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: 6/9/2008

 

 

This Office action is in response to applicant’s communication filed on May 22, 2008.

 

The following requirements and refusals are raised and maintained.

 

SECTION 2(e)(1) REFUSAL – MERELY DESCRIPTIVE

The mark is “Cortemp” for “wireless body temperature monitoring system composed of microelectronic componentry for use in monitoring and reporting the internal core body temperature to external systems.”

 

 

Registration is refused because the applied-for mark merely describes the purpose of 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).

 

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).

 

Here, applicant’s goods measure the core temperature of a body.  The mark consists of a novel spelling of the word “Core” and “Temp,” a well recognized short hand for the phrase “temperature,” written together.  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).

 

In determining the descriptiveness of a term or mark comprising more than one element, it is permissible to consider the significance of each element separately in the course of evaluating the term or mark as a whole.  See In re Oppedahl & Larson LLP, 373 F.3d 1171, 1174-75, 71 USPQ2d 1370, 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (holding PATENTS.COM merely descriptive of computer software for managing and tracking the status of database records when noting that “the PTO may [separately] consider the meaning of ‘patents’ and the meaning of ‘.com’ with respect to the goods identified in the application.”); In re Save Venice N.Y., Inc., 259 F.3d 1346, 1352, 59 USPQ2d 1778, 1782 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (holding a mark primarily geographically deceptively misdescriptive for a variety of goods when noting that “[i]t is not erroneous, however, for the examiner to consider the significance of each element within the composite mark in the course of evaluating the mark as a whole.”); In re Med. Plastics, Inc., 192 USPQ 239, 240 (TTAB 1976) (holding a mark generic when noting that “[t]he Examiner did discuss each word in the mark separately in order to show that the term in its entirety was the apt name of the applicant’s goods.  This is not the same thing as dissecting a mark.”).

 

The examining attorney has attached the definitions of Core Temperature to show the mark is descriptive.  See Attached.

 

Although applicant’s mark has been refused registration, applicant may respond to the refusal(s) by submitting evidence and arguments in support of registration.  Applicant must respond to the requirement(s) set forth below.

 

 

 

Identification of Goods

 

The identification of goods is: 

 

Class 09:  wireless body temperature monitoring system composed of microelectronic componentry for use in monitoring and reporting the internal core body temperature to external systems.

 

The wording used to describe the goods is indefinite and must be clarified.  See TMEP §1402.01.

 

Class 09:  wireless body temperature monitoring system composed of microelectronic componentry, namely <Specify the compoentry> for use in monitoring and reporting the internal core body temperature to external systems.

 

The applicant may adopt the following language, if accurate:

 

Although identifications of goods may be amended to clarify or limit the goods, adding to or broadening the scope of the goods is not permitted.  37 C.F.R. §2.71(a); see TMEP §§1402.06 et seq., 1402.07.  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.

 

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.  See TMEP §1402.04.

 

Multiple Class Application

 

If applicant prosecutes this application as a combined, or multiple-class application, then applicant must comply with each of the requirements below for those goods and/or services based on actual use in commerce under Trademark Act Section 1(a):

 

(1)        Applicant must list the goods/services by international class;

 

(2)        Applicant must submit a filing fee for each international class of goods and/or services not covered by the fee already paid (current fee information should be confirmed at http://www.uspto.gov); and

 

(3)        For each additional international class of goods and/or services, applicant must submit:

 

a.   Dates of first use of the mark anywhere and dates of first use of the mark in commerce, or a statement that the dates of use in the initial application apply to that class; and the dates of use, both anywhere and in commerce, must be at least as early as the filing date of the application;

 

b.   One specimen showing use of the mark for each class of goods and/or services; and the specimen must have been in use in commerce at least as early as the filing date of the application.  If a single specimen supports multiple classes, applicant should indicate which classes the specimen supports rather than providing multiple copies of the same specimen;

 

c.   A statement that “the specimen was in use in commerce on or in connection with the goods and/or services listed in the application at least as early as the filing date of the application;” and

 

d.   Verification of the statements in 3(a) and 3(c) (above) in an affidavit or a signed declaration under 37 C.F.R. §§2.20, 2.33.  Verification is not required where (1) the dates of use for the added class are stated to be the same as the dates of use specified in the initial application, and (2) the original specimens are acceptable for the added class(es).

 

See 37 C.F.R. §§2.34(a)(1), 2.71(c), 2.86(a); TMEP §§1403.01, 1403.02(c).

 

The specimen(s) of record is acceptable for International Class(es) 09 only.

 

If the applicant has any questions or needs assistance regarding this action, please telephone the assigned examining attorney.

 

 

 

 

/Frank J Lattuca/

Trademark Examining Attorney

Law Office 109

Tel: (571) 270-1518

Fax:  (571) 273-9109

 

 

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 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.

 

 

 

 

 

                                                                

IMPORTANT NOTICE

USPTO OFFICE ACTION HAS ISSUED ON 6/9/2008 FOR

APPLICATION SERIAL NO. 77326700

 

Please follow the instructions below to continue the prosecution of your application:

  

VIEW OFFICE ACTION: Click on this link http://tmportal.gov.uspto.report/external/portal/tow?DDA=Y&serial_number=77326700&doc_type=OOA&mail_date=20080609 (or copy and paste this URL into the address field of your browser), or visit http://tmportal.gov.uspto.report/external/portal/tow and enter the application serial number to access the Office action.

 

PLEASE NOTE: The Office action may not be immediately available but will be viewable within 24 hours of this notification.

 

RESPONSE MAY BE REQUIRED: You should carefully review the Office action to determine (1) if a response is required; (2) how to respond; and (3) the applicable response time period. Your response deadline will be calculated from 6/9/2008.

 

Do NOT hit “Reply” to this e-mail notification, or otherwise attempt to e-mail your response, as the USPTO does NOT accept e-mailed responses.  Instead, the USPTO recommends that you respond online using the Trademark Electronic Application System response form at http://www.gov.uspto.report/teas/eTEASpageD.htm.

 

HELP: For technical assistance in accessing the Office action, please e-mail

TDR@uspto.gov.  Please contact the assigned examining attorney with questions about the Office action. 

 

        WARNING

1. The USPTO will NOT send a separate e-mail with the Office action attached.

 

2. Failure to file any required response by the applicable deadline will result in the ABANDONMENT of your application.