To: | Schaaf, Philip, J. (mmorley@kmob.com) |
Subject: | TRADEMARK APPLICATION NO. 78271499 - GRILL - SCHAAF.003T |
Sent: | 1/26/04 9:54:39 AM |
Sent As: | ECom116 |
Attachments: |
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
SERIAL NO: 78/271499
APPLICANT: Schaaf, Philip, J.
|
|
CORRESPONDENT ADDRESS: Marc T. Morley Knobbe, Martens, Olson & Bear LLP 550 West C Street, Suite 1200 San Diego, CA 92101
|
RETURN ADDRESS: Commissioner for Trademarks 2900 Crystal Drive Arlington, VA 22202-3514 ecom116@uspto.gov
|
MARK: GRILL
|
|
CORRESPONDENT’S REFERENCE/DOCKET NO: SCHAAF.003T
CORRESPONDENT EMAIL ADDRESS: mmorley@kmob.com |
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.
|
Serial Number 78/271499
The assigned examining attorney has reviewed the referenced application and determined the following.
Search Results
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.
Section 2(e)(1) - Descriptive Refusal
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 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). Hunter Publishing Co. v. Caulfield Publishing Ltd., 1 USPQ2d 1996 (TTAB 1986); In re Camel Mfg. Co., Inc., 222 USPQ 1031 (TTAB 1984); In re Gentex Corp., 151 USPQ 435 (TTAB 1966).
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 Polo International Inc., 51 USPQ2d 1061 (TTAB 1999) (Board found that 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) (CONCURRENT PC-DOS found merely descriptive of “computer programs recorded on disk;” it is unnecessary that programs actually run “concurrently,” as long as relevant trade clearly uses the denomination “concurrent” as a descriptor of this particular type of operating system); In re Venture Lending Associates, 226 USPQ 285 (TTAB 1985); In re American Greetings Corp., 226 USPQ 365, 366 (TTAB 1985) (“Whether consumers could guess what the product is from consideration of the mark alone is not the test”); TMEP §1209.01(b).
The applicant has applied for the mark “GRILL” for goods identified as “Cleaning devices, namely sponges, scrubbers, pads, cleaning cloths, foams, reticulated polymers and the like”. The term “GRILL” is defined as “A cooking surface of parallel metal bars; a gridiron.” [1] The applicant has chosen this proposed mark for some reason and it is likely that the goods will be used to clean grills or clean the cooking surfaces of grills. A term need not describe all of the purposes, functions, characteristics or features of the goods and/or services to be merely descriptive. For the purpose of a Section 2(e)(1) analysis, it is sufficient that the term describe only one attribute of the goods and/or services to be found merely descriptive. In re H.U.D.D.L.E., 216 USPQ 358 (TTAB 1982); In re MBAssociates, 180 USPQ 338 (TTAB 1973); TMEP §1209.01(b).
Descriptiveness is considered in relation to the relevant goods and/or services. The fact that a term may have different meanings in other contexts is not controlling on the question of descriptiveness. In re Chopper Industries, 222 USPQ 258 (TTAB 1984); In re Bright-Crest, Ltd., 204 USPQ 591 (TTAB 1979); In re Champion International Corp., 183 USPQ 318 (TTAB 1974); TMEP §1209.03(e).
The proposed mark appears to describe what the goods are used for namely, to clean grills. No thought or imagination is required of consumers when considering the mark in relation to the goods to ascertain what the goods are used for or used with. For these reasons, the mark as a whole is unregistrable and registration is refused under Section 2(e)(1) of the Trademark Act.
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 issues.
Identification of Goods
The wording of the identification of goods is too broad because it could include items classified in other classes. The applicant may amend the identification to substitute the following wording, if accurate: TMEP §§1402.01 and 1402.03.
Class 3:
Cleaning foams for [INDICATE surface or item being cleaned e.g. windows, stoves, grills, etc.]; all purpose foam cleansers; reticulated polymer foam oven cleaning preparations.
Class 21:
Cleaning devices, namely, sponges, scrubbers, pads, and cleaning cloths.
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.
Classification
If the applicant adopts the suggested amendment to the identification of goods, the applicant must amend the classification to International Classes 3 and 21. 37 C.F.R. §§2.32(a)(7) and 2.85; TMEP §§805 and 1401 et seq.
Combined Applications
If the applicant prosecutes this application as a combined, or multiple‑class, application, the applicant must comply with each of the following.
(1) The applicant must list the goods/services by international class with the classes listed in ascending numerical order. TMEP §1403.01.
(2) The applicant must submit a filing fee for each international class of goods/services not covered by the fee already paid. 37 C.F.R. §§2.6(a)(1) and 2.86(a); TMEP §§810.01 and 1403.01. Effective January 1, 2003, the fee for filing a trademark application is $335 for each class. This applies to classes added to pending applications as well as to new applications filed on or after that date.
Fee Increase
Fee increase effective January 1, 2003
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 accord a filing date to 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 for classes added on or after January 1, 2003.
Applicant may respond to this Office action using the Office’s Trademark Electronic Application System (TEAS) at <http://www.gov.uspto.report/teas/index.html>. When using TEAS the data the applicant submits is directly uploaded into the Office’s database, which reduces processing time and eliminates the possibility of data entry errors by the Office. Applicants are strongly encouraged to use TEAS to respond to Office actions. Applicants using TEAS should not submit a duplicate paper copy of the response.
If the applicant has any questions or needs assistance in responding to this Office action, please telephone the assigned examining attorney.
/Karen Bracey/
Examining Attorney
Law Office 116
703-306-7914; 703-746-8116 (fax)
ecom116@uspto.gov (formal response only)
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.
FOR INQUIRIES OR QUESTIONS ABOUT THIS OFFICE ACTION, PLEASE CONTACT THE ASSIGNED EXAMINING ATTORNEY.
[1]The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Third Edition copyright © 1992 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Electronic version licensed from INSO Corporation; further reproduction and distribution restricted in accordance with the Copyright Law of the United States. All rights reserved.