United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO)
Office Action (Official Letter) About Applicant’s Trademark Application
|
U.S. Application Serial No. 79292761
Mark: ASUS
|
|
|
Correspondence Address: |
|
|
Applicant: PANO GmbH
|
|
|
Reference/Docket No. N/A
Correspondence Email Address: |
|
NONFINAL OFFICE ACTION
International Registration No. 1548131
Notice of Provisional Full Refusal
Deadline for responding. The USPTO must receive applicant’s response within six months of the “date on which the notification was sent to WIPO (mailing date)” located on the WIPO cover letter, or the U.S. application will be abandoned. To confirm the mailing date, go to the USPTO’s Trademark Status and Document Retrieval (TSDR) database, select “US Serial, Registration, or Reference No.,” enter the U.S. application serial number in the blank text box, and click on “Documents.” The mailing date used to calculate the response deadline is the “Create/Mail Date” of the “IB-1rst Refusal Note.”
Respond to this Office action using the USPTO’s Trademark Electronic Application System (TEAS). A link to the appropriate TEAS response form appears at the end of this Office action.
Discussion of provisional full refusal. This is a provisional full refusal of the request for extension of protection to the United States of the international registration, known in the United States as a U.S. application based on Trademark Act Section 66(a). See 15 U.S.C. §§1141f(a), 1141h(c).
Database Search: The trademark examining attorney searched the USPTO database of registered and pending marks and found no conflicting marks that would bar registration under Trademark Act Section 2(d). 15 U.S.C. §1052(d); TMEP §704.02.
Summary of Issues Applicant Must Address
Refusal Based on Trademark Act Section 2(e)(4) – Surname Significance of the Mark
Registration is refused because the applied-for mark is primarily merely a surname. Trademark Act Section 2(e)(4), 15 U.S.C. §1052(e)(4); see TMEP §1211.
An applicant’s mark is primarily merely a surname if the surname, when viewed in connection with the applicant’s recited goods and/or services, “‘is the primary significance of the mark as a whole to the purchasing public.’” Earnhardt v. Kerry Earnhardt, Inc., 864 F.3d 1374, 1377, 123 USPQ2d 1411, 1413 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (quoting In re Hutchinson Tech. Inc., 852 F.2d 552, 554, 7 USPQ2d 1490, 1492 (Fed. Cir. 1988)); TMEP §1211.01.
The following five inquiries are often used to determine the public’s perception of a term’s primary significance:
(1) Whether the surname is rare;
(2) Whether anyone connected with applicant uses the term as a surname;
(3) Whether the term has any recognized meaning other than as a surname;
(4) Whether the term has the structure and pronunciation of a surname; and
(5) Whether the term is sufficiently stylized to remove its primary significance from that of a surname.
In re Eximius Coffee, LLC, 120 USPQ2d 1276, 1278 & n.2, 1282-83 (TTAB 2016) (citing In re Benthin Mgmt. GmbH, 37 USPQ2d 1332, 1333-34 (TTAB 1995) for the Benthin inquiries/factors); TMEP §1211.01; see also In re Etablissements Darty et Fils, 759 F.2d 15, 16-18, 225 USPQ 652, 653 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
These inquiries are not exclusive, and any of these circumstances – singly or in combination – and any other relevant circumstances may be considered when making this determination. In re Eximius Coffee, LLC, 120 USPQ2d at 1277-78; TMEP §1211.01. For example, when the applied-for mark is not stylized, it is unnecessary to consider the fifth inquiry. In re Yeley, 85 USPQ2d 1150, 1151 (TTAB 2007); TMEP §1211.01.
The attached evidence from the LEXISNEXIS® surname database establishes the surname significance of ASUS. This evidence, consisting of a sample of 30 entries, shows that the applied-for mark appears 336 times as a surname in the database, which is a weekly updated directory of cell phone and other phone numbers (such as voice over IP) from various data providers. The term ASUS does not appear to have any other meaning, and the mark appears in standard characters without any stylization.
For these reasons, the examining attorney finds that because the mark is primarily merely a surname, registration of the applicant's mark is barred under Section 2(e)(4) of the Trademark Act. Although the applicant’s mark has been refused registration, the applicant may respond to the refusal by submitting evidence and arguments in support of registration.
Additional Information about the Mark
To permit proper examination of the application, the applicant must indicate whether the name ASUS identifies a person associated with the applicant’s business. See 37 C.F.R. §2.61(b); TMEP §814.
The applicant should note that a term that is the surname of an individual applicant or that of an officer, founder, owner, or principal of applicant’s business is probative evidence of the term’s surname significance. TMEP §1211.02(b)(iv); see, e.g., In re Etablissements Darty et Fils, 759 F.2d 15, 16, 225 USPQ 652, 653 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (holding DARTY primarily merely a surname where “Darty” was the surname of applicant’s corporate president); In re Eximius Coffee, LLC, 120 USPQ2d 1276, 1278-80 (TTAB 2016) (holding ALDECOA primarily merely a surname where ALDECOA was the surname of the founder and individuals continuously involved in the business); In re Integrated Embedded, 120 USPQ2d 1504, 1507 (TTAB 2016) (holding BARR GROUP primarily merely a surname where BARR was the surname of the co-founder and applicant’s corporate officer and GROUP was found “incapable of lending source-identifying significance to the mark”); Miller v. Miller, 105 USPQ2d 1615, 1620, 1622-23 (TTAB 2013) (holding MILLER LAW GROUP primarily merely a surname where “Miller” was the surname of the applicant and the term “law group” was found generic).
Applicant’s Response to Surname Refusal
In response to the surname refusal, the applicant may wish to claim acquired distinctiveness of the mark under Trademark Act Section 2(f). A mark deemed primarily merely a surname may be registered on the Principal Register under Trademark Act Section 2(f) by satisfying one of the following:
1) Submit a claim of ownership of one or more active prior registrations on the Principal Register for a mark that is the same as the mark in the application and for the same or related goods and/or services. 37 C.F.R. §2.41(a)(1); TMEP §§1212, 1212.04. The following wording is suggested: “The mark has become distinctive of the goods and/or services as evidenced by the ownership of active U. S. Registration No. [indicate] on the Principal Register for the same mark for sufficiently similar goods and/or services.” TMEP § 1212.04(e).
2) Submit the following statement, verified with an affidavit or signed declaration under 37 C.F.R. 37 §2,20: “The mark has become distinctive of the goods and/or services through the applicant’s substantially exclusive and continuous use of the mark in commerce that the U.S. Congress may lawfully regulate for at least five years immediately before the date of this statement.” 37 C.F.R. §2.41(a)(1); TMEP §§1212.05(d), see 37 C.F.R. §2.193(e)(1).; or
3) Submit actual evidence of acquired distinctiveness. 37 C.F.R. §2.41(a)(3); TMEP §§1212.06. Such evidence may include the following: examples of advertising and promotional materials that specifically promote the applied-for mark as a trademark and/or service mark in the United States; dollar figures for advertising devoted to such promotion; dealer and consumer statements of recognition of the applied-for mark as a trademark and/or service mark; and any other evidence that establishes recognition of the applied-for mark as a source-identifier for the goods and/or services. See In re Ideal Indus., Inc., 508 F.2d 1336, 184 USPQ 487 (C.C.P.A. 1975); In re Instant Transations Corp. of Am., 201 USPQ 957 (TTAB 1979); TMEP §§1212.06 et. seq.
Trademark Act Section 2(f), 15 U.S.C. §1052(f); see 37 C.F.R. §2.41; TMEP §§1211, 1212.
Identification of Goods
The identification of goods is unacceptable because the following wording is indefinite:
Class 7
machines and apparatus for polishing [electric]; hand-held tools, other than hand-operated; lawnmowers [machines]; grinders [hand-held power driven]; shredders [power lawn and garden tools]; rinsing machines
Class 11
fittings for sanitary purposes; heaters powered by solar energy; ventilation devices powered by solar energy; electrically operated devices for cooling
Class 12
electrically powered scooters; cycles; motorized scooters; motorized and non-motorized scooters
See 37 C.F.R. §2.32(a)(6); TMEP §1402.01.
Regarding the Class 11 wording, the applicant must indicate the specific types of fittings, the specific types of ventilation devices, and the specific items heated or cooled.
Finally, for the Class 12 goods, the applicant must indicate the specific types of scooters and cycles, as indicated below.
To resolve this issue, the applicant may adopt the following identification and classification, if accurate (added wording given in bold):
For assistance with identifying and classifying goods and services in trademark applications, please see the USPTO’s online searchable U.S. Acceptable Identification of Goods and Services Manual. See TMEP §1402.04.
Applicant Must Be Represented by a U.S.-Licensed Attorney
The applicant must be represented by a U.S.-licensed attorney at the USPTO to respond to or appeal the provisional refusal. An applicant whose domicile is located outside of the United States or its territories is foreign-domiciled and must be represented at the USPTO by an attorney who is an active member in good standing of the bar of the highest court of a U.S. state or territory. 37 C.F.R. §§2.11(a), 11.14; Requirement of U.S.-Licensed Attorney for Foreign-Domiciled Trademark Applicants & Registrants, Examination Guide 4-19, at I.A. (Rev. Sept. 2019). An individual applicant’s domicile is the place a person resides and intends to be the person’s principal home. 37 C.F.R. §2.2(o); Examination Guide 4-19, at I.A. A juristic entity’s domicile is the principal place of business; i.e., headquarters, where a juristic entity applicant’s senior executives or officers ordinarily direct and control the entity’s activities. 37 C.F.R. §2.2(o); Examination Guide 4-19, at I.A. Because applicant is foreign-domiciled, applicant must appoint such a U.S.-licensed attorney qualified to practice under 37 C.F.R. §11.14 as its representative before the application may proceed to registration. 37 C.F.R. §2.11(a). See Hiring a U.S.-licensed trademark attorney for more information.
Only a U.S.-licensed attorney can take action on an application on behalf of a foreign-domiciled applicant. 37 C.F.R. §2.11(a). Accordingly, the USPTO will not communicate further with applicant about the application beyond this Office action or permit applicant to make future submissions in this application. And applicant is not authorized to make amendments to the application.
To appoint or designate a U.S.-licensed attorney. To appoint an attorney, applicant should submit a completed Trademark Electronic Application System (TEAS) Change Address or Representation form. The newly-appointed attorney must submit a TEAS Response to Examining Attorney Office Action form indicating that an appointment of attorney has been made and address all other refusals or requirements in this action, if any. Alternatively, if applicant retains an attorney before filing the response, the attorney can respond to this Office action by using the appropriate TEAS response form and provide his or her attorney information in the form and sign it as applicant’s attorney. See 37 C.F.R. §2.17(b)(1)(ii).
How to respond. Click to file a response to this nonfinal Office action.
/Leigh Caroline Case/
Examining Attorney
Law Office 112
(571) 272-9140
leigh.case@uspto.gov
(800) 786-9199 (Trademark Assistance Center)
RESPONSE GUIDANCE