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: 12/16/2015

 

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).

 

SUMMARY OF ISSUES:

 

• Section 2(e)(1) Refusal - Merely Descriptive
• Amended Identification and Classification of Goods and Services Required
• Multiple-Class Application Requirements
• Amended Description of Mark Required

SECTION 2(e)(1) REFUSAL - MERELY DESCRIPTIVE

Applicant seeks to register the mark THE HAIR SHOP for “Hair extensions, hair extension tools, hair care products, hair accessories, wig and other hair related products; Retail store services featuring hair, hair extensions, hair care products, hair accessories, and other hair related products; hair replacement services, hair addition, and hair extension services, hair salon services”.

Registration is refused because the applied-for mark merely describes a characteristic of applicant’s goods and 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 an applicant’s goods and/or services.  TMEP §1209.01(b); see, e.g., In re TriVita, Inc., 783 F.3d 872, 874, 114 USPQ2d 1574, 1575 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (quoting In re Oppedahl & Larson LLP, 373 F.3d 1171, 1173, 71 USPQ2d 1370, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2004)); In re Steelbuilding.com, 415 F.3d 1293, 1297, 75 USPQ2d 1420, 1421 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (citing Estate of P.D. Beckwith, Inc. v. Comm’r of Patents, 252 U.S. 538, 543 (1920)). 

The determination of whether a mark is merely descriptive is made in relation to an applicant’s goods and services, 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 is from consideration of the mark alone is not the test.”  In re Am. Greetings Corp., 226 USPQ 365, 366 (TTAB 1985).

The wording HAIR appears in applicant’s identification of goods and services.  As such, the wording is merely descriptive of a characteristic of applicant’s goods and services; namely, that applicant offers hair-care related products and services.

Terms that describe the provider of a product or service may also be merely descriptive of the product and/or service.  See In re The Chamber of Commerce of the U.S., 675 F.3d 1297, 1301, 102 USPQ2d 1217, 1220 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (affirming Board’s finding that NATIONAL CHAMBER was merely descriptive of online service providing directory information for local and state chambers of commerce and business and regulatory data analysis services to promote the interest of businessmen and businesswomen); In re Major League Umpires, 60 USPQ2d 1059, 1060 (TTAB 2001) (holding MAJOR LEAGUE UMPIRE merely descriptive of clothing, face masks, chest protectors and shin guards); TMEP §1209.03(q).

The attached dictionary evidence establishes that the wording SHOP is defined as “a building or part of a building where goods or services are sold; a store”.  As such, applicant’s SHOP wording is merely descriptive of a characteristic of applicant’s goods; namely, that they are provided by stores.  The SHOP wording also indicates the nature of applicant’s retail and hair salon services; namely, that they are services that are provided to consumers in a building setting.

 

According to the attached internet evidence from Beauty News NYC, Vinted, Human Touch Hair, Mr. Kate and Brit-Rocks.com, the wording HAIR is used in combination with the wording SHOP to describe a store that provides goods and services related to hair care.  As such, the wording HAIR SHOP is descriptive for an establishment that provides hair-related products and services.

Applicant’s addition of the THE wording to its mark does not obviate the descriptive nature of the mark, as adding the term “the” to a descriptive or generic term generally does not add any source-indicating significance or otherwise affect the term’s descriptiveness or genericness.  See In re The Place Inc., 76 USPQ2d 1467, 1468 (TTAB 2005) (holding THE GREATEST BAR merely descriptive of restaurant and bar services; “the definite article THE . . . add[s] no source-indicating significance to the mark as a whole”); Conde Nast Publ’ns Inc. v. Redbook Publ’g Co., 217 USPQ 356, 357, 360 (TTAB 1983) (holding THE MAGAZINE FOR YOUNG WOMEN a “common descriptive or ‘generic’ name of a class or type of magazine” and incapable of indicating source; “[t]he fact that the slogan also includes the article ‘The’ is insignificant.  This word cannot serve as an indication of origin, even if applicant’s magazine were the only magazine for young women.”); In re The Computer Store, Inc., 211 USPQ 72, 74-75 (TTAB 1981) (holding THE COMPUTER STORE merely descriptive of, and the common descriptive name for, computer-related services); see also In re G. D. Searle & Co., 143 USPQ 220 (TTAB 1964), aff’d, 360 F.2d 1966, 149 USPQ 619 (C.C.P.A. 1966) (holding “THE PILL” a common descriptive name for pharmaceutical preparations in tablet form, and thus does not serve as an indicator of source or origin in applicant).

 

Generally, if the individual components of a mark retain their descriptive meaning in relation to the goods and/or services, 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 Cannon Safe, Inc., 116 USPQ2d 1348, 1351 (TTAB 2015) (holding SMART SERIES merely descriptive of metal gun safes, because “each component term retains its merely descriptive significance in relation to the goods, resulting in a mark that is also merely descriptive”); 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); In re Associated Theatre Clubs Co., 9 USPQ2d 1660, 1663 (TTAB 1988) (holding GROUP SALES BOX OFFICE merely descriptive of theater ticket sales services, because such wording “is nothing more than a combination of the two common descriptive terms most applicable to applicant’s services which in combination achieve no different status but remain a common descriptive compound expression”). 

 

Only where the combination of descriptive terms creates a unitary mark with a unique, incongruous, or otherwise nondescriptive meaning in relation to the goods and/or services 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, taken together, the wording THE HAIR SHOP merely describes a characteristic of applicant’s goods and services; namely, that applicant offers hair-care products and services in a store setting.  Both the individual components and the composite result are descriptive of applicant’s goods and services and do not create a unique, incongruous, or nondescriptive meaning in relation to the goods and services. 

 

Although the applied-for mark shows the wording in stylized lettering, the degree of stylization in this case is not sufficiently striking, unique, or distinctive so as to create a commercial impression separate and apart from the unregistrable components of the mark.  See In re Sadoru Grp., Ltd., 105 USPQ2d 1484, 1490 (TTAB 2012); In re Guilford Mills, Inc., 33 USPQ2d 1042, 1044 (TTAB 1994).

Because applicant’s applied-for mark is merely descriptive of a characteristic of applicant’s goods and services, registration is refused under Section 2(e)(1) of the Lanham Act.

In addition to being merely descriptive, the applied-for mark appears to be generic in connection with the identified goods and services and, therefore, incapable of functioning as a source-identifier for applicant’s goods or services.  In re Gould Paper Corp., 834 F.2d 1017, 5 USPQ2d 1110 (Fed. Cir. 1987); In re Pennzoil Prods. Co., 20 USPQ2d 1753 (TTAB 1991); see TMEP §§1209.01(c) et seq., 1209.02(a).  Under these circumstances, neither an amendment to proceed under Trademark Act Section 2(f) nor an amendment to the Supplemental Register can be recommended.  See TMEP §1209.01(c).

 

Although applicant’s mark has been refused registration, applicant may respond to the refusal by submitting evidence and arguments in support of registration.  However, if applicant responds to the refusal, applicant must also respond to the requirements set forth below.

 

AMENDED IDENTIFICATION AND CLASSIFICATION OF GOODS AND SERVICES REQUIRED

 

An application must specify, in an explicit manner, “the particular goods and/or services on or in connection with which the applicant uses, or has a bona fide intention to use, the mark in commerce.”  TMEP §1402.01; see 15 U.S.C. §1051(a)(2), (b)(2); 37 C.F.R. §2.32(a)(6).  Therefore, proper punctuation in identifications of goods and/or services is necessary to delineate explicitly each product or service within a list and to avoid ambiguity. 

 

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. 

 

For example, the identification of goods “cleaners, namely, glass cleaners, deodorizers for pets, cosmetics” is ambiguous because “cosmetics” and “deodorizers for pets” are not “cleaners,” and thus are not within this category of goods even though they are all in the same international class.  See id.  However, by replacing the commas with semicolons after “glass cleaners” and “deodorizers for pets,” this identification would become acceptable:  “cleaners, namely, glass cleaners; deodorizers for pets; cosmetics.”  See id.

 

Here, applicant did not designate in the application the required international class numbers for applicant’s goods and services.  Thus, the USPTO conducted a preliminary review of the specified goods and services and assigned an international class number.  See TMEP §1401.03(b).  However, in this case, the USPTO incorrectly classified the goods and services in International Class 19.  The proper classification for each item is as follows:

 

“Hair extensions” in International Class 26

 

“Hair extension tools” in International Classes 8 and/or 26.

 

“Hair care products” in International Classes 3 and/or 5.

 

“Hair accessories, wig and other hair related products” in International Class 26.

 

“Retail store services featuring hair, hair extensions, hair care products, hair accessories, and other hair related products” in International Class 35.

 

“Hair replacement services, hair addition, and hair extension services, hair salon services” in International Class 44.

 

Therefore, applicant may respond by (1) adding one or more of the above international classes to the application, and reclassifying the above goods and services accordingly; or (2) deleting the goods and services that are classified in all but one international class from the application and requesting that the USPTO amend the application to classify the remaining goods and/or services in the correct international class identified above.  See 37 C.F.R. §§2.32(a)(7), 2.85; TMEP §§1401.02(a), 1401.03(b).  See also 37 C.F.R. §§2.86(a), 6.1; TMEP §§1403.02 et seq.  If applicant adds one or more international classes to the application, applicant must comply with the multiple-class requirements specified in this Office action.

 

In addition, the wording “hair care products” in the identification of goods must be clarified because it is indefinite and too broad and could include goods in other international classes.  See TMEP §§1402.01, 1402.03.  Examples of acceptable identifications include “hair care products, namely, hair gels” in Class 3, and “medicated hair care products, namely, hair growth stimulants” in Class 5.  Applicant must amend the identification to indicate the specific hair care products that applicant provides, and classify the goods accordingly.

 

The wording “hair extension tools” in the identification of goods must also be clarified because it is indefinite and too broad and could include goods in other international classes.  See TMEP §§1402.01, 1402.03.  Examples of acceptable identifications include “hair extension tools, namely, pliers” in Class 8, and “hair extension tools, namely, hair pins” in Class 26.  Applicant must amend the identification to indicate the specific hair extension tools that applicant provides, and classify the goods accordingly.

 

Finally, the wording “hair accessories, wig, and other hair related products” the identification of goods is indefinite and must be clarified to specify the common commercial name of applicant’s “hair accessories” and “hair related products”.  See TMEP §1402.01.  If there is no common commercial name, applicant must describe the product and its intended uses.  See id.

 

Applicant may adopt the following identification and classification of goods and services, if accurate:

 

Class 3:           Hair care products, namely, {indicate Class 3 items, e.g., hair conditioners, hair gels, hair tonics, etc.}.

 

Class 5:           Medicated hair care products, namely, (indicate Class 5 items, e.g., hair growth stimulants, medicated hair serums, medicated serums for hair, etc.}.

 

Class 8:           Hair extension tools, namely, {indicate Class 8 items, e.g., pliers, scissors, electric hair straighteners, etc.}.

 

Class 26:         Hair extensions; hair extension tools, namely, {indicate Class 26 items, e.g., hair pins, hair rods, rubber bands for hair, etc.}; hair accessories in the nature of {indicate Class 26 items, e.g., hair sticks, claw clips, hair ties, etc.}, wigs, and other hair related products in the nature of {indicate Class 26 items, e.g., hair ribbons, hair ornaments, hair netting, etc.}.

 

Class 35:         Retail store services featuring hair, hair extensions, hair care products, hair accessories, and other hair related products.

 

Class 44:         Hair replacement, hair addition, and hair extension services; hair salon services.

 

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

 

For assistance with identifying and classifying goods and services in trademark applications, please see the USPTO’s online searchable U.S. Acceptable Identification of Goods and Services Manual at http://tess2.gov.uspto.report/netahtml/tidm.html.  See TMEP §1402.04.

 

MULTIPLE-CLASS APPLICATION REQUIREMENTS

 

The application identifies goods and services in more than one international class; therefore, applicant must satisfy all the requirements below for each international class based on use in commerce under Section 1(a):

 

(1)       List the goods and 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 fees 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 services that are classified in at least 6 classes; however, applicant submitted a fee sufficient for only 1 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.

 

(3)       Submit verified dates of first use of the mark anywhere and in commerce for each international class.

 

(4)       Submit a specimen for each international class.  The current specimen is acceptable for Classes 35 and 44, and applicant needs a specimen for Classes 3, 5, 8 and 26.

            Examples of specimens for goods include tags, labels, instruction manuals, containers, and photographs that show the mark on the actual goods or packaging, or displays associated with the actual goods at their point of sale.  Webpages may also be specimens for goods when they include a picture or textual description of the goods associated with the mark and the means to order the goods. 

 

            Examples of specimens for services include advertising and marketing materials, brochures, photographs of business signage and billboards, and website printouts that show the mark used in the actual sale, rendering, or advertising of the services. 

 

(5)       Submit a verified statement that “The specimen was in use in commerce on or in connection with the goods and services listed in the application at least as early as the filing date of the application.” 

 

See 15 U.S.C. §§1051(a), 1112; 37 C.F.R. §§ 2.32(a)(6)-(7), 2.34(a)(1), 2.86(a); TMEP §§904, 1403.01, 1403.02(c).

 

For an overview of the requirements for a Section 1(a) 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.

 

The fee for adding classes to a TEAS Reduced Fee (RF) application is $275 per class.  See 37 C.F.R. §§2.6(a)(1)(iii), 2.23(a).  For information regarding the requirements for maintaining the lower TEAS RF fee and, if these requirements are not satisfied, for adding classes at a higher fee by TEAS and in a paper submission, please go to http://www-cms.gov.uspto.report/trademark/laws-regulations/how-satisfy-requirements-multiple-class-trademark-electronic-application.

 

AMENDED DESCRIPTION OF MARK REQUIRED

 

The description of the mark is accurate but incomplete because it does not describe all the significant aspects of the applied-for mark.  Applications for marks not in standard characters must include an accurate and concise description of the entire mark that identifies literal elements as well as any design elements.  See 37 C.F.R. §2.37; TMEP §§808 et seq. 

 

Therefore, applicant must provide a more complete description of the applied-for mark.  The following is suggested:

 

The mark consists of wording “THE HAIR SHOP” in stylized font. The word "THE" is positioned at the upper left corner of the mark, and the word "SHOP" is positioned at the lower right corner of the mark.  The word "HAIR" is positioned on a diagonal in the center of the mark, and appears to the right of the word “THE” and to the left of the word “SHOP”.  The horizontal bar in the letter “H” in “HAIR” extends diagonally to the left beyond the left vertical bar of the letter “H” in “HAIR”, and the bottom right corner of the letter “R” in “HAIR” extends diagonally to the right beyond the word “SHOP”.

 

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.

 

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. 

 

/Katerina D. Medvedev/

Examining Attorney

Law Office 120

(571) 272-4542

katerina.medvedev@uspto.gov

 

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 12/16/2015 FOR U.S. APPLICATION SERIAL NO. 86737795

 

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 12/16/2015 (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.