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: 5/2/2012

 

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).

However, before the application can proceed, the Applicant must respond timely and completely to the issue(s) below.  15 U.S.C. §1062(b); 37 C.F.R. §§2.62, 2.65(a); TMEP §§711, 718.03.

 

Registration Refused: Descriptiveness

Registration is refused because the applied-for mark merely describes the nature of applicant’s goods and/or services.  Trademark Act Section 2(e)(1), 15 U.S.C. §1052(e)(1); see TMEP §§1209.01(b), 1209.03 et seq.

 

A mark is merely descriptive if it describes an ingredient, quality, characteristic, function, feature, purpose or use of the specified goods and/or services.  TMEP §1209.01(b); see In re Steelbuilding.com, 415 F.3d 1293, 1297, 75 USPQ2d 1420, 1421 (Fed. Cir. 2005); In re Gyulay, 820 F.2d 1216, 1217-18, 3 USPQ2d 1009, 1010 (Fed. Cir. 1987). 

 

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 Abcor Dev. Corp., 588 F.2d 811, 814, 200 USPQ 215, 218 (C.C.P.A. 1978); TMEP §1209.01(b); see, e.g., In re Polo Int’l Inc., 51 USPQ2d 1061 (TTAB 1999) (finding 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) (finding CONCURRENT PC-DOS merely descriptive of “computer programs recorded on disk” where relevant trade used the denomination “concurrent” as a descriptor of a particular type of operating system).  “Whether consumers could guess what the product is from consideration of the mark alone is not the test.”  In re Am. Greetings Corp., 226 USPQ 365, 366 (TTAB 1985).

 

“A mark may be merely descriptive even if it does not describe the ‘full scope and extent’ of the applicant’s goods or services.”  In re Oppedahl & Larson LLP, 373 F.3d 1171, 1173, 71 USPQ2d 1370, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (citing In re Dial-A-Mattress Operating Corp., 240 F.3d 1341, 1346, 57 USPQ2d 1807, 1812 (Fed. Cir. 2001)); TMEP §1209.01(b).  It is enough if the term describes only one significant function, attribute or property.  In re Oppedahl, 373 F.3d at 1173, 71 USPQ2d at 1371; TMEP §1209.01(b).

 

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 fact that an applicant may be the first and only user of a merely descriptive designation is not dispositive on the issue of descriptiveness where, as here, the evidence shows that the word or term is merely descriptive.  See In re Sun Microsystems, Inc., 59 USPQ2d 1084, 1087 (TTAB 2001); In re Acuson, 225 USPQ 790, 792 (TTAB 1985); TMEP §1209.03(c).

 

In this instance Applicant applied to register the mark "ORIGINAL SMOKE JUICE" for "A propylene glycol-based liquid used in electronic smoking devices to produce the vapor and supply the flavor."

 

Applicant's mark is a combination of descriptive terms with a laudatory term.  As indicated earlier, ORIGINAL which means "[a] primary form or type from which varieties are derived," is a laudatory term when used in Applicant's mark.  "SMOKE JUICE" is also a descriptive term when used with Applicant's goods as demonstrated by the attached evidence wherein the term SMOKE JUICE is used to refer to the class of goods that Applicant is marketing.  As evidence of this term being used to refer to the class of Applicant's goods, the examining attorney herewith attaches several examples of evidence.  Including, but not limited to the following:

 

What is smoker juice? Really, it is just another name for e-liquid, or nicotine fluid, or nic juice. Smoke juice seems to have many different names, but it's most prevalent name is E-Liquid. However, you can call it whatever you want. !

Smoke juice can come in many different flavors, strengths, and tastes. The flavor list is almost endless. Practically any flavor you can think of can actually be made into smoke juice. (see attached evidence.)

 

and

 

Still, questions linger about the safety of e-cigarettes. Some smoke juices contain a toxin called diethylene glycol or DEG; it’s used in antifreeze. And there are concerns that e-cigarettes could increase a person’s addiction to nicotine. Even so, Christian Berkey, owner of Johnson Creek, claims as many as 40,000 people across the world each week are switching to electronic brands. In case you’re wondering, most smoking bans do not outlaw e-cigarettes, so discretion is in the hands of management. (see attached evidence.)

 

In addition, Applicant has already acknowledged the term smoke juice is descriptive, as demonstrated by the attached registration wherein Applicant has disclaimed the wording "SMOKE JUICE." (see attached registration.)

 

Because Applicant's mark is nothing more than a laudatory term coupled with an arguably generic term for the goods, the mark as a whole is descriptive and registration is denied.

 

Informalities

If the applicant chooses to respond to the refusal to register, the applicant must also respond to the following informalities.

 

Disclaimer Required

A “disclaimer” is a statement that applicant does not claim exclusive rights to an unregistrable component of a mark; it does not affect the appearance of the mark.  TMEP§1213.  An unregistrable component of a mark includes wording and designs that are generic of the goods and/or services, and is wording or an illustration that others would need to use to describe or show their goods and services in the marketplace.  15 U.S.C. §1052(e); see TMEP §§1209.03(f), 1212.02(a), 1213.03 et seq.

 

A disclaimer does not physically remove the disclaimed matter from the mark, but rather is a written statement that applicant does not claim exclusive rights to the disclaimed wording and/or design separate and apart from the mark as shown in the drawing.  TMEP §§1213, 1213.10.

 

The applicant must insert a disclaimer of "SMOKE JUICE" in the application because it is a generic term used to identify the class of Applicant's goods.  This is demonstrated by the attached evidence, and the previous arguments provided by the examining attorney.  See 15 U.S.C. §1056(a); TMEP §§1213, 1213.03(a).

 

The computerized printing format for the Office’s Trademark Official Gazette requires a standardized format for a disclaimer.  TMEP §1213.08(a)(i).  The following is the standard format used by the Office:

 

No claim is made to the exclusive right to use “SMOKE JUICE” apart from the mark as shown.

 

TMEP §1213.08(a)(i); see In re Owatonna Tool Co., 231 USPQ 493 (Comm’r Pats. 1983).

 

Supplemental Register

The applied-for mark has been refused registration on the Principal Register.  Applicant may respond to the refusal by submitting evidence and arguments in support of registration and/or by amending the application to seek registration on the Supplemental Register.  See 15 U.S.C. §1091; 37 C.F.R. §§2.47, 2.75(a); TMEP §§801.02(b), 816.  Amending to the Supplemental Register does not preclude applicant from submitting evidence and arguments against the refusal(s).  TMEP §816.04.

 

If the applicant has any questions or needs assistance in responding to this Office action, please email the assigned examining attorney or call the trademark helpline at 571-272-9250.

 

 

/tmm/

Theodore McBride Law Office 103

HELP LINE: 571-272-9250

theodore.mcbride1@uspto.gov

phone: 571-272-9281

 

 

TO RESPOND TO THIS LETTER:  Go to http://www.gov.uspto.report/trademarks/teas/response_forms.jsp.  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 trademark examining attorney.  E-mail communications will not be accepted as responses to Office actions; therefore, do not respond to this Office action by e-mail.

 

All informal e-mail communications relevant to this application will be placed in the official application record.

 

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.

 

 

 

 

 

IMPORTANT NOTICE REGARDING YOUR

U.S. TRADEMARK APPLICATION

 

USPTO OFFICE ACTION HAS ISSUED ON 5/2/2012 FOR

SERIAL NO. 85561258

 

Please follow the instructions below to continue the prosecution of your application:

 

 

TO READ OFFICE ACTION: Click on this link or go to http://portal.gov.uspto.report/external/portal/tow and enter the application serial number to access the Office action.

 

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

 

RESPONSE IS REQUIRED: You should carefully review the Office action to determine (1) how to respond; and (2) the applicable response time period. Your response deadline will be calculated from 5/2/2012 (or sooner if specified in the office action).

 

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, the USPTO recommends that you respond online using the Trademark Electronic Application System Response Form.

 

HELP: For technical assistance in accessing the Office action, please e-mail

TDR@uspto.gov.  Please contact the assigned examining attorney with questions about the Office action. 

 

        WARNING

 

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