Offc Action Outgoing

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE (USPTO)

OFFICE ACTION (OFFICIAL LETTER) ABOUT APPLICANT’S TRADEMARK APPLICATION

 

 

 

OFFICE ACTION

 

STRICT DEADLINE TO RESPOND TO THIS LETTER 

TO AVOID ABANDONMENT OF APPLICANT’S TRADEMARK APPLICATION, THE USPTO MUST RECEIVE APPLICANT’S COMPLETE RESPONSE TO THIS LETTER WITHIN 6 MONTHS OF THE ISSUE/MAILING DATE BELOW.

 

ISSUE/MAILING DATE: 12/6/2010

 

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

 

No Conflicting Marks Found

 

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.

 

Registration Refused – Mark Is Primarily Geographically Descriptive

 

Registration is refused because the applied-for mark is primarily geographically descriptive of the origin of applicant’s goods.  Trademark Act Section 2(e)(2), 15 U.S.C. §1052(e)(2); see TMEP §§1210, 1210.01(a).

 

A mark is primarily geographically descriptive when the following is demonstrated:

 

(1)        The primary significance of the mark is a generally known geographic place or location;

 

(2)        The goods and/or services for which applicant seeks registration originate in the geographic place identified in the mark; and

 

(3)        Purchasers would be likely to make a goods-place or services-place association; that is, purchasers would be likely to believe that the goods and/or services originate in the geographic place identified in the mark.

 

TMEP §1210.01(a); see In re Societe Generale des Eaux Minerales de Vittel S.A., 824 F.2d 957, 959, 3 USPQ2d 1450, 1452 (Fed. Cir. 1987); In re Joint-Stock Co. “Baik,” 80 USPQ2d 1305, 1309 (TTAB 2006).

 

Paris is the capital of France.  See attached excerpt from InfoPlease.  Applicant’s goods come from Paris.  When there is no genuine issue that the geographical significance of a term is its primary significance, and the geographical place is neither obscure nor remote, a public association of the goods with the place is presumed if an applicant’s goods originate in the place named in the mark.  TMEP §1210.04; see, e.g., In re Cal. Pizza Kitchen Inc., 10 USPQ2d 1704, 1706 (TTAB 1988) (holding CALIFORNIA PIZZA KITCHEN primarily geographically descriptive of restaurant services rendered in California); In re Handler Fenton Ws., Inc., 214 USPQ 848, 849-50 (TTAB 1982) (holding DENVER WESTERNS primarily geographically descriptive of western-style shirts originating in Denver).

 

If the goods do not have a connection with the geographic place or location named in the mark, then applicant is advised of the following alternative refusal.

 

Alternative Refusal – Proposed Mark Is Geographically Deceptive And Deceptively Misdescriptive

 

Registration is refused because the applied-for mark consists of or includes geographically deceptive and primarily geographically deceptively misdescriptive matter in relation to the identified goods.  Trademark Act Sections 2(a) and 2(e)(3), 15 U.S.C. §1052(a), (e)(3); see In re Les Halles De Paris J.V., 334 F.3d 1371, 67 USPQ2d 1539 (Fed. Cir. 2003); In re Cal. Innovations Inc., 329 F.3d 1334, 66 USPQ2d 1853 (Fed. Cir. 2003), In re Budge Mfg. Co., 857 F.2d 773, 8 USPQ2d 1259 (Fed. Cir. 1988); TMEP §§1210, 1210.01(b)-(c).

 

A mark is geographically deceptive and primarily geographically deceptively misdescriptive if the following is shown:

 

(1)  The primary significance of the mark is a generally known geographic place or location;

 

(2)  The goods and/or services for which applicant seeks registration do not originate in the geographic place identified in the mark;

 

(3)  Purchasers would be likely to make a goods-place or services-place association; that is, purchasers would be likely to believe that the goods and/or services originate in the geographic place identified in the mark; and

 

(4)  The misrepresentation regarding the geographic origin of the goods and/or services would be a material factor in a significant portion of the relevant consumers’ decision to buy the goods or use the services in question.

 

As discussed above, Paris is the capital of France.  The jewelry industry is one of France’s largest.  See attached excerpt from InfoPlease.  Parisian jewelry is highly sought-after by consumers due to its history and quality.  See attached excerpts.  Therefore,  misrepresentation as to the origin of applicant’s goods is material.

 

See In re Les Halles De Paris J.V., 334 F.3d 1371, 1373, 67 USPQ2d 1539, 1541 (Fed. Cir. 2003); In re Cal. Innovations Inc., 329 F.3d 1334, 1341, 66 USPQ2d 1853, 1859 (Fed. Cir. 2003); TMEP §1210.01(b)-(c); see also In re Spirits Int’l, N.V., 563 F.3d 1347, 1353, 90 USPQ2d 1489, 1492-93 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (holding that the test for materiality incorporates a requirement that a “significant portion of the relevant consumers be deceived”).

 

Requirement For Information

 

Applicant must provide a written statement explaining whether the goods are or will be manufactured, packaged, shipped from, sold in or have any other connection with the geographic location named in the mark.  See 37 C.F.R. §2.61(b); TMEP §1210.03.

 

Applicant Must Submit A New Specimen

 

The specimen is not acceptable because it is simply a drawing of one of the goods bearing the proposed mark; it does not show the applied-for mark in actual use in commerce on the goods.  See 37 C.F.R. §2.56(c); TMEP §904.04(a).  Trademark Act Section 45 requires use of the mark “on the goods or their containers or the displays associated therewith or on the tags or labels affixed thereto.”  15 U.S.C. §1127; see 37 C.F.R. §2.56(b)(1); TMEP §904.03. 

 

An application based on Section 1(a) must include a specimen showing the applied-for mark in use in commerce for each class of goods.  Trademark Act Sections 1 and 45, 15 U.S.C. §§1051, 1127; 37 C.F.R. §§2.34(a)(1)(iv), 2.56(a); TMEP §§904, 904.07(a).

 

Therefore, applicant must submit the following:

 

(1)  A substitute specimen showing the mark in use in commerce for each class of goods specified in the application; and

 

(2)  The following statement, verified with an affidavit or signed declaration under 37 C.F.R. §2.20:  “The substitute specimen was in use in commerce at least as early as the filing date of the application.”  37 C.F.R. §2.59(a); TMEP §904.05; see 37 C.F.R. §2.193(e)(1).  If submitting a substitute specimen requires an amendment to the dates of use, applicant must also verify the amended dates.  37 C.F.R. §2.71(c); TMEP §904.05.

 

The following is a sample declaration for a verified substitute specimen for use in a paper response:

 

The undersigned being warned that willful false statements and the like are punishable by fine or imprisonment, or both, under 18 U.S.C. §1001, and that such willful false statements and the like may jeopardize the validity of the application or document or any registration resulting therefrom, declares that the substitute specimen was in use in commerce at least as early as the filing date of the application; all statements made of his/her own knowledge are true; and all statements made on information and belief are believed to be true.

 

_____________________________

(Signature)

 

_____________________________

(Print or Type Name and Position)

 

_____________________________

(Date)

 

Examples of specimens for goods are tags, labels, instruction manuals, containers, photographs that show the mark on the actual goods or packaging, or displays associated with the actual goods at their point of sale.  See TMEP §§904.03 et seq.

 

If applicant cannot satisfy the above requirements, applicant may amend the application from a use in commerce basis under Section 1(a) to an intent to use basis under Section 1(b), for which no specimen is required.  See TMEP §806.03(c).  However, if applicant amends the basis to Section 1(b), registration will not be granted until applicant later amends the application back to use in commerce by filing an acceptable allegation of use with a proper specimen.  See 15 U.S.C. §1051(c), (d); 37 C.F.R. §§2.76, 2.88; TMEP §1103. 

 

To amend to Section 1(b), applicant must submit the following statement, verified with an affidavit or signed declaration under 37 C.F.R. §2.20:  “Applicant has had a bona fide intention to use the mark in commerce on or in connection with the goods listed in the application as of the filing date of the application.”  37 C.F.R. §2.34(a)(2); TMEP §806.01(b); see 15 U.S.C. §1051(b); 37 C.F.R. §§2.35(b)(1), 2.193(e)(1).

 

Pending receipt of a proper response, registration is refused because the specimen does not show the applied-for mark in use in commerce as a trademark.  Trademark Act Sections 1 and 45, 15 U.S.C. §§1051, 1127; 37 C.F.R. §§2.34(a)(1)(iv), 2.56(a); TMEP §§904, 904.07(a).

 

Applicant May Wish To Hire A Trademark Attorney

 

Applicant may wish to hire an attorney experienced in trademark matters to assist in prosecuting this application because of the legal technicalities involved.  The Office, however, cannot aid in the selection of an attorney.  37 C.F.R. §2.11.  Applicant may wish to consult a local telephone directory for a listing of attorneys specializing in trademark or intellectual property law, or seek guidance from a local bar association attorney-referral service.

 

TEAS Plus Application Requirements

 

TEAS PLUS APPLICANTS MUST SUBMIT DOCUMENTS ELECTRONICALLY OR SUBMIT FEE:  Applicants who filed their application online using the reduced-fee TEAS Plus application must continue to submit certain documents online using TEAS, including responses to Office actions.  See 37 C.F.R. §2.23(a)(1).  For a complete list of these documents, see TMEP §819.02(b).  In addition, such applicants must accept correspondence from the Office via e-mail throughout the examination process and must maintain a valid e-mail address.  37 C.F.R. §2.23(a)(2); TMEP §§819, 819.02(a).  TEAS Plus applicants who do not meet these requirements must submit an additional fee of $50 per international class of goods and/or services.  37 C.F.R. §2.6(a)(1)(iv); TMEP §819.04.  In appropriate situations and where all issues can be resolved by amendment, responding by telephone to authorize an examiner’s amendment will not incur this additional fee.

 

Applicant is invited to contact the assigned examining attorney with any questions about the substance of this action.

 

/Katherine S. Chang/

Trademark Examining Attorney

Law Office 115

571-270-1528

katherine.chang@uspto.gov

 

 

TO RESPOND TO THIS LETTER:  Use the Trademark Electronic Application System (TEAS) response form at http://teasroa.gov.uspto.report/roa/.  Please wait 48-72 hours from the issue/mailing date before using TEAS, to allow for necessary system updates of the application.  For technical assistance with online forms, e-mail TEAS@uspto.gov.

 

WHO MUST SIGN THE RESPONSE:  It must be personally signed by an individual applicant or someone with legal authority to bind an applicant (i.e., a corporate officer, a general partner, all joint applicants).  If an applicant is represented by an attorney, the attorney must sign the response. 

 

PERIODICALLY CHECK THE STATUS OF THE APPLICATION:  To ensure that applicant does not miss crucial deadlines or official notices, check the status of the application every three to four months using Trademark Applications and Registrations Retrieval (TARR) at http://tarr.gov.uspto.report/.  Please keep a copy of the complete TARR screen.  If TARR shows no change for more than six months, call 800-786-9199.  For more information on checking status, see http://www.gov.uspto.report/trademarks/process/status/.

 

TO UPDATE CORRESPONDENCE/E-MAIL ADDRESS:  Use the TEAS form at http://www.gov.uspto.report/teas/eTEASpageE.htm.

 

 

 

 

 

IMPORTANT NOTICE REGARDING YOUR TRADEMARK APPLICATION

Your trademark application (Serial No. 85110517) has been reviewed.   The examining attorney assigned by the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) has written a letter (an “Office Action”) on 12/6/2010 to which you must respond.  Please follow these steps:

 

1. Read the Office letter by clicking on this link OR go to http://tmportal.gov.uspto.report/external/portal/tow and enter your serial number to access the Office letter.       

 

 PLEASE NOTE: The Office letter may not be immediately available but will be viewable within 24 hours of this e-mail notification. 

 

2. Respond within 6 months, calculated from 12/6/2010 (or sooner if specified in the Office letter), using the Trademark Electronic Application System Response to Office Action form. If you have difficulty using the USPTO website, contact TDR@uspto.gov. 

 

3. Contact the examining attorney who reviewed your application with any questions about the content of the office letter:

 

/Katherine S. Chang/

Trademark Examining Attorney

Law Office 115

571-270-1528

katherine.chang@uspto.gov

WARNING

Failure to file any required response by the applicable deadline will result in the ABANDONMENT of your application.

Do NOT hit “Reply” to this e-mail notification, or otherwise attempt to e-mail your response, as the USPTO does NOT accept e-mailed responses.  Instead, please use the Trademark Electronic Application System Response to Office Action form.