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: 3/8/2016

 

This Office action is in response to applicant’s communication filed on 2/25/16 in which applicant addressed the following issues:

 

1.      Refusal under Trademark Act Section 2(e)(4) – Mark is Primarily Merely a Surname

2.      Requirement for an Acceptable Identification of Goods

3.      Requirement for Multiple Class Applications

 

The examining attorney has carefully considered the applicant's arguments/amendments but has found them unpersuasive/unacceptable.  In light of the apparent claim of acquired distinctiveness under Section 2(f) which raises a new issue, the following Office Action is issued.

 

SECTION 2(e)(4) REFUSAL – PRIMARILY MERELY A SURNAME

 

Registration was refused because the applied-for mark is primarily merely a surname.  Trademark Act Section 2(e)(4), 15 U.S.C. §1052(e)(4); see TMEP §1211.  See prior Office Action for full analysis. Because the mark is primarily merely a surname, registration was refused under Trademark Act Section 2(e)(4). Applicant states that “The term OLIN has many meanings” but does not provide any evidence to support this contention and does not address the fact that applicant’s own prior U.S. Registration No. 0848870 for the mark OLIN (see previously attached) confirms that surname aspect of the mark because that was only permitted to register upon a showing of acquired distinctiveness under Section 2(f) of the Trademark Act.

 

The refusal is maintained and continued.

 

SECTION 2(f) ACQUIRED DISTINCTIVENESS UNSUPPORTED

 

An intent-to-use applicant who has used the same mark on related goods may file a claim of acquired distinctiveness under Trademark Act Section 2(f) before filing an allegation of use, if applicant can establish that, as a result of applicant’s use of the mark on other goods, the mark has become distinctive of the goods in the intent-to-use application, and that this previously created distinctiveness will transfer to the goods in the intent-to-use application when use in commerce begins.  In re Dial-A-Mattress Operating Corp., 240 F.3d 1341, 1347, 57 USPQ2d 1807, 1812 (Fed. Cir. 2001); In re Nielsen Bus. Media, Inc., 93 USPQ2d 1545, 1547 (TTAB 2010); In re Binion, 93 USPQ2d 1531, 1538 (TTAB 2009); TMEP §1212.09(a).

 

The Trademark Trial and Appeal Board has set forth the following two requirements for showing that a mark in an intent-to-use application has acquired distinctiveness:

 

(1)        Applicant must establish that the same mark has acquired distinctiveness as to the other goods, by submitting evidence such as ownership of a prior registration for the same mark for related goods, a prima facie showing of acquired distinctiveness based on five years’ use of the same mark with related goods, or actual evidence of acquired distinctiveness for the same mark with respect to the other goods.

 

(2)        Applicant must show sufficient relatedness of the goods in the intent-to-use application and those for which the mark has acquired distinctiveness to warrant the conclusion that the previously created distinctiveness will transfer to the goods in the application upon use.  The showing necessary to establish relatedness will be decided on a case-by-case basis and will depend upon the nature of the goods involved and the language used to identify them in the application.

 

See Kellogg Co. v. Gen. Mills Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1766, 1770-71 (TTAB 2007); In re Rogers, 53 USPQ2d 1741, 1744-45 (TTAB 1999); TMEP §1212.09(a).

 

Although applicant owns prior registrations for the same mark, they are not for related goods. Specifically, U.S. Registration No. 0659503, 0848870, 1468218 and 3414111 are all for ammunition-related or metal-related goods, not chemical-related or resin-related goods. Applicant must show sufficient relatedness of the chemical and resin goods in the intent-to-use application and those for which the mark has acquired distinctiveness to warrant the conclusion that the previously created distinctiveness will transfer to the goods in the application upon use. 

 

Furthermore, although it appears that applicant has been in business for a lengthy time in the field of ammunition and metals, in this case, an allegation of five years’ use alone will be insufficient evidence of distinctiveness because the intent-to-use application has no dates of use whatsoever for the goods in this application. In other words, applicant’s statement that “Olin has been in the chemical business for more than 60 years, … and has been producing the some of the chemicals listed in the description of goods for more than 100 years” and “Olin has been manufacturing and selling many of the goods listed in the application for at least ten years” does not comport with the application which includes no date of use at all.

 

Applicant has provided evidence of high sales figures and significant advertising expenditures for “ammunition and chemicals” although it is unclear how much is attributed to chemicals alone and apparently none is attributed to the resins; however, such evidence is not dispositive of whether the proposed mark has acquired distinctiveness.  Such extensive sales and promotion may demonstrate the commercial success of applicant’s goods, but not that relevant consumers view the matter as a mark for such goods.  See In re Boston Beer Co., 198 F.3d 1370, 53 USPQ2d 1056 (Fed. Cir. 1999); In re Busch Entm’t Corp., 60 USPQ2d 1130, 1134 (TTAB 2000).  Similarly, applicant’s advertising expenditures are merely indicative of its efforts to develop distinctiveness; not evidence that the mark has acquired distinctiveness.  See In re Pennzoil Prods. Co., 20 USPQ2d 1753 (TTAB 1991).

 

The following factors are generally considered when determining whether an applied-for mark has acquired distinctiveness based on extrinsic evidence:  (1) length and exclusivity of use of the mark in the United States by applicant; (2) the type, expense, and amount of advertising of the mark in the United States; and (3) applicant’s efforts in the United States to associate the mark with the source of the goods, such as in unsolicited media coverage and consumer studies.  See In re Steelbuilding.com, 415 F.3d 1293, 1300, 75 USPQ2d 1420, 1424 (Fed. Cir. 2005); Bd. of Trs. of Univ. of Ala. v. Pitts, Jr., 107 USPQ2d 2001, 2016, (TTAB 2013).  A showing of acquired distinctiveness need not consider all of these factors, and no single factor is determinative.  In re Steelbuilding.com, 415 F.3d at 1300, 75 USPQ2d at 1424; see TMEP §§1212.06 et seq.

In its response, as evidence, the applicant submitted a declaration of its Executive Vice President & President, Chemicals and Ammunition. The evidence is insufficient to show recognition of the applied-for wording as a mark by the public. The declaration by applicant’s own vice president/president is not persuasive because, as explained in TMEP Section 1212.06(c), the “statement is subject to bias”:

Affidavits or declarations that assert recognition of the mark as a source indicator are relevant in establishing acquired distinctiveness. However, the value of the affidavits or declarations depends on the statements made and the identity of the affiant or declarant. See In re Chem. Dynamics Inc., 839 F.2d 1569, 1571, 5 USPQ2d 1828, 1830 (Fed. Cir. 1988) (finding conclusionary declaration from applicant’s vice-president insufficient without the factual basis for the declarant’s belief that the design had become distinctive). Proof of distinctiveness also requires more than proof of the existence of a relatively small number of people who associate a mark with the applicant. See In re The Paint Prods. Co., 8 USPQ2d 1863, 1866 (TTAB 1988) (“Because these affidavits were sought and collected by applicant from ten customers who have dealt with applicant for many years, the evidence is not altogether persuasive on the issue of how the average customer for paints perceives the words ‘PAINT PRODUCTS CO.’ in conjunction with paints and coatings.”); see also Mag Instrument Inc. v. Brinkmann Corp., 96 USPQ2d 1701, 1723 (TTAB 2010) (finding sixteen declarations of little persuasive value, as they were nearly identical in wording and only one of the declarants was described as an end consumer); In re Gray Inc., 3 USPQ2d 1558, 1560 (TTAB 1987) (finding affidavit of applicant’s counsel expressing his belief that the mark has acquired secondary meaning of “no probative value whatsoever” because, among other reasons, the statement is subject to bias); In re Petersen Mfg. Co., 2 USPQ2d 2032, 2035 (TTAB 1987) (finding declarations from customers which stated that designs used by applicant indicate to the declarant that the applicant is the source of the goods, but which did not refer to or identify the designs with any specificity, not persuasive).

Because a Section 2(f) claim is unsupported, the Section 2(e)(4) refusal is maintained and continued.

IDENTIFICATION AND CLASSIFICATION OF GOODS

 

Applicant was previously advised that the wording “chemical products for industrial purposes” requires clarification because it is unclear what type of product the goods are or what the industrial purpose is. In the identification of goods, applicant must use the common commercial or generic names for the goods, be as complete and specific as possible, and avoid the use of indefinite words and phrases.  TMEP §1402.03(a).  If applicant uses indefinite words such as “accessories,” “apparatus,” “components,” “devices,” “equipment,” “materials,” “parts,” “systems,” or “products,” such words must be followed by “namely,” followed by a list of the specific goods identified by their common commercial or generic names.  See TMEP §§1401.05(d), 1402.03(a). 

 

An applicant may only amend an identification to clarify or limit the goods, but not to add to or broaden the scope of the goods.  37 C.F.R. §2.71(a); see TMEP §§1402.06 et seq., 1402.07. 

 

Advisory on Punctuation

In general, commas should be used in an identification (1) to separate a series of related items identified within a particular category of goods or services, (2) before and after “namely,” and (3) between each item in a list of goods or services following “namely.”  TMEP §1402.01(a).  Semicolons generally should be used to separate a series of distinct categories of goods or services within an international class.  Id.  However, colons and periods should not be used in an identification of goods and/or services.  Id. 

 

Applicant may adopt the following identification, if accurate: 

 

“Chlorine; hydrochloric acid; potassium hydroxide; sodium hydroxide; sodium hypochlorite; hydrogen; sodium chloride; sulfuric acid; ethylene dichloride; vinyl chloride monomer; acetone; cumene; phenol; allyl chloride; epichlorohydrin; bisphenol A; unprocessed synthetic novolac resins; unprocessed epoxy resins, including unprocessed liquid epoxy resins and unprocessed advanced epoxy resins; unprocessed epoxy novolac resins; amine-based hardeners, namely, chemical additives for resins; polyphenolic-based hardeners, namely chemical additives for resins; chlorinated hydrocarbons; chemical products, namely, chemicals for industrial purposes; unprocessed synthetic resins; chlorinated organic chemicals for use in industry; chlorinated inorganic chemicals for use in industry, and chemical preparations, namely, chlorinated solvents for industrial and commercial use” in International Class 001; and/or

 

“semi-processed synthetic novolac resins; semi-processed epoxy resins including semi-processed liquid epoxy resins and semi-processed advanced epoxy resins; semi-processed epoxy novolac resins; semi-processed synthetic resins” in International Class 017

 

Periodically the USPTO revises the U.S. Acceptable Identification of Goods and Services Manual (ID Manual) based on changes to the international classification system and the USPTO’s policies regarding acceptable identifications of goods and services.  See TMEP §1402.14.  Identifications are examined in accordance with the Trademark Rules of Practice and the USPTO’s policies and procedures in effect on the date an application is filed.  See 37 C.F.R. §2.85(e)(1); TMEP §1402.14.  However, an applicant may voluntarily choose to follow policies and procedures adopted after the application was filed.  See 37 C.F.R. §2.85(e)(2); TMEP §1401.12.

 

Thus, descriptions of goods found in earlier-filed applications and registrations are not necessarily considered acceptable identifications when a later-filed application is examined.  See TMEP §§702.03(a)(iv), 1402.14.

 

For guidance on writing identifications of goods, please use the USPTO’s online ID Manual at http://tess2.gov.uspto.report/netahtml/tidm.html, which is continually updated in accordance with prevailing rules and policies.  See TMEP §1402.04.

 

RESPONSE GUIDELINES

 

If applicant has questions regarding this Office action, please e-mail the assigned trademark examining attorney at Tasneem.hussain@uspto.gov. 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.

 

To expedite prosecution of the application, applicant is encouraged to file its response to this Office action online via the Trademark Electronic Application System (TEAS), which is available at http://www.gov.uspto.report/trademarks/teas/index.jsp.  If applicant has technical questions about the TEAS response to Office action form, applicant can review the electronic filing tips available online at http://www.gov.uspto.report/trademarks/teas/e_filing_tips.jsp and e-mail technical questions to TEAS@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. 

 

 

 

/Ms. Tasneem Hussain/

Trademark Examining Attorney

Law Office 118

tasneem.hussain@uspto.gov (preferred)

571.272.8273

 

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.

 

 

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE (USPTO)

 

 

IMPORTANT NOTICE REGARDING YOUR

U.S. TRADEMARK APPLICATION

 

USPTO OFFICE ACTION (OFFICIAL LETTER) HAS ISSUED

ON 3/8/2016 FOR U.S. APPLICATION SERIAL NO. 86651083

 

Please follow the instructions below:

 

(1)  TO READ THE LETTER:  Click on this link or go to http://tsdr.uspto.gov,enter the U.S. application serial number, and click on “Documents.”

 

The Office action may not be immediately viewable, to allow for necessary system updates of the application, but will be available within 24 hours of this e-mail notification.

 

(2)  TIMELY RESPONSE IS REQUIRED:  Please 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 3/8/2016 (or sooner if specified in the Office action).  For information regarding response time periods, see http://www.gov.uspto.report/trademarks/process/status/responsetime.jsp.

 

Do NOT hit “Reply” to this e-mail notification, or otherwise e-mail your response because the USPTO does NOT accept e-mails as responses to Office actions.  Instead, the USPTO recommends that you respond online using the Trademark Electronic Application System (TEAS) response form located at http://www.gov.uspto.report/trademarks/teas/response_forms.jsp.

 

(3)  QUESTIONS:  For questions about the contents of the Office action itself, please contact the assigned trademark examining attorney.  For technical assistance in accessing or viewing the Office action in the Trademark Status and Document Retrieval (TSDR) system, please e-mail TSDR@uspto.gov.

 

WARNING

 

Failure to file the required response by the applicable response deadline will result in the ABANDONMENT of your application.  For more information regarding abandonment, see http://www.gov.uspto.report/trademarks/basics/abandon.jsp.

 

PRIVATE COMPANY SOLICITATIONS REGARDING YOUR APPLICATION:  Private companies not associated with the USPTO are using information provided in trademark applications to mail or e-mail trademark-related solicitations.  These companies often use names that closely resemble the USPTO and their solicitations may look like an official government document.  Many solicitations require that you pay “fees.” 

 

Please carefully review all correspondence you receive regarding this application to make sure that you are responding to an official document from the USPTO rather than a private company solicitation.  All official USPTO correspondence will be mailed only from the “United States Patent and Trademark Office” in Alexandria, VA; or sent by e-mail from the domain “@uspto.gov.”  For more information on how to handle private company solicitations, see http://www.gov.uspto.report/trademarks/solicitation_warnings.jsp.