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  78/459623

 

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

 

Search Results

The Office records have been searched and no similar registered or pending mark has been found that would bar registration under Trademark Act Section 2(d), 15 U.S.C. §1052(d).  TMEP §704.02.

 

Section 2(e)(1) Descriptive Refusal

Registration is refused because the proposed mark merely describes a function and a feature 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).

 

Applicant’s mark “CHILLERCALC” is a combination of “chiller” and “calc,” which literally mean a “calculator” for a “chiller,” or “calculation” in relation to a “chiller.”  See Attachments “calc” (http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/features/dictionary/DictionaryResults.aspx?refid=1861669946) and “calc1” (http://www.infoplease.com/dictionary/calc).  When used on the identified goods, namely “computer software for use in monitoring the efficiency of chiller systems,” the term “chiller calc” would merely point to the “calculator” or “calculation” (“calc”) function in relation to the “chiller systems” (“chiller”) feature of the computer software goods.  When used as such, applicant’s mark would merely describe the identified goods, and the fact that it is a composite term would not remove the mark from its descriptiveness.

 

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).  Here, the term “calc” may mean “calculus” when used in other contexts.  See Attachment “calc2” (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=calc).  However, this would not affect the same term’s descriptiveness when used on the goods in question.

 

Also, a mark that combines descriptive terms may be registrable if the composite creates a unitary mark with a separate, nondescriptive meaning.  However, if each component retains its descriptive significance in relation to the goods or services, the combination results in a composite that is itself descriptive.  In re Tower Tech, Inc., 64 USPQ2d 1314 (TTAB 2002) (SMARTTOWER merely descriptive of “commercial and industrial cooling towers and accessories therefor, sold as a unit”); In re Sun Microsystems Inc., 59 USPQ2d 1084 (TTAB 2001) (AGENTBEANS merely descriptive of computer software for use in development and deployment of application programs on global computer network); In re Putman Publishing Co., 39 USPQ2d 2021 (TTAB 1996) (FOOD & BEVERAGE ONLINE held to be merely descriptive of news and information service for the food processing industry); In re Copytele Inc., 31 USPQ2d 1540 (TTAB 1994) (SCREEN FAX PHONE merely descriptive of “facsimile terminals employing electrophoretic displays”); In re Entenmann’s Inc., 15 USPQ2d 1750 (TTAB 1990), aff’d per curiam, 928 F.2d 411 (Fed. Cir. 1991) (OATNUT held to be merely descriptive of bread containing oats and hazelnuts).  Here, applicant’s mark is a combination of two descriptive terms in relation to the identified goods.  Their composite does not create a unitary mark with a separate, nondescriptive meaning; rather, it merely describes the identified goods, as do the separate terms.

 

Based on the above discussion, the examining attorney refuses registration of applicant’s mark on the Principal Register.

 

Supplemental Register

Although the trademark examining attorney has refused registration on the Principal Register, applicant may respond to the stated refusals under Section 2(e)(1) by amending the application to seek registration on the Supplemental Register.  Trademark Act Section 23, 15 U.S.C. §1091; 37 C.F.R. §§2.47 and 2.75(a); TMEP §§801.02(b), 815 and 816 et seq.

 

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.

 

Although Supplemental Register registration does not afford all the benefits of registration on the Principal Register, it does provide the following advantages:

 

• The registrant may use the registration symbol ®;
• The registration is protected against registration of a confusingly similar mark under §2(d) of the Trademark Act, 15 U.S.C. §1052(d);
• The registrant may bring suit for infringement in federal court; and
• The registration may serve as the basis for a filing in a foreign country under the Paris Convention and other international agreements.

 

If applicant has questions about its application or needs assistance in responding to this Office action, please telephone the assigned trademark examining attorney directly at the number below.

 

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.

 

 

/Dawn Han/

Dawn Han

Trademark Examining Attorney

USPTO  Law Office 113

571-272-9432

dawn.han@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.