UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE (USPTO)
OFFICE ACTION (OFFICIAL LETTER) ABOUT APPLICANT’S TRADEMARK APPLICATION
|
U.S. APPLICATION SERIAL NO. 86694998
MARK: QUICK CONNECT
|
|
|
CORRESPONDENT ADDRESS: 10250 Constellation Blvd Ste 2800 |
CLICK HERE TO RESPOND TO THIS LETTER: http://www.gov.uspto.report/trademarks/teas/response_forms.jsp
|
|
APPLICANT: OMS Investments, 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: 8/27/2015
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).
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.
SUMMARY OF ISSUES that applicant must address:
SECTION 2(e)(1) REFUSAL - MERELY DESCRIPTIVE
Registration is refused because the applied-for mark QUICK CONNECT merely describes a feature/characteristic/function 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.
The determination of whether a mark is merely descriptive is made in relation to an applicant’s goods, not in the abstract. DuoProSS Meditech Corp. v. Inviro Med. Devices, Ltd., 695 F.3d 1247, 1254, 103 USPQ2d 1753, 1757 (Fed. Cir. 2012); In re The Chamber of Commerce of the U.S., 675 F.3d 1297, 1300, 102 USPQ2d 1217, 1219 (Fed. Cir. 2012); TMEP §1209.01(b); see, e.g., In re Polo Int’l Inc., 51 USPQ2d 1061, 1062-63 (TTAB 1999) (finding DOC in DOC-CONTROL would refer to the “documents” managed by applicant’s software rather than the term “doctor” shown in a dictionary definition); In re Digital Research Inc., 4 USPQ2d 1242, 1243-44 (TTAB 1987) (finding CONCURRENT PC-DOS and CONCURRENT DOS merely descriptive of “computer programs recorded on disk” where the relevant trade used the denomination “concurrent” as a descriptor of a particular type of operating system). “Whether consumers could guess what the product [or service] is from consideration of the mark alone is not the test.” In re Am. Greetings Corp., 226 USPQ 365, 366 (TTAB 1985).
In this case, applicant seeks registration of QUICK CONNECT for “Manually powered sprayer dispenser for use with herbicides, insecticides and pesticides for domestic use”. As the attachments indicate, QUICK is defined as “rapid; swift” and “done with promptness; prompt” while CONNECT means “to join or fasten (two things together, or one thing with or to another); link; couple”. See dictionary definitions from Collins American Dictionary attached. As such, the mark is merely descriptive of applicant’s sprayer dispensers that can be quickly connected to other objects.
Attached is additional evidence supporting the finding that QUICK CONNECT is used in a descriptive manner for similar goods offered by third parties, namely, various third party websites offering similar goods which have quick connect features. Material obtained from the Internet is generally accepted as competent evidence. See In re Leonhardt, 109 USPQ2d 2091, 2098 (TTAB 2008) (accepting Internet evidence to show descriptiveness); TBMP §1208.03; TMEP §710.01(b).
The Internet has become integral to daily life in the United States, with Census Bureau data showing approximately three-quarters of American households used the Internet in 2013 to engage in personal communications, to obtain news, information, and entertainment, and to do banking and shopping. See In re Nieves & Nieves LLC, 113 USPQ2d at 1642 (taking judicial notice of the following two official government publications: (1) Thom File & Camille Ryan, U.S. Census Bureau, Am. Cmty. Survey Reports ACS-28, Computer & Internet Use in the United States: 2013 (2014), available at http://www.census.gov/content/dam/Census/library/publications/2014/acs/acs-28.pdf, and (2) The Nat’l Telecomms. & Info. Admin. & Econ. & Statistics Admin., Exploring the Digital Nation: America’s Emerging Online Experience (2013), available at http://www.ntia.doc.gov/files/ntia/publications/exploring_the_digital_nation_-_americas_emerging_online_experience.pdf). Thus, the widespread use of the Internet in the United States suggests that Internet evidence may be probative of public perception in trademark examination.
The attached internet evidence shows that many other manufacturers of goods similar to those of the applicant describe that their dispensers have a “quick connect” feature and function. Additional patent evidence also shows that the wording is a feature and function of similar goods. Moreover, the applicant's prior registration, U.S. Reg. No. 2831275, was originally refused based on a Section 2(e)(1) Merely Descriptive refusal. The mark was only permitted to register under Trademark Act Section 2(f) based on acquired distinctiveness. Thus, the commercial impression in this mark conveys a salient feature, use and function of the goods to potential consumers.
Third-party registrations featuring goods the same as or similar to applicant’s goods are probative evidence on the issue of descriptiveness where the relevant word or term is disclaimed, registered under Trademark Act Section 2(f) based on acquired distinctiveness, or registered on the Supplemental Register. See Inst. Nat’l des Appellations D’Origine v. Vintners Int’l Co., 958 F.2d 1574, 1581-82, 22 USPQ2d 1190, 1196 (Fed. Cir. 1992); In re Box Solutions Corp., 79 USPQ2d 1953, 1955 (TTAB 2006); In re Finisar Corp., 78 USPQ2d 1618, 1621 (TTAB 2006). See evidence attached in which the relevant wording was treated as descriptive when used on the same/similar goods:
· 360 QUICK CONNECT for camera and lighting mounts registered on the Supplemental Register
· QUICK-CONNECT for cable fittings registered under Trademark Act Section 2(f) based on acquired distinctiveness
· QUICK CONNECT for computer cables registered on the Supplemental Register
· QUICK CONNECT for adaptors registered on the Supplemental Register
· MODULAR QUIK-CONNECT for oil and gas equipment registered on the Supplemental Register
In light of the evidence discussed above and attached herein and past Office practice in finding the relevant wording descriptive, applicant’s mark is descriptive.
A consumer encountering the mark QUICK CONNECT in connection with applicant’s goods would immediately understand a feature or nature of the goods because the wording directly conveys information that applicant’s goods have a quick connect feature. Because the mark directly conveys information about applicant’s goods, registration is refused under Trademark Act Section 2(e)(1).
Although applicant’s mark has been refused registration, applicant may respond to the refusal(s) by submitting evidence and arguments in support of registration.
ADVISORY ON SUPPLEMENTAL REGISTER
Although an amendment to the Supplemental Register would normally be an appropriate response to this refusal, such a response is not appropriate in the present case. The instant application was filed under Trademark Act Section 1(b) and is not eligible for registration on the Supplemental Register until an acceptable amendment to allege use meeting the requirements of 37 C.F.R. §2.76 has been timely filed. 37 C.F.R. §2.47(d); TMEP §§816.02, 1102.03.
If applicant files an acceptable allegation of use and also amends to the Supplemental Register, the effective filing date of the application will be the date on which applicant met the minimum filing requirements of 37 C.F.R. §2.76(c) for the amendment to allege use. 37 C.F.R. §2.75(b); TMEP §§816.02, 1102.03. In addition, the undersigned trademark examining attorney will conduct a new search of the USPTO records for conflicting marks based on the later application filing date. TMEP §§206.01, 1102.03.
If applicant chooses to respond to the refusal(s) to register, then applicant must also respond to the following requirement(s).
IDENTIFICATION AND CLASSIFICATION OF GOODS
The identification of goods must be clarified because the wording is indefinite and could include goods in more than one International Class. See TMEP §1402.01. Specifically, the wording appears to encompass “hand-operated sprayers for insecticide” and “displacement pump sprayers attached to a garden hose for spraying liquid herbicides, pesticides, and insecticides” which are tools in Class 008. If the goods are sold filled with the herbicides, insecticides and pesticides, then they appear to encompass goods in Class 005.
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.
Applicant may adopt the following identification, if accurate:
“Manually powered sprayer dispenser sold filled with herbicides, insecticides and pesticides for domestic use” in International Class 005; and/or
“Manually powered sprayer dispenser, namely, hand-operated sprayers for herbicides, insecticides and pesticides for domestic use” in International Class 008
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.
MULTIPLE – CLASS APPLICATION REQUIREMENTS
The application identifies goods in more than one international class; therefore, applicant must satisfy all the requirements below for each international class based on Trademark Act Section 1(b):
(1) List the goods and/or services by their international class number in consecutive numerical order, starting with the lowest numbered class.
(2) Submit a filing fee for each international class not covered by the fee(s) already paid (view the USPTO’s current fee schedule at http://www.gov.uspto.report/trademarks/tm_fee_info.jsp). The application identifies goods and/or services that are classified in at least two classes; however, applicant submitted a fee(s) sufficient for only one class. Applicant must either submit the filing fees for the classes not covered by the submitted fees or restrict the application to the number of classes covered by the fees already paid.
See 15 U.S.C. §§1051(b), 1112, 1126(e); 37 C.F.R. §§2.32(a)(6)-(7), 2.34(a)(2)-(3), 2.86(a); TMEP §§1403.01, 1403.02(c).
For an overview of the requirements for a Section 1(b) multiple-class application and how to satisfy the requirements online using the Trademark Electronic Application System (TEAS) form, please go to http://www.gov.uspto.report/trademarks/law/multiclass.jsp.
INFORMATION ABOUT GOODS REQUIRED
The nature of the goods on which applicant intends to use its mark is not clear from the present record and additional information is required. An applicant can be required to provide more information if it is necessary for proper examination of the application. 37 C.F.R. §2.61(b); TMEP §§814, 1402.01(e); see In re AOP LLC, 107 USPQ2d 1644, 1650-51 (TTAB 2013); In re Cheezwhse.com, Inc., 85 USPQ2d 1917, 1919 (TTAB 2008); In re DTI P’ship LLP, 67 USPQ2d 1699, 1701-02 (TTAB 2003).
Therefore, applicant must submit samples of advertisements or promotional materials and/or a photograph of the identified goods. If such materials are not available, applicant must submit samples of advertisements or promotional materials and a photograph of similar goods. In addition, applicant must describe in detail the nature, purpose, and channels of trade of the goods. Specifically, applicant must explain:
Does applicant’s sprayer dispenser have a quick connect feature?
Failure to comply with a request for information can be grounds for refusing registration. In re AOP LLC, 107 USPQ2d at 1651; In re DTI P’ship LLP, 67 USPQ2d at 1701-02; TMEP §814.
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.
