UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE (USPTO)
OFFICE ACTION (OFFICIAL LETTER) ABOUT APPLICANT’S TRADEMARK APPLICATION
|
APPLICATION SERIAL NO. 76709936
MARK: KLIP
|
|
|
CORRESPONDENT ADDRESS: Law Firm of John W. Harbst |
CLICK HERE TO RESPOND TO THIS LETTER: http://www.gov.uspto.report/trademarks/teas/response_forms.jsp
|
|
APPLICANT: H&L Tooth Company
|
|
|
CORRESPONDENT’S REFERENCE/DOCKET NO: CORRESPONDENT E-MAIL ADDRESS: |
|
TO AVOID ABANDONMENT OF APPLICANT’S TRADEMARK APPLICATION, THE USPTO MUST RECEIVE APPLICANT’S COMPLETE RESPONSE TO THIS LETTER WITHIN 6 MONTHS OF THE ISSUE/MAILING DATE BELOW.
This letter is in response to applicant’s communication filed September 17, 2012. The requirement for an acceptable identification of goods is withdrawn. The descriptive refusal is maintained and continued.
SUMMARY OF ISSUES
Registration is refused because the applied-for mark merely identifies the applicant’s goods. Trademark Act Section 2(e)(1), 15 U.S.C. §1052(e)(1); see TMEP §§1209.01(b), 1209.03 et seq.
A mark is merely descriptive if it describes an ingredient, quality, characteristic, function, feature, purpose or use of the specified goods and/or services. TMEP §1209.01(b); see In re Steelbuilding.com, 415 F.3d 1293, 1297, 75 USPQ2d 1420, 1421 (Fed. Cir. 2005); In re Gyulay, 820 F.2d 1216, 1217-18, 3 USPQ2d 1009, 1010 (Fed. Cir. 1987). Moreover, a mark that identifies a group of users to whom an applicant directs its goods and/or services is also merely descriptive. TMEP §1209.03(i); see In re Planalytics, Inc., 70 USPQ2d 1453, 1454 (TTAB 2004).
Applicant has identified its goods as “metallic apparatus that is releasable for securing a bucket tooth to a support for heavy equipment, namely, a metal spacer insertable into operable combination with the bucket tooth and the support.” Applicant’s goods are in fact clips or bucket retaining clips. A “clip” is defined as “any of various devices for gripping or holding things together; a clasp or fastener.” [See attached dictionary definition.] The examining attorney attaches additional internet evidence which shows that the term “clip” is descriptive as used with applicant’s goods.
http://education.yahoo.com/reference/dictionary/entry/clip_2
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 Abcor Dev. Corp., 588 F.2d 811, 814, 200 USPQ 215, 218 (C.C.P.A. 1978); TMEP §1209.01(b); see, e.g., In re Polo Int’l Inc., 51 USPQ2d 1061 (TTAB 1999) (finding 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) (finding CONCURRENT PC-DOS merely descriptive of “computer programs recorded on disk” where relevant trade used the denomination “concurrent” as a descriptor of a particular type of operating system). “Whether consumers could guess what the product is from consideration of the mark alone is not the test.” In re Am. Greetings Corp., 226 USPQ 365, 366 (TTAB 1985).
A novel spelling of a merely descriptive word or term is also merely descriptive if purchasers would perceive the different spelling as the equivalent of the descriptive word or term. See In re Hercules Fasteners, Inc., 203 F.2d 753, 97 USPQ 355 (C.C.P.A. 1953) (holding “FASTIE,” phonetic spelling of “fast tie,” merely descriptive of tube sealing machines); Andrew J. McPartland, Inc. v. Montgomery Ward & Co., 164 F.2d 603, 76 USPQ 97 (C.C.P.A. 1947) (holding “KWIXTART,” phonetic spelling of “quick start,” merely descriptive of electric storage batteries); In re State Chem. Mfg. Co., 225 USPQ 687 (TTAB 1985) (holding “FOM,” phonetic equivalent spelling of “foam,” merely descriptive of foam rug shampoo); TMEP §1209.03(j). Applicant’s mark is a novel spelling of the descriptive term “clip.” Purchasers are likely to perceive the different spelling as the equivalent of the descriptive term “clip.”
Applicant argues that the term “klip” has been registered for various devices used to interconnect other various parts. However, applicant should note that the Office has held the term “klip” to be descriptive where it has been used in relation to clips or fasteners.
Third-party registrations featuring the same or similar goods and/or services as applicant’s goods and/or services are probative evidence on the issue of descriptiveness where the relevant word or term is disclaimed, registered under Trademark Act Section 2(f) based on a showing of acquired distinctiveness, or registered on the Supplemental Register. See Sweats Fashions, Inc. v. Pannill Knitting Co., 833 F.2d 1560, 1564-65, 4 USPQ2d 1793, 1797 (Fed. Cir. 1987); In re Box Solutions Corp., 79 USPQ2d 1953, 1955 (TTAB 2006); In re Finisar Corp., 78 USPQ2d 1618, 1621 (TTAB 2006).
Applicant further argues that the mark is a double entendre or has more than one meaning. Nevertheless, 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 Indus., 222 USPQ 258, 259 (TTAB 1984); In re Bright-Crest, Ltd., 204 USPQ 591, 593 (TTAB 1979); TMEP §1209.03(e).
Furthermore, applicant argues that its mark is at least suggestive but not descriptive. A mark is suggestive if some imagination, thought or perception is needed to understand the nature of the goods and/or services described in the mark; whereas a descriptive term immediately and directly conveys some information about the goods and/or services. In re Steelbuilding.com, 415 F.3d 1293, 1297, 75 USPQ2d 1420, 1422 (Fed. Cir. 2005); TMEP §1209.01(a); see In re Shutts, 217 USPQ 363, 364 (TTAB 1983). Nevertheless, in this case, no thought or imagination is needed to understand the nature of the applicant’s goods. Applicant’s goods are clips.
Applicant argues that the term “klip” is not in the dictionary. Nevertheless, the fact that a descriptive word or term is not found in the dictionary is not controlling on the question of registrability. In re Gould Paper Corp., 834 F.2d 1017, 5 USPQ2d 1110 (Fed. Cir. 1987); In re Orleans Wines, Ltd., 196 USPQ 516 (TTAB 1977); TMEP §1209.03(b).
Two major reasons for not protecting descriptive marks are (1) to prevent the owner of a descriptive mark from inhibiting competition in the marketplace and (2) to avoid the possibility of costly infringement suits brought by the trademark or service mark owner. In re Abcor Dev. Corp., 588 F.2d 811, 813, 200 USPQ 215, 217 (C.C.P.A. 1978); TMEP §1209. Businesses and competitors should be free to use descriptive language when describing their own goods and/or services to the public in advertising and marketing materials. See In re Styleclick.com Inc., 58 USPQ2d 1523, 1527 (TTAB 2001).
For these reasons, the mark, “KLIP” is descriptive and registration is refused on the Principal Register.
Applicant must respond to the requirement(s) set forth below.
REQUEST FOR INFORMATION
To permit proper examination of the application, applicant must submit product information about the goods. See 37 C.F.R. §2.61(b); In re DTI P’ship LLP, 67 USPQ2d 1699, 1701-02 (TTAB 2003); TMEP §814. The requested product information should include fact sheets, instruction manuals, and/or advertisements. If these materials are unavailable, applicant should submit similar documentation for goods of the same type, explaining how its own product will differ. If the goods feature new technology and no competing goods are available, applicant must provide a detailed description of the goods.
The submitted factual information must make clear how the goods operate, their salient features, and their prospective customers and channels of trade. Conclusory statements regarding the goods will not satisfy this requirement.
Failure to respond to a request for information is an additional ground for refusing registration. See In re Cheezwhse.com, Inc., 85 USPQ2d 1917, 1919 (TTAB 2008); In re DTI, 67 USPQ2d at 1701-02. Merely stating that information about the goods is available on applicant’s website is an inappropriate response to a request for additional information and is insufficient to make the relevant information of record. See In re Planalytics, Inc., 70 USPQ2d 1453, 1457-58 (TTAB 2004).
/E. Bradley/
Evelyn Bradley
Law Office 105
(571) 272-9292
evelyn.bradley@uspto.gov
TO RESPOND TO THIS LETTER: Go to http://www.gov.uspto.report/trademarks/teas/response_forms.jsp. Please wait 48-72 hours from the issue/mailing date before using TEAS, to allow for necessary system updates of the application. For technical assistance with online forms, e-mail TEAS@uspto.gov. For questions about the Office action itself, please contact the assigned trademark examining attorney. E-mail communications will not be accepted as responses to Office actions; therefore, do not respond to this Office action by e-mail.
All informal e-mail communications relevant to this application will be placed in the official application record.
WHO MUST SIGN THE RESPONSE: It must be personally signed by an individual applicant or someone with legal authority to bind an applicant (i.e., a corporate officer, a general partner, all joint applicants). If an applicant is represented by an attorney, the attorney must sign the response.
PERIODICALLY CHECK THE STATUS OF THE APPLICATION: To ensure that applicant does not miss crucial deadlines or official notices, check the status of the application every three to four months using Trademark Applications and Registrations Retrieval (TARR) at http://tarr.gov.uspto.report/. Please keep a copy of the complete TARR screen. If TARR shows no change for more than six months, call 1-800-786-9199. For more information on checking status, see http://www.gov.uspto.report/trademarks/process/status/.
TO UPDATE CORRESPONDENCE/E-MAIL ADDRESS: Use the TEAS form at http://www.gov.uspto.report/teas/eTEASpageE.htm.