| To: | South of Market Merchants' and Individua ETC. (info@hiaringlaw.com) |
| Subject: | TRADEMARK APPLICATION NO. 77394706 - FOLSOM - FOLSOM 1.1 |
| Sent: | 5/22/2008 7:25:52 PM |
| Sent As: | ECOM114@USPTO.GOV |
| Attachments: | Attachment - 1 Attachment - 2 Attachment - 3 Attachment - 4 |
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
|
SERIAL NO: 77/394706
MARK: FOLSOM
|
|
|
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: South of Market Merchants' and Individua ETC.
|
|
|
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: 5/22/2008
The referenced application has been reviewed by the assigned trademark examining attorney. Applicant must respond timely and completely to the issue(s) below. 15 U.S.C. §1062(b); 37 C.F.R. §§2.62, 2.65(a); TMEP §§711, 718.03.
The Office records have been searched and there are no similar registered or pending marks that would bar registration under Trademark Act Section 2(d), 15 U.S.C. §1052(d). TMEP §704.02.
SECTION 2(e)(2) REFUSAL – PRIMARILY GEOGRAPHICALLY DESCRIPTIVE
A mark is primarily geographically descriptive when the following is demonstrated:
(1) The primary significance of the mark is a generally known geographic place or location;
(2) The goods and/or services for which applicant seeks registration originate in the geographic place identified in the mark; and
(3) Purchasers would be likely to make a goods-place or services-place association; that is, purchasers would be likely to believe that the goods and/or services originate in the geographic place identified in the mark.
TMEP §1210.01(a); see In re Societe Generale des Eaux Minerales de Vittel S.A., 824 F.2d 957, 959, 3 USPQ2d 1450, 1452 (Fed. Cir. 1987); In re Joint-Stock Co. “Baik,” 80 USPQ2d 1305, 1309 (TTAB 2006).
When there is no genuine issue that the geographical significance of a term is its primary significance, and the geographical place is neither obscure nor remote, a public association of the goods and/or services with the place is presumed if an applicant’s goods and/or services originate in the place named in the mark. TMEP §1210.04; see, e.g., In re Cal. Pizza Kitchen Inc., 10 USPQ2d 1704, 1706 (TTAB 1988) (holding CALIFORNIA PIZZA KITCHEN primarily geographically descriptive of restaurant services rendered in California); In re Handler Fenton Ws., Inc., 214 USPQ 848, 849-50 (TTAB 1982) (holding DENVER WESTERNS primarily geographically descriptive of western-style shirts originating in Denver).
Remoteness or obscurity of a geographic location is determined not in the abstract, but from the point of view of the consumers of the particular goods and/or services. TMEP §1210.04(c); see In re Joint-Stock Co. “Baik,” 80 USPQ2d 1305, 1309-10 (TTAB 2006) (holding that the relevant consumer, purchasers of vodka, including Russian vodka, would likely know the geographic significance of the mark because they are most likely either from Russia, have Russian relatives, or became familiar with Russia when learning the language); In re MCO Props. Inc., 38 USPQ2d 1154, 1155-56 (TTAB 1995) (holding FOUNTAIN HILLS primarily geographically descriptive of real estate development services rendered in Fountain Hills, Arizona, population 10,030, because the record showed Fountain Hills to be the name of the town where applicant was located and rendered its services, and relevant consumers in the real estate market who came into contact with applicant’s promotional brochure specimen would associate the place with the services); cf. In re Societe Generale des Eaux Minerales de Vittel S.A., 824 F.2d 957, 959-60, 3 USPQ2d 1450, 1452-53 (Fed. Cir. 1987) (holding VITTEL and design not primarily geographically descriptive of cosmetic products because evidence that the town had a resort with mineral springs where the water was bottled and distributed was insufficient to show that the bulk of cosmetic purchasers would, upon seeing the word Vittel on a bottle of skin lotion or the like, conclude it was a place name and that the lotion came from there).
/John Hwang/
Trademark Attorney
LAW OFFICE 114
571-272-9452
571-273-9114 FAX
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.
