Offc Action Outgoing

[Important Email Information]

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  78/447300

 

The assigned trademark examining attorney has reviewed the referenced application filed on July 7, 2004, and has 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.

 

 

THE PROPOSED MARK IS MERELY DESCRIPTIVE

 

Registration is refused because the proposed mark merely describes  a feature  or function intended audience of applicant’s goods.  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).

 

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).

 

The applicant applied to register the mark COASTING  in connection with bicycle parts.  This mark is merely descriptive of the goods because it appears to tell consumers that the parts are intended to enhance coasting abilities, or for use on coasting bikes.  The examining attorney has attached five website excerpts that discuss coasting and parts, such as hubs, that enhance this ability.  Others in the industry use this term to name a function performed  by bicycles and their parts.  Therefore, the examining attorney refuses registration on the Principal Register on the basis that the mark is merely descriptive of the goods.

 

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 informalities.

 

SUPPLEMENTAL REGISTER

 

A mark in an application under Trademark Act Section 1(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 filed.  37 C.F.R. §§2.47(d) and 2.75(b); TMEP §1102.03.  When a Section 1(b) application is amended 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); 37 C.F.R. §2.75(b); TMEP §§206.01 and 1102.03.

 

INDUSTRY SIGNIFICANCE

Applicant must submit the following to permit proper examination of the application.  37 C.F.R. §2.61(b); TMEP §§814 and 1402.01(d). 

 

The applicant must indicate what, if any, industry significance there is for the mark.  37 C.F.R. Section 2.61(b); TMEP sections 808.03(c) and 809.   

 

Trademark Rule 2.61(b) states: "The examiner may require the applicant to furnish such information and exhibits as may be reasonably necessary to the proper examination of the application".  The Trademark Trial and Appeal Board has upheld a refusal of registration based on the applicant's failure to provide information requested under this rule.  In re Babies Beat Inc., 13 USPQ2d 1729 (TTAB 1990)(failure to submit patent information regarding configuration). 

 

 

NOTICE:  FEE CHANGE   

 

Effective January 31, 2005 and pursuant to the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2005, Pub. L. 108-447, the following are the fees that will be charged for filing a trademark application:

 

(1) $325 per international class if filed electronically using the Trademark Electronic Application System (TEAS); or 

 

(2)   $375 per international class if filed on paper

 

These fees will be charged not only when a new application is filed, but also when payments are made to add classes to an existing application. If such payments are submitted with a TEAS response, the fee will be  $325 per class, and if such payments are made with a paper response, the fee will be $375 per class.

 

The new fee requirements will apply to any fees filed on or after January 31, 2005.

 

NOTICE:  TRADEMARK OPERATION RELOCATION

 

The Trademark Operation has relocated to Alexandria, Virginia.  Effective October 4, 2004, all Trademark-related paper mail (except documents sent to the Assignment Services Division for recordation, certain documents filed under the Madrid Protocol, and requests for copies of trademark documents) must be sent to:

 

Commissioner for Trademarks

P.O. Box 1451

Alexandria, VA  22313-1451

 

Applicants, attorneys and other Trademark customers are strongly encouraged to correspond with the USPTO online via the Trademark Electronic Application System (TEAS), at http://www.gov.uspto.report/teas/index.html.

 

 

/egk/

Elissa Garber Kon

Attorney, Law Office 106

phone: (571)-272-9181

fax: (571) 273-9181

email:  elissagarber.kon@uspto.gov

 

 

HOW TO RESPOND TO THIS OFFICE ACTION:

• ONLINE RESPONSE:  You may respond formally using the Office’s Trademark Electronic Application System (TEAS) Response to Office Action form (visit http://www.gov.uspto.report/teas/index.html and follow the instructions, but if the Office Action issued via email you must wait 72 hours after receipt of the Office Action to respond via TEAS).
• REGULAR MAIL RESPONSE:  To respond by regular mail, your response should be sent to the mailing return address above and include the serial number, law office number and examining attorney’s name in your response.

 

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

 

VIEW APPLICATION DOCUMENTS ONLINE: Documents in the electronic file for pending applications can be viewed and downloaded online at http://portal.gov.uspto.report/external/portal/tow.

 

GENERAL TRADEMARK INFORMATION: For general information about trademarks, please visit the Office’s website at http://www.gov.uspto.report/main/trademarks.htm

 

FOR INQUIRIES OR QUESTIONS ABOUT THIS OFFICE ACTION, PLEASE CONTACT THE ASSIGNED EXAMINING ATTORNEY SPECIFIED ABOVE.

 

 

Note:

 

In order to avoid size limitation constraints on large e-mail messages, this Office Action has been split into 3 smaller e-mail messages.  The Office Action in its entirety consists of this message as well as the following attachments that you will receive in separate messages:

 

Email 1 includes the following 13 attachments  

1. coast1-01  

2. coast1-02  

3. coast1-03  

4. coast1-04  

5. coast1-05  

6. coast1-06  

7. coast1-07  

8. coast1-08  

9. coast1-09  

10. coast1-10  

11. coast1-1  

12. coast1-2  

13. coast2-1   

 

Email 2 includes the following 15 attachments  

1. coast2-2  

2. coast2-3  

3. coast2-4  

4. coast3-1  

5. coast3-2  

6. coast3-3  

7. coast3-4  

8. coast3-5  

9. coast3-6  

10. coast3-7  

11. coast3-8  

12. coast3-9  

13. coast4-1  

14. coast4-2  

15. coast4-3  

 

Email 3 includes the following 6 attachments  

1. coast4-4  

2. coast4-5  

3. coast5-1  

4. coast5-2  

5. coast5-3  

6. coast5-4  

 

Please ensure that you receive all of the aforementioned attachments, and if you do not, please contact the assigned-examining attorney.