To: | U.S. Band & Orchestra Supplies, Inc. (uspt@polsinelli.com) |
Subject: | U.S. TRADEMARK APPLICATION NO. 85203193 - PERFECTION - 064568-PERFE |
Sent: | 3/29/2011 7:59:40 AM |
Sent As: | ECOM102@USPTO.GOV |
Attachments: | Attachment - 1 Attachment - 2 Attachment - 3 |
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE (USPTO)
OFFICE ACTION (OFFICIAL LETTER) ABOUT APPLICANT’S TRADEMARK APPLICATION
APPLICATION SERIAL NO. 85203193
MARK: PERFECTION
|
|
CORRESPONDENT ADDRESS: |
CLICK HERE TO RESPOND TO THIS LETTER: http://www.gov.uspto.report/teas/eTEASpageD.htm
|
APPLICANT: U.S. Band & Orchestra Supplies, Inc.
|
|
CORRESPONDENT’S REFERENCE/DOCKET NO: CORRESPONDENT E-MAIL ADDRESS: |
|
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: 3/29/2011
The referenced application has been reviewed by the assigned trademark examining attorney. 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.
SEARCH OF OFFICE’S DATABASE OF MARKS
The trademark examining attorney has searched the Office’s database of registered and pending marks and has found no conflicting marks that would bar registration under Trademark Act Section 2(d). TMEP §704.02; see 15 U.S.C. §1052(d).
SECTION 2(e)(1) REFUSAL – MERELY DESCRIPTIVE
Registration is refused because the applied-for mark merely describes the outstanding quality of applicant’s goods. Trademark Act Section 2(e)(1), 15 U.S.C. §1052(e)(1); see TMEP §§1209.01(b), 1209.03 et seq.
Applicant applied to register the mark PERFECTION for “tuning pegs for stringed musical instruments.”
The tern “perfection” is defined as “the quality or condition of being perfect; extreme degree of excellence according to a given standard.” See attached dictionary definition. The proposed mark merely described the outstanding quality of applicant’s tuning pegs. Laudatory words or terms that attribute quality or excellence to goods and/or services are considered merely descriptive. TMEP §1209.03(k). Thus, laudatory terms, phrases and slogans are nondistinctive and unregistrable on the Principal Register without proof of acquired distinctiveness. See In re Nett Designs, Inc., 236 F.3d 1339, 57 USPQ2d 1564 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (holding THE ULTIMATE BIKE RACK a laudatory, descriptive phrase that touts the superiority of applicant’s bicycle racks); In re Boston Beer Co., 198 F.3d 1370, 53 USPQ2d 1056 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (holding THE BEST BEER IN AMERICA a laudatory, descriptive phrase for applicant’s beer and ale); In re The Place, Inc., 76 USPQ2d 1467 (TTAB 2006) (holding THE GREATEST BAR a laudatory, descriptive term for applicant’s restaurant and bar since term “greatest” immediately informs prospective purchaser that applicant’s establishment is superior in character or quality when compared to other restaurants and bars); In re Dos Padres, Inc., 49 USPQ2d 1860 (TTAB 1998) (holding QUESO QUESADILLA SUPREME a laudatory, descriptive term for applicant’s cheese); In re Ervin, 1 USPQ2d 1665 (TTAB 1986) (holding THE ORIGINAL a laudatory, descriptive term for applicant’s specific type of gaming equipment).
The mark PERFECTION is a laudatory word that merely describes the outstanding quality of applicant’s tuning pegs. Accordingly, registration must be refused under Section 2(e)(1) of the Trademark Act.
SECTION 2(f) ACQUIRED DISTINCTIVENESS
To amend the application to Section 2(f) based on five years’ use, applicant should submit the following written statement claiming acquired distinctiveness, if accurate:
The mark has become distinctive of the goods and/or services through applicant’s substantially exclusive and continuous use in commerce for at least the five years immediately before the date of this statement.
TMEP §1212.05(d). Applicant must verify this statement with an affidavit or signed declaration under 37 C.F.R. §2.20. 37 C.F.R. §2.41(b); TMEP §1212.05(d); see 37 C.F.R. §2.193(e)(1).
/Maria-Victoria Suarez/
Trademark Attorney
Law Office 102
571-272-9264
maria-victoria.suarez@uspto.gov
TO RESPOND TO THIS LETTER: Go to http://www.gov.uspto.report/teas/eTEASpageD.htm. 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. For questions about the Office action itself, please contact the assigned examining attorney. Do not respond to this Office action by e-mail; the USPTO does not accept e-mailed responses.
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 1-800-786-9199. 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.