To: | Alexion Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (trademark@ogrp.com) |
Subject: | TRADEMARK APPLICATION NO. 77004279 - PNHSOURCE - 192.8468UST1 |
Sent: | 1/12/2007 5:08:54 PM |
Sent As: | ECOM102@USPTO.GOV |
Attachments: | Attachment - 1 Attachment - 2 Attachment - 3 |
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
SERIAL NO: 77/004279
APPLICANT: Alexion Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
|
|
CORRESPONDENT ADDRESS: |
RETURN ADDRESS: Commissioner for Trademarks P.O. Box 1451 Alexandria, VA 22313-1451
|
MARK: PNHSOURCE
|
|
CORRESPONDENT’S REFERENCE/DOCKET NO: 192.8468UST1
CORRESPONDENT EMAIL ADDRESS: |
Please provide in all correspondence:
1. Filing date, serial number, mark and applicant's name. 2. Date of this Office Action. 3. Examining Attorney's name and Law Office number. 4. Your telephone number and e-mail address.
|
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 77/004279
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.
Section 2(e)(1) Refusal – The Mark is Descriptive
Registration is refused because the proposed mark merely describes a purpose or function of applicant’s services. Trademark Act Section 2(e)(1), 15 U.S.C. §1052(e)(1); TMEP §§1209 et seq.
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).
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 applicant has applied to register the mark PNHSOURCE for “Online computer services, namely providing medical information to professionals, patients, consumers, and the general public regarding paroxysmal nocturnal hemoglobinuria (PNH) via the Internet.” The applicant provides online information regarding paroxysmal nocturnal hemoglobinuria. As such, the combination of terms in the mark merely describes a purpose of the services, an online reference or source of information. Because the mark PNHSOURCE is descriptive of the applicant’s services, registration is denied. See attached dictionary definitions of PNH and SOURCE.
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
The applied-for mark has been refused registration on the Principal Register. However, applicant may respond to the refusal by submitting evidence and arguments in support of registration and/or 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. Please note that amending to the Supplemental Register does not preclude applicant from submitting evidence and arguments against the refusal(s).
/rscb/
Robin S. Chosid-Brown
Trademark Examining Attorney
Law Office 102
(571) 272-9252
robin.chosid-brown@uspto.gov
HOW TO RESPOND TO THIS OFFICE ACTION:
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.