| To: | CATBIRD NETWORKS, INC. (ipdocket@muchshelist.com) |
| Subject: | TRADEMARK APPLICATION NO. 77112508 - SAAS - 0002793.0001 |
| Sent: | 6/27/2007 9:41:12 AM |
| Sent As: | ECOM103@USPTO.GOV |
| Attachments: | Attachment - 1 Attachment - 2 Attachment - 3 Attachment - 4 Attachment - 5 Attachment - 6 Attachment - 7 Attachment - 8 Attachment - 9 Attachment - 10 Attachment - 11 Attachment - 12 Attachment - 13 Attachment - 14 Attachment - 15 Attachment - 16 Attachment - 17 Attachment - 18 Attachment - 19 Attachment - 20 Attachment - 21 |
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
|
SERIAL NO: 77/112508
MARK: SAAS
|
|
|
CORRESPONDENT ADDRESS: |
RESPOND TO THIS ACTION: http://www.gov.uspto.report/teas/eTEASpageD.htm
GENERAL TRADEMARK INFORMATION: http://www.gov.uspto.report/main/trademarks.htm
|
|
APPLICANT: CATBIRD NETWORKS, INC.
|
|
|
CORRESPONDENT’S REFERENCE/DOCKET NO: CORRESPONDENT E-MAIL ADDRESS: |
|
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: 6/27/2007
The assigned trademark examining attorney has reviewed the referenced application and has determined the following:
The Office records have been searched and no similar registered mark has been found that would bar registration under Trademark Act Section 2(d), 15 U.S.C. §1052(d). TMEP §704.02. However, please be advised that potentially conflicting marks in prior-filed pending applications may present a bar to registration.
Information regarding pending Application Serial Nos. 78794804 and 77057823 is enclosed. The filing dates of the referenced applications precede applicant’s filing date. There may be a likelihood of confusion under Trademark Act Section 2(d) between applicant’s mark and the referenced marks. If one or more of the referenced applications registers, registration may be refused in this case under Section 2(d). 37 C.F.R. §2.83; TMEP §§1208 et seq. Therefore, upon entry of a response to this Office action, action on this case may be suspended pending final disposition of the earlier-filed applications.
If applicant believes that there is no potential conflict between this application and the earlier-filed applications, then applicant may present arguments relevant to the issue in a response to this Office action. The election not to submit arguments at this time in no way limits applicant’s right to address this issue at a later point.
Applicant should note the following additional ground for refusal.
Registration is refused because the proposed mark merely describes a feature of applicant’s goods and/or services. Trademark Act Section 2(e)(1), 15 U.S.C. §1052(e)(1); TMEP §§1209 et seq.
A mark is merely descriptive under Section 2(e)(1) if it describes an ingredient, quality, characteristic, function, feature, purpose or use of the specified 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). A mark that describes an intended user of a product or service is also merely descriptive within the meaning of Section 2(e)(1). See Hunter Publ’g Co. v. Caulfield Publ’g, Ltd., 1 USPQ2d 1996 (TTAB 1986); In re Camel Mfg. Co., 222 USPQ 1031 (TTAB 1984).
In the instant case, the applicant seeks registration of “SAAS” for “computer services, namely measuring, monitoring, protecting, and improving the performance of applications, systems, and networks on corporate, private, and public networks and the global computer network.” “SAAS” is an acronym that is widely used for Software as a Service. “SAAS” is defined as “a software distribution model in which applications are hosted by a vendor or service provider and made available to customers over a network.” Please see the attached dictionary definitions and Internet evidence.
As evidenced by the record and applicant’s website, applicant’s computer services feature applicant’s computer protection software and applications which are hosted, managed, and operated by applicant and which are made available to consumers over a network. Please see the attached Internet evidence, including applicant’s website. Therefore, the proposed mark merely describes a feature of the applicant’s services and registration on the Principle Register must be refused under Trademark Act Section 2(e)(1).
Supplemental Register
A mark in an application under Trademark Act Section 1(b) is not eligible for registration on the Supplemental Register until an acceptable amendment to allege use under 37 C.F.R. §2.76 has been filed. 37 C.F.R. §§2.47(d) and 2.75(b); TMEP §1102.03. When a Section 1(b) application is amended to the Supplemental Register, the effective filing date of the application is the date of filing of the amendment to allege use. 37 C.F.R. §2.75(b); TMEP §§206.01 and 1102.03.
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.
If applicant chooses to respond to the refusal(s) to register, then applicant must also respond to the following requirement(s).
The wording “protecting” in the identification of services is indefinite and must be clarified because it is broad and could include services in more than one International Class. TMEP §1402.01. Applicant may substitute the following wording, if accurate:
“computer services, namely measuring, monitoring, and improving the performance of applications, systems, and networks on corporate, private, and public networks and the global computer network; computer hacker protection services,” in Class 042.
Please note that, while the identification of services may be amended to clarify or limit the services, adding to the services or broadening the scope of the services is not permitted. 37 C.F.R. §2.71(a); TMEP §1402.06. Therefore, applicant may not amend the identification to include services that are not within the scope of the services set forth in the present identification.
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.
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.
/margaretpower/
Examining Attorney
Law Office 103
margaret.power@uspto.gov
Phone 571-270-1507
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.
