UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
|
SERIAL NO: 77/103478
APPLICANT: eScreen, Inc.
|
|
|
CORRESPONDENT ADDRESS: |
RETURN ADDRESS: Commissioner for Trademarks P.O. Box 1451 Alexandria, VA 22313-1451
|
|
MARK: ESCREEN MINI
|
|
|
CORRESPONDENT’S REFERENCE/DOCKET NO: 37975/2912.0
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 77/103478
The assigned examining attorney has reviewed the referenced application and determined the following.
The examining attorney has searched the Office records and has found no similar registered or pending mark which would bar registration under Trademark Act Section 2(d), 15 U.S.C. §1052(d). TMEP §704.02.
DESCRIPTIVE REFUSAL – 2(e)(1)
The examining attorney refuses registration on the Principal Register because the proposed mark merely describes the goods/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 goods/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).
Applicant seeks to register the mark “ESCREEN MINI” for a “lateral flow assay reader for use with medical specimen cups for determining the presence or absence of analytes.” The applicant’s goods are screens readers or readers for use with electronic screens. [See attached Internet evidence which shows use of the wording “screen readers” by others in the industry.]
The “e” prefix has become commonly recognized as a designation for goods or services that are electronic in nature or are sold or provided electronically. When the “e” prefix is coupled with a descriptive term or terms for electronic goods and/or services, then the entire mark is considered merely descriptive under Section 2(e)(1). In re SPX Corp., 63 USPQ2d 1592 (TTAB 2002) (E-AUTODIAGNOSTICS merely descriptive of an “electronic engine analysis system comprised of a hand-held computer and related computer software”); In re Styleclick.com Inc., 57 USPQ2d 1445 (TTAB 2000) (E FASHION held merely descriptive of software for use in shopping via global computer network and electronic retailing services); Continental Airlines Inc. v. United Air Lines Inc., 53 USPQ2d 1385 (TTAB 1999) (E-TICKET held generic for computerized reservation and ticketing of transportation services). The attached evidence from the Acronym Finder shows that the letter “E” is an acronym for “electronic.”
The word “mini” is defined as “a smaller version of something.” [See attached definition from the Encarta® World English Dictionary, North American Edition.] The applicant’s goods are a smaller version of the screen readers.
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).
For these reasons, the mark, “ESCREEN MINI” is descriptive and registration is refused on the Principal Register.
Although the examining attorney has refused registration, the applicant may respond to the refusal to register by submitting evidence and arguments in support of registration.
Please note that the mark in an application under Trademark Act Section 1(b), 15 U.S.C. §1051(b), is not eligible for registration on the Supplemental Register until an acceptable amendment to allege use under 37 C.F.R. §2.76 or statement of use under 37 C.F.R. §2.88 has been timely filed. 37 C.F.R. §2.47(c); TMEP §815.02, 816.02 and 1102.03. When such an application is changed from the Principal Register to the Supplemental Register, the effective filing date of the application is the date of filing of the allegation of use. 37 C.F.R. §2.75(b); TMEP §§206.01 and 816.02.
If applicant chooses to respond to the refusal(s) to register, then applicant must also respond to the following requirements.
The identification of goods is unacceptable because the nature of the goods is unclear. The applicant must amend the identification by listing each item by its common commercial name. TMEP §§ 1402.01 and 1402.03.
The applicant may adopt the following identification of goods, if accurate:
Lateral flow assay optical reader for use with medical specimen cups for determining the presence or absence of analytes
For assistance with identifying 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 an application may be amended to clarify or limit the identification, additions to the identification are not permitted. 37 C.F.R. §2.71(a); TMEP §1402.06. Therefore, the applicant may not amend to include any goods that are not within the scope of goods set forth in the present identification.
If the applicant has any questions or needs assistance in responding to this Office action, please telephone the assigned examining attorney.
/Evelyn Bradley/
Evelyn Bradley
Trademark Examiner
Law Office 105
(571) 272-9292
NOTICE OF NEW PROCEDURE FOR E-MAILED OFFICE ACTIONS: In late spring 2007, for any applicant who authorizes e-mail communication with the USPTO, the USPTO will no longer directly e-mail the actual Office action to the applicant. Instead, upon issuance of an Office action, the USPTO will e-mail the applicant a notice with a link/web address to access the Office action using Trademark Document Retrieval (TDR), which is located on the USPTO website at http://portal.gov.uspto.report/external/portal/tow. The Office action will not be attached to the e-mail notice. Upon receipt of the notice, the applicant can then view and print the actual Office action and any evidentiary attachments using the provided link/web address. TDR is available 24 hours a day, seven days a week, including holidays and weekends. This new process is intended to eliminate problems associated with e-mailed Office actions that contain numerous attachments.
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.