To: | VNU Media Measurement & Information, Inc ETC. (docket@marshallip.com) |
Subject: | TRADEMARK APPLICATION NO. 78344357 - VIM - 30736/60005 |
Sent: | 7/20/04 11:28:58 AM |
Sent As: | ECom113 |
Attachments: | Attachment - 1 Attachment - 2 Attachment - 3 Attachment - 4 Attachment - 5 Attachment - 6 |
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
SERIAL NO: 78/344357
APPLICANT: VNU Media Measurement & Information, Inc ETC.
|
*78344357* |
CORRESPONDENT ADDRESS: Michael R. Graham Marshall, Gerstein & Borun LLP 6300 Sears Tower 233 South Wacker Drive Chicago, IL 60606
|
RETURN ADDRESS: Commissioner for Trademarks 2900 Crystal Drive Arlington, VA 22202-3514
|
MARK: VIM
|
|
CORRESPONDENT’S REFERENCE/DOCKET NO: 30736/60005
CORRESPONDENT EMAIL ADDRESS: docket@marshallip.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 78/344357
The assigned examining attorney has reviewed the referenced application and determined the following:
Section 2(e)(1) Refusal—Mark is Merely Descriptive
Registration is refused because the proposed mark merely describes a feature of the applicant’s 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 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).
A term need not describe all of the purposes, functions, characteristics or features of the 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 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).
The applicant seeks to register the mark VIM for market research services. The examining attorney has attached copies of web pages and search results, obtained via an Internet search using the Google® search engine, showing descriptive usage of VIM in relation to market research services. According to these materials, VIM is an acronym for Vertical Industry Marketing, which is a marketing strategy that focuses marketing efforts on whole industries (i.e., financial services, health services, telecommunications). Vertical Industry Marketing requires specialized knowledge of particular industries. Presumably, the applicant’s market research services involve market research of specific industries and/or are used by clients who wish to take a Vertical Industry Marketing approach to sales of their products and services. Thus, VIM describes a function and purpose of the applicant’s services, the mark is merely descriptive, and registration of the mark is refused.
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.
Although an amendment to the Supplemental Register would normally be an appropriate response to this refusal, such a response is not appropriate in the present case until an acceptable allegation of use is filed. The instant application was filed under Trademark Act Section 1(b), 15 U.S.C. §1051(b), and 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(d); TMEP §815.02, 816.02 and 1102.03.
If applicant files an allegation of use and also amends to the Supplemental Register, please note that the effective filing date of the application will then be the date of filing of the allegation of use. 37 C.F.R. §2.75(b); TMEP §§206.01 and 816.02.
If the applicant has any questions or needs assistance in responding to this Office Action, please contact the assigned examining attorney.
/Kimberly Frye/
Kimberly Frye
Trademark Examining Attorney
Law Office 113
(703) 308-9113 ext. 125
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 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.