.52(a).  If a special-form drawing was intended, then applicant must state so for the record.  37 C.F.R. §2.52(b).

 

In a standard character drawing, the mark on the drawing consists of only words, letters or numbers, but does not include any designs or claims as to particular font, style, size, or color.  A registration for a mark using a standard character drawing affords protection not only for the standard character version of the mark, but for any possible renderings of the mark, as long as those renderings do not contain any design elements; i.e., a registered standard character drawing of the mark gives protection for display on the specimens in any lettering style.  A special-form drawing, on the other hand, shows the mark in stylized letters and/or with a design element and provides protection for only that specific rendering.  37 C.F.R. §2.52; TMEP §§807.03 et seq. 807.04 et seq.

 

Disclaimers

 

Applicant has applied to register the mark STOUT MOUNT for “consoles for mounting computers in automotive vehicles.”

 

If the mark is determined to be otherwise registrable, whether on the Principal Register or Supplemental Register, then applicant must still disclaim the following unregistrable matter.

 

Applicant must disclaim MOUNT because it is the generic term for applicant’s goods.  Please refer to the previously stated definition of the term MOUNT, “a support, backing, setting, or the like, on or in which something is, or is to be, mounted or fixed.”  As stated, MOUNT appears to be merely a definition for anything used to secure an object to another object, such as applicant’s consoles.  Thus, the term MOUNT is generic as applied to applicant’s goods.  Therefore, applicant must disclaim the generic term MOUNT in its mark. 

 

The Trademark Trial and Appeal Board has held that materials obtained through computerized text searching are competent evidence to show the descriptive use of terms under Trademark Act Section 2(e)(1), 15 U.S.C. §1052(e)(1).  In re National Data Corp., 222 USPQ 515, 517 n.3 (TTAB 1984); TMEP §710.01(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 “MOUNT” apart from the mark as shown.

 

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

 

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 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.

 

Response Guidelines

 

No set form is required for response to this Office action.  The applicant must respond to each point raised.  The applicant should simply set forth the required changes or statements and request that the Office enter them.  The applicant must sign the response.  Please note that all electronic communications must be signed using the "/name/" format.  TMEP section 804.05.

 

Applicants may now respond formally using the Office’s Trademark Electronic Application System (TEAS) at <http://www.gov.uspto.report/teas/index.html>.  When using TEAS the data the applicant submits is directly uploaded into the Office’s database, which reduces the time it takes to process the applicant’s response, while also eliminating the possibility of data entry errors by the Office.  Applicants are strongly encouraged to use TEAS to respond to office actions. 

 

TEAS PLUS APPLICANTS MUST SUBMIT DOCUMENTS ELECTRONICALLY OR SUBMIT FEE:  TEAS Plus applicants should submit the following documents using the Trademark Electronic Application System (TEAS) at <http://www.gov.uspto.report/teas/index.html>:  (1) responses to Office actions; (2) preliminary amendments; (3) changes of correspondence address; (4) changes of owner’s address; (5) appointments and revocations of attorney; (6) amendments to allege use; (7) statements of use; (8) requests for extension of time to file a statement of use, and (9) requests to delete a §1(b) basis.  If any of these documents are filed on paper, they must be accompanied by a $50 per class fee.  37 C.F.R. §§2.6(a)(1)(iv) and 2.23(a)(i).  NOTE:  In addition to the above, applicant must also continue to accept correspondence from the Office via e-mail throughout the examination process in order to avoid the additional fee.  37 C.F.R. §2.23(a)(2).

 

PLEASE NOTE:  Because it delays processing, submission of duplicate papers is discouraged.  Unless specifically requested to do so by the Office, parties should not mail follow up copies of documents transmitted electronically or by fax.  TMEP 306.04; Cf. ITC Entertainment Group Ltd. V. Nintendo of America Inc. 45 USPQ2d 2021 (TTAB 1998).

 

/Benjamin U. Okeke/

United States Patent & Trademark Office

600 Dulany St., Alexandria VA 22314

Law Office 112

571.270.1524

571.270.2524 (Fax)

 

 

RESPOND TO THIS ACTION: If there are any questions about the Office action, please contact the assigned examining attorney. A response to this Office Action should be filed using the Office’s Response to Office action form available at http://www.gov.uspto.report/teas/eTEASpageD.htm.  If notification of this Office action was received via e-mail, no response using this form may be filed for 72 hours after receipt of the notification.  Do not attempt to respond by e-mail as the USPTO does not accept e-mailed responses.

 

If responding by paper mail, please include the following information: the application serial number, the mark, the filing date and the name, title/position, telephone number and e-mail address of the person signing the response.  Please use the following address: Commissioner for Trademarks, P.O. Box 1451, Alexandria, VA 22313-1451.

 

STATUS CHECK: Check the status of the application at least once every six months from the initial filing date using the USPTO Trademark Applications and Registrations Retrieval (TARR) online system at http://tarr.uspto.gov.  When conducting an online status check, print and maintain a copy of the complete TARR screen.  If the status of your application has not changed for more than six months, please contact the assigned examining attorney.