To: | RA Brands, L.L.C. (trademarkswinston@wcsr.com) |
Subject: | TRADEMARK APPLICATION NO. 78907947 - CUSTOM CARRY - 27584.0098.3 |
Sent: | 11/17/2006 7:52:26 PM |
Sent As: | ECOM105@USPTO.GOV |
Attachments: | Attachment - 1 Attachment - 2 |
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
SERIAL NO: 78/907947
APPLICANT: RA Brands, L.L.C.
|
|
CORRESPONDENT ADDRESS: |
RETURN ADDRESS: Commissioner for Trademarks P.O. Box 1451 Alexandria, VA 22313-1451
|
MARK: CUSTOM CARRY
|
|
CORRESPONDENT’S REFERENCE/DOCKET NO: 27584.0098.3
CORRESPONDENT EMAIL ADDRESS: |
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.
|
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 78/907947
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 use or characteristic of the goods, as knives that are associated with a custom carry system or use. Trademark Act Section 2(e)(1), 15 U.S.C. §1052(e)(1); TMEP §§1209 et seq. See the attached Google search information showing relevant merely descriptive use of the proposed mark as applied to knives. The Trademark Trial and Appeal Board has held that materials obtained through computerized text searching are competent evidence to show the descriptive use of terms under Trademark Act Section 2(e)(1), 15 U.S.C. §1052(e)(1). In re National Data Corp., 222 USPQ 515, 517 n.3 (TTAB 1984); TMEP §710.01(a).
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).
If applicant chooses to respond to the refusal(s) to register, then applicant must also respond to the following requirement(s).
Request for Information
To aid in the examination of this application, and not merely for description of the goods, applicant must submit any informative literature regarding the goods, for which applicant has asserted a bona fide intent to use the mark. 37 C.F.R. Section 2.61(b); TMEP section 814. If none are available applicant must so state for the record.
Supplemental Register
Although an amendment to the Supplemental Register would normally be an appropriate response to a refusal under Trademark Act Section 2(e)(1), 15 U.S.C. §1052(e)(1), such a response is not appropriate in the present case until an acceptable amendment to allege use under 37 C.F.R. §2.76 has been timely 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 has been timely filed. 37 C.F.R. §2.47(d); TMEP §§815.02, 816.02 and 1102.03. If applicant files an acceptable amendment to allege use, applicant may respond to the stated refusal under Trademark Act Section 2(e)(1), 15 U.S.C. §1052(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),
If applicant files an amendment to allege 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 amendment to allege 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:
TEAS PLUS APPLICANTS MUST SUBMIT DOCUMENTS ELECTRONICALLY OR SUBMIT FEE:
TEAS Plus applicants should submit the following documents using the Trademark Electronic Application System (TEAS) at http://www.gov.uspto.report/teas/index.html: (1) written responses to Office actions; (2) preliminary amendments; (3) changes of correspondence address; (4) changes of owner’s address; (5) appointments and revocations of attorney; (6) amendments to allege use; (7) statements of use; (8) requests for extension of time to file a statement of use, and (9) requests to delete a §1(b) basis. If any of these documents are filed on paper, they must be accompanied by a $50 per class fee. 37 C.F.R. §§2.6(a)(1)(iv) and 2.23(a)(i). Telephone responses will not incur an additional fee. NOTE: In addition to the above, applicant must also continue to accept correspondence from the Office via e-mail throughout the examination process in order to avoid the additional fee. 37 C.F.R. §2.23(a)(2).
/Fred Mandir/
Examining Attorney
Law Office 105
(571) 272-9192
HOW TO RESPOND TO THIS OFFICE ACTION:
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.