Offc Action Outgoing

ISDP

HUAWEI TECHNOLOGIES CO., LTD.

Offc Action Outgoing

United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO)

Office Action (Official Letter) About Applicant’s Trademark Application

 

U.S. Application Serial No. 79304936

 

Mark:  ISDP

 

 

 

 

Correspondence Address: 

CHANG TSI & PARTNERS

Room 701, Floor 7, Building 17,

Bei Zhan Bei Jie Street,

100044 Beijing

CHINA

 

 

Applicant:  HUAWEI TECHNOLOGIES CO., LTD.

 

 

 

Reference/Docket No. N/A

 

Correspondence Email Address: 

 

 

 

 

NONFINAL OFFICE ACTION

 

International Registration No. 1577111

 

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 (see http://www.gov.uspto.report/trademarks-application-process/abandoned-applications for information on abandonment).  To confirm the mailing date, go to the USPTO’s Trademark Status and Document Retrieval (TSDR) database at http://tsdr.gov.uspto.report/, 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). 

 

The referenced application has been reviewed by the assigned trademark examining attorney.  Applicant must respond timely and completely to the issue(s) below.  15 U.S.C. §1062(b); 37 C.F.R. §§2.62(a), 2.65(a); TMEP §§711, 718.03.

 

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:

 

  • Identification of goods not acceptable as is
  • Meaning of letters query
  • Description of the mark required
  • Email address required
  • US counsel required

 

Madrid Application – Identification of Goods Not Acceptable

 

The identification of goods is indefinite and must be clarified because some of the goods are not identified specifically enough.  See 37 C.F.R. §2.32(a)(6); TMEP §1402.01. 

 

Additionally, the identification for “computer programs recorded” in International Class 009 is indefinite and must be clarified to specify the purpose or function of the software and its content or field of use, if content- or field- specific. (Note:  the applicant has already identified the software/programmes as recorded).  See 37 C.F.R. §2.32(a)(6); TMEP §§1402.03(d), 1402.11(a). 

 

The identification of goods contains brackets and parentheses.  Generally, applicants should not use parentheses and brackets in identifications in their applications so as to avoid confusion with the USPTO’s practice of using parentheses and brackets in registrations to indicate goods that have been deleted from registrations or in an affidavit of incontestability to indicate goods not claimed.  See TMEP §1402.12. 

 

Therefore, applicant must remove the brackets and parentheses from the identification and incorporate any parenthetical or bracketed information into the description of the goods.

 

Applicant may adopt the following identification, if accurate: 

 

Computer programs, recorded for {specify the purpose or function of the software and its content or field of use, if content- or field- specific}; protective helmets; anti-glare glasses; computer hardware; security surveillance robots; camcorders; head-mounted video display; safety goggles; headgear being protective helmets; computers; data processing apparatus; smartglasses as a data processing apparatus; Central processing units (CPU); video monitor; cameras; computer monitors; humanoid robots with artificial intelligence; face recognition device; network communication equipment, namely, {specify the common commercial name of the equipment, e.g. reconfigurable processors for use in wireless communication handsets and network equipment in the field of wideband communications}; virtual reality headsets.

 

If no suggestion was made to any of the wording above, then that wording is acceptable as is.

 

Applicant may amend the identification to clarify or limit the goods and/or services, but not to broaden or expand the goods and/or services beyond those in the original application or as acceptably amended.  See 37 C.F.R. §2.71(a); TMEP §1402.06.  Generally, any deleted goods and/or services may not later be reinserted.  See TMEP §1402.07(e).  Additionally, for applications filed under Trademark Act Section 66(a), the scope of the identification for purposes of permissible amendments is limited by the international class assigned by the International Bureau of the World Intellectual Property Organization (International Bureau); and the classification of goods and/or services may not be changed from that assigned by the International Bureau.  37 C.F.R. §2.85(d); TMEP §§1401.03(d), 1904.02(b).  Further, in a multiple-class Section 66(a) application, classes may not be added or goods and/or services transferred from one existing class to another.  37 C.F.R. §2.85(d); TMEP §1401.03(d).

 

IMPORTANT INFORMATION:  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.

 

Meaning of ISDP Required

 

To permit proper examination of the application, applicant must explain whether the letters “ISDP” in the mark have any significance in the electronics, computer and network communications trade or industry or as applied to applicant’s goods, or if such letters represent a “term of art” within applicant’s industry.  See 37 C.F.R. §2.61(b); TMEP §814.  Failure to comply with a request for information is grounds for refusing registration.  In re Harley, 119 USPQ2d 1755, 1757-58 (TTAB 2016); TMEP §814.

 

Description of the Mark Required

 

Applicant must submit a description of the mark.  37 C.F.R. §2.37; see TMEP §§808.01, 808.02.  Applications for marks not in standard characters must include an accurate and concise description of the entire mark that identifies all the literal and design elements.  See 37 C.F.R. §2.37; TMEP §§808 et seq.  In this case, the drawing of the mark is not in standard characters.

 

The following description is suggested, if accurate:  The mark consists of the stylized letters “ISDP”.

 

Email Address Required

 

Email address required.  Applicant must provide applicant’s email address, which is a requirement for a complete application.  See 37 C.F.R. §2.32(a)(2); Mandatory Electronic Filing & Specimen Requirements, Examination Guide 1-20, at III.A. (Rev. Feb. 2020).  Applicant’s email address cannot be identical to the listed primary correspondence email address of any attorney retained to represent applicant in this application.  See Examination Guide 1-20, at III.A. 

 

US Counsel Required

 

Applicant must be represented by a U.S.-licensed attorney 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 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 at http://www.gov.uspto.report/trademarks-getting-started/why-hire-private-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. 

 

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 at http://teas.gov.uspto.report/wna/ccr/car.  The newly-appointed attorney must submit a TEAS Response to Examining Attorney Office Action form at http://teas.gov.uspto.report/office/roa/ 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).

 

Questions?

 

If applicant has questions regarding this Office action, please telephone or e-mail the assigned trademark examining attorney.  All relevant e-mail communications will be placed in the official application record; however, an e-mail communication will not be accepted as a response to this Office action and will not extend the deadline for filing a proper response.  See 37 C.F.R. §§2.62(c), 2.191; TMEP §§304.01-.02, 709.04-.05.  Further, although the trademark examining attorney may provide additional explanation pertaining to the refusal(s) and/or requirement(s) in this Office action, the trademark examining attorney may not provide legal advice or statements about applicant’s rights.  See TMEP §§705.02, 709.06.

 

How to respond.  Click to file a response to this nonfinal Office action.    

 

 

/Amy E. Thomas/

Examining Attorney

Law Office 110

U.S. Patent & Trademark Office

571-272-9171

Amy.Thomas@uspto.gov

 

 

RESPONSE GUIDANCE

  • Missing the response deadline to this letter will cause the application to abandon.  A response or notice of appeal must be received by the USPTO before midnight Eastern Time of the last day of the response period.  TEAS and ESTTA maintenance or unforeseen circumstances could affect an applicant’s ability to timely respond.  

 

 

 


uspto.report is an independent third-party trademark research tool that is not affiliated, endorsed, or sponsored by the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) or any other governmental organization. The information provided by uspto.report is based on publicly available data at the time of writing and is intended for informational purposes only.

While we strive to provide accurate and up-to-date information, we do not guarantee the accuracy, completeness, reliability, or suitability of the information displayed on this site. The use of this site is at your own risk. Any reliance you place on such information is therefore strictly at your own risk.

All official trademark data, including owner information, should be verified by visiting the official USPTO website at www.uspto.gov. This site is not intended to replace professional legal advice and should not be used as a substitute for consulting with a legal professional who is knowledgeable about trademark law.

© 2024 USPTO.report | Privacy Policy | Resources | RSS Feed of Trademarks | Trademark Filings Twitter Feed