| To: | PDF Solutions, Inc., (Mmchugh@kilpatricktownsend.com) |
| Subject: | U.S. TRADEMARK APPLICATION NO. 86613977 - EPROBE - 83342-943414 |
| Sent: | 8/12/2015 3:38:05 PM |
| Sent As: | ECOM117@USPTO.GOV |
| Attachments: | Attachment - 1 Attachment - 2 Attachment - 3 Attachment - 4 Attachment - 5 |
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE (USPTO)
OFFICE ACTION (OFFICIAL LETTER) ABOUT APPLICANT’S TRADEMARK APPLICATION
|
U.S. APPLICATION SERIAL NO. 86613977
|
|
|
CORRESPONDENT ADDRESS: Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton Llp 2 Embarcadero Ctr Fl 8 |
CLICK HERE TO RESPOND TO THIS LETTER: http://www.gov.uspto.report/trademarks/teas/response_forms.jsp
|
|
APPLICANT: PDF Solutions, Inc.,
|
|
|
CORRESPONDENT’S REFERENCE/DOCKET NO: CORRESPONDENT E-MAIL ADDRESS: |
|
OFFICE ACTION
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: 8/12/2015
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.
DATABASE SEARCH
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
A mark is merely descriptive if “it immediately conveys knowledge of a quality, feature, function, or characteristic of [an applicant’s] goods or services.” In re The Chamber of Commerce of the U.S., 675 F.3d 1297, 1300, 102 USPQ2d 1217, 1219 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (quoting In re Bayer Aktiengesellschaft, 488 F.3d 960, 963, 82 USPQ2d 1828, 1831 (Fed. Cir. 2007)); TMEP §1209.01(b); see DuoProSS Meditech Corp. v. Inviro Med. Devices, Ltd., 695 F.3d 1247, 1251, 103 USPQ2d 1753, 1755 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (quoting In re Abcor Dev. Corp., 588 F.2d 811, 814, 200 USPQ 215, 218 (C.C.P.A. 1978)).
Applicant has applied to register EPROBE for “Semiconductor capital equipment namely, an electron beam inspection and metrology tool” and “Engineering and consulting services in the fields of semiconductor chip design and fabrication”.
The proposed mark is a combination of descriptive terms that immediately conveys a characteristic or feature of the applicant’s goods which are also used in the performance of the applicant’s services.
Generally, if the individual components of a mark retain their descriptive meaning in relation to the goods, the combination results in a composite mark that is itself descriptive and not registrable. In re Phoseon Tech., Inc., 103 USPQ2d 1822, 1823 (TTAB 2012); TMEP §1209.03(d); see, e.g., In re King Koil Licensing Co., 79 USPQ2d 1048, 1052 (TTAB 2006) (holding THE BREATHABLE MATTRESS merely descriptive of beds, mattresses, box springs, and pillows where the evidence showed that the term “BREATHABLE” retained its ordinary dictionary meaning when combined with the term “MATTRESS” and the resulting combination was used in the relevant industry in a descriptive sense).
Only where the combination of descriptive terms creates a unitary mark with a unique, incongruous, or otherwise nondescriptive meaning in relation to the goods is the combined mark registrable. See In re Colonial Stores, Inc., 394 F.2d 549, 551, 157 USPQ 382, 384 (C.C.P.A. 1968); In re Positec Grp. Ltd., 108 USPQ2d 1161, 1162-63 (TTAB 2013).
In this case, both the individual components and the composite result are descriptive of applicant’s services and do not create a unique, incongruous, or nondescriptive meaning in relation to the services. Specifically, “E” and “PROBE” each describe an essential part of the service of the applicant. As reflected in the attached evidence, the term “E” is commonly used to mean “Electron” and the term PROBE is defined as “any of various testing devices or substances”. Accordingly, the term EPROBE merely describes a testing device which uses and/or measures electrons in its operation.
Determining the descriptiveness of a mark is done in relation to an applicant’s goods and/or services, the context in which the mark is being used, and the possible significance the mark would have to the average purchaser because of the manner of its use or intended use. See In re The Chamber of Commerce of the U.S., 675 F.3d 1297, 1300, 102 USPQ2d 1217, 1219 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (citing In re Bayer Aktiengesellschaft, 488 F.3d 960, 963-64, 82 USPQ2d 1828, 1831 (Fed. Cir. 2007)); TMEP §1209.01(b). Descriptiveness of a mark is not considered in the abstract. In re Bayer Aktiengesellschaft, 488 F.3d at 963-64, 82 USPQ2d at 1831. As further evidence of the descriptiveness of EPROBE in relation to the applicant’s goods and/or services, please see the applicant’s identification of goods which uses the wording “electron beam inspection and metrology tool” to describe the goods. The attached dictionary evidence shows the term “metrology” is defined as “a system of weights and measures”, thus the term explains the nature and function of the goods which corresponds with the definitions of the terms in the mark discussed above. Additionally, the attached scholarly articles discuss the use of electron probes in the testing and joining of semiconductors within the semiconductor industry. This use of electron probes by professionals within the semiconductor industry is evidence that those in the industry would recognize EPROBE to refer to an electron probe. For example:
The fact that the two terms are joined together to for a compound term does not obviate the descriptiveness of the mark. Regarding the presence or absence of a space between the two descriptive terms, whether unitary or two separate words, the commercial impression is the same, namely, an electron probe. See, e.g., In re Gould Paper Corp., 5 USPQ2d 1110 (Fed. Cir. 1987) (“Whether compounded as “screen wipe” -- two words -- or “screenwipe” -- one word -- either is ordinary grammatical construction. See Webster's Third New International Dictionary 28a (1976). Nothing is left for speculation or conjecture in the alleged trademark.”); See, also, e.g., In re L.C. Licensing Inc., 49 USPQ2d 1379, 1381 (TTAB 1998); Harvey Hubbell, Inc. v. Red Rope Industries, Inc., 191 USPQ 119 (TTAB 1976) (“the marks “DATALOK” and “DATA . LOK”, although used by the parties in different graphic presentations, create the same general commercial impression and are, for all purposes herein, legally identical”).
Therefore, because the mark is comprised entirely of terms that describe the quality and type of product the mark is descriptive of the goods. In view of the above, registration is refused under Trademark Act Section 2(e)(1).
RESPONSE GUIDELINES
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.
Trademark Examining Attorney
Law Office 117
(571) 270-3782
christopher.nunley@uspto.gov
TEAS PLUS OR TEAS REDUCED FEE (TEAS RF) APPLICANTS – TO MAINTAIN LOWER FEE, ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS MUST BE MET, INCLUDING SUBMITTING DOCUMENTS ONLINE: Applicants who filed their application online using the lower-fee TEAS Plus or TEAS RF application form must (1) file certain documents online using TEAS, including responses to Office actions (see TMEP §§819.02(b), 820.02(b) for a complete list of these documents); (2) maintain a valid e-mail correspondence address; and (3) agree to receive correspondence from the USPTO by e-mail throughout the prosecution of the application. See 37 C.F.R. §§2.22(b), 2.23(b); TMEP §§819, 820. TEAS Plus or TEAS RF applicants who do not meet these requirements must submit an additional processing fee of $50 per international class of goods and/or services. 37 C.F.R. §§2.6(a)(1)(v), 2.22(c), 2.23(c); TMEP §§819.04, 820.04. However, in certain situations, TEAS Plus or TEAS RF applicants may respond to an Office action by authorizing an examiner’s amendment by telephone without incurring this additional fee.
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 the Trademark Electronic Application System (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 the Trademark Status and Document Retrieval (TSDR) system at http://tsdr.gov.uspto.report/. Please keep a copy of the TSDR status screen. If the status shows no change for more than six months, contact the Trademark Assistance Center by e-mail at TrademarkAssistanceCenter@uspto.gov or 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/trademarks/teas/correspondence.jsp.
