Offc Action Outgoing

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE

 

 

 

OFFICE ACTION

 

RESPONSE TIME LIMIT:  TO AVOID ABANDONMENT, THE OFFICE MUST RECEIVE A PROPER RESPONSE TO THIS OFFICE ACTION WITHIN 6 MONTHS OF THE MAILING OR E-MAILING DATE. 

 

MAILING/E-MAILING DATE INFORMATION:  If the mailing or e-mailing date of this Office action does not appear above, this information can be obtained by visiting the USPTO website at http://tarr.gov.uspto.report/, inserting the application serial number, and viewing the prosecution history for the mailing date of the most recently issued Office communication.

 

Serial Number  78/664287

 

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.

 

Mark Does Not Function as a Trademark: Purely Ornamental

 

Registration is refused on the Principal Register because the proposed mark, as used on the specimen of record, is solely decorative or ornamental in nature and would not be perceived as a mark by the purchasing public.  Moreover, because the proposed mark is solely decorative or ornamental, it appears incapable of functioning as a source-identifier for applicant’s goods.  Trademark Act Sections 1, 2 and 45, 15 U.S.C. §§1051, 1052 and 1127; Damn I’m Good Inc. v. Sakowitz, Inc., 514 F. Supp. 1357, 212 USPQ 684 (S.D.N.Y. 1981) (DAMN I’M GOOD, inscribed in large letters on bracelets and used on hang tags affixed to the goods, found to be without source-indicating significance); In re Petersen Mfg. Co., 2 USPQ2d 2032 (TTAB 1987) (design representing the rear panel of a container for hand tools held unregistrable as merely ornamental, notwithstanding §2(f) claim); In re Original Red Plate Co., 223 USPQ 836 (TTAB 1984) (YOU ARE SPECIAL TODAY for ceramic plates found to be without any source-indicating significance); In re Tilcon Warren, Inc., 221 USPQ 86 (TTAB 1983) (WATCH THAT CHILD held not to function as a mark for construction material notwithstanding long use, where the only use was on the bumpers of construction vehicles in which the goods were transported); TMEP §§1202.03 et seq.

 

The specimen consists of a picture of a t-shirt with applicant’s mark in large writing located in the middle of the shirt, and the proposed mark is ornamental as used on the specimen because the mark, as a slogan and located in such large wording in the middle of the shirt would not be perceived as a mark/source indicator by the purchasing public.  In connection with wording that is ornamental, “the size, location, dominance, and significance of the alleged mark as applied to the goods” are all relevant factors to consider in determining whether the proposed mark is inherently distinctive.  In re Pro-Line Corp., 28 USPQ2d 1141, 1142 (TTAB 1993); In re Astro-Gods Inc., 223 USPQ 621, 623 (TTAB 1984).  Furthermore, as to the size of the proposed mark appearing on the specimens, the larger the display relative to the size of the goods, the more likely that consumers will not view the ornamental matter as a mark.  See, e.g., In re Dimitri’s Inc., 9 USPQ2d 1666, 1667 (TTAB 1988) (SUMO merely ornamental in part because the wording “appears in large lettering across the top-center portion of the T-shirts and caps”); International Order of Job’s Daughters v. Lindberg and Co., 633 F.2d 912, 208 USPQ 718 (9^th Cir. 1980), cert denied 452 U.S. 941 (1982) (prominent display on jewelry was evidence that the proposed mark was being used in a non-trademark fashion).  Finally, although there is no prescribed method or place for affixation of a mark to goods, the location of a mark on the goods “is part of the environment in which the [mark] is perceived by the public and … may influence how [the mark] is perceived.”  In re Tilcon Warren Inc., 221 USPQ 86, 88 (TTAB 1984); see In re Paramount Pictures Corp., 213 USPQ 1111, 1115 (TTAB 1982).  Thus, where consumers have been conditioned to recognize trademarks in a certain location, as on the breast area of a shirt, ornamental matter placed in a different location is less likely to be perceived as an indication of source.  See TMEP §1202.03(b).  As such, the mark’s large writing, central location, and no connection to applcant’s goods make this mark incapable of serving as a source indicator.

 

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.

 

Optional Amendment to Supplemental Register

 

Although the trademark examining attorney has refused registration on the Principal Register, applicant may respond to the stated refusal 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.

 

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.

 

/Woodrow Hartzog/

Woodrow N. Hartzog

Trademark Examining Attorney

Law Office 113

Phone (571) 272-8853

Fax (571) 273-8853

 

 

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 has been 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.