Offc Action Outgoing

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE

 

 

OFFICE ACTION

 

TO AVOID ABANDONMENT, WE MUST RECEIVE A PROPER RESPONSE TO THIS OFFICE ACTION WITHIN 6 MONTHS OF OUR MAILING OR E-MAILING DATE. 

 

 

Serial Number  78/143287

 

The assigned trademark examining attorney has reviewed the referenced application and determined the following.

 

 

SEARCH    TMEP §704.02   The trademark 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. Section 1052(d). 

 

 

SECTION 2(E)(1) REFUSAL TMEP §§1209 et seq   Registration is refused on the Principal Register because the proposed mark merely describes the goods.  Trademark Act Section 2(e)(1), 15 U.S.C. Section 1052(e)(1).

 

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.  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).

 

The examining attorney must consider whether a mark is merely descriptive in relation to the identified goods, not in the abstract.  In re Omaha National Corp., 819 F.2d 1117, 2 USPQ2d 1859 (Fed. Cir. 1987); In re Abcor Development Corp., 588 F.2d 811, 200 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1978); In re Venture Lending Associates, 226 USPQ 285 (TTAB 1985).

Specifically, the proposed mark, THE BEST CIGAR FOR THE MOST PEOPLE is laudatorily descriptive.

Laudatory terms, those which attribute quality or excellence to goods or services, are equivalent to other descriptive terms under Trademark Act Section 2(e)(1), 15 U.S.C. Section 1052(e)(1). That is, laudatory terms are nondistinctive and unregistrable without proof of acquired distinctiveness.  In re Nett Designs, Inc., 57 USPQ2d 1564 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (THE ULTIMATE BIKE RACK); The Hoover Co. v. Royal Applicance Mfg. Co., 57 USPQ2d 1720  (Fed. Cir. 2001) (NUMBER ONE IN FLOOR CARE); Exquisite Form Industries, Inc. v. Exquisite Fabrics of London, 378 F. Supp. 403, 183 USPQ 666 (S.D.N.Y. 1974) (EXQUISITE); In re Best Software Inc., 58 USPQ2d 1314 (TTAB 2001) (PREMIER and BEST);  In re Ervin, 1 USPQ2d 1665 (TTAB 1986) (THE ORIGINAL); In re Inter-State Oil Co., 219 USPQ 1229 (TTAB 1983) (PREFERRED); In re Royal Viking Line A/S, 216 USPQ 795 (TTAB 1982) (WORLD CLASS); In re Wileswood, Inc., 201 USPQ 400 (TTAB 1978) (AMERICA'S BEST POPCORN! and AMERICA'S FAVORITE POPCORN!).

In re Consolidated Cigar Co. (TTAB) 35 USPQ2d 1290 (3/30/1995)    

 

 

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.  If the applicant chooses to respond to the refusal to register, the applicant must also respond to the following.

 

 

Limited Partnership – Names and Citizenship of Partners   The applicant must specify the names and the national citizenship or the state or country of organization or incorporation of the partners of the limited partnership  37 C.F.R. Section 2.33(a)(1)(ii); TMEP sections 803.03(b) and 803.04.

The following format should be used:

 Pinkerton Tobacco Co. LP  Limited Partnership organized under the laws of  Delaware composed of ________________." (specify the names and national citizenship or the state or country of incorporation of the partners.)

 

 

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.

 

 

 

 

/leb/  Linda E. Blohm,  Trademark Examining Attorney

Ecom110@uspto.gov (the law office email address for OFFICIAL responses ONLY)

Linda.Blohm@uspto.gov 703.308.9110 ext.130

Facsimile 703.746.6340 / 703.746.8110

 

 

 

How to respond to this Office Action:

 

To respond formally using the Office’s Trademark Electronic Application System (TEAS), visit http://www.gov.uspto.report/teas/index.html and follow the instructions.

 

To respond formally via E-mail, visit http://www.gov.uspto.report/web/trademarks/tmelecresp.htm and follow the instructions.

 

To respond formally via regular mail, your response should be sent to the mailing Return Address listed above and include the serial number, law office and examining attorney’s name on the upper right corner of each page of your response.

 

To check the status of your application at any time, visit the Office’s Trademark Applications and Registrations Retrieval (TARR) system at http://tarr.gov.uspto.report/

 

For general and other useful information about trademarks, you are encouraged to visit the Office’s web site at http://www.gov.uspto.report/main/trademarks.htm

 

For inquiries or questions about this office action, please contact the assigned examining attorney.

 

 

Increase in Trademark Filing Fee

Effective January 1, 2003, the fee for filing an application for trademark registration will be increased to $335.00 per International Class.  The USPTO will not accept applications that are filed on or after that date that are not accompanied by a minimum of $335.00.

 

Additionally, the fee for amending an existing application to add an additional class or classes of goods/services will be $335.00 per class.

 

A Final Rule amending the Rules of Practice in Trademark Cases to provide for this fee increase was published in the Federal Register on November 27, 2002 (67 Fed. Reg. 70,847 (2002)). <http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/14mar20010800/edocket.access.gpo.gov/2002/02-30086.htm>>