Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 no persons are required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a valid OMB control number. PTO Form 1957 (Rev 10/2011) |
OMB No. 0651-0050 (Exp 07/31/2017) |
Input Field |
Entered |
---|---|
SERIAL NUMBER | 86635964 |
LAW OFFICE ASSIGNED | LAW OFFICE 102 |
MARK SECTION | |
MARK | http://tmng-al.gov.uspto.report/resting2/api/img/86635964/large |
LITERAL ELEMENT | DYSON |
STANDARD CHARACTERS | YES |
USPTO-GENERATED IMAGE | YES |
MARK STATEMENT | The mark consists of standard characters, without claim to any particular font style, size or color. |
ARGUMENT(S) | |
Dear Commissioner: This communication is being filed in response to the office action dated September 3, 2015.Acquired Distinctiveness
The Examining Attorney has refused registration on the basis that the DYSON mark is primarily merely a surname. 15 U.S.C. § 1052(e)(4). Applicant respectfully submits that the DYSON mark has become distinctive for DYSON goods and services, and that this distinctiveness will transfer to the applied-for services upon use in commerce. A claim of distinctiveness under 2(f) may be filed in an intent-to-use application if the mark has been used on related goods or services, the mark has become distinctive for those goods or services, and that distinctiveness will transfer to the goods and/or services in the intent-to-use application when use in commerce begins. T.M.E.P. § 1212.09(a) (citing In re Dial-A-Mattress Operating Corp., 240 F.3d 1341, 1347, 57 U.S.P.Q. 2d 1807, 1812 (Fed. Cir. 2001)). The Trademark Trial and Appeal Board has set forth a two-part requirement for showing that a mark in an intent-to-use application has acquired distinctiveness: The applicant must show (1) the same mark has acquired distinctiveness in connection with other goods and/or services with which the mark has been used in commerce, and (2) a sufficient relationship exists between those goods and/or services and the goods and/or services in the intent-to-use application, such that upon use, the acquired distinctiveness will transfer to the goods and/or services in the application. T.M.E.P. § 1212.09(a) (quoting In re Rogers, 53 U.S.P.Q. 2d 1741, 1744 (T.T.A.B. 1999)). I. The DYSON Marks Have Acquired Distinctiveness The Trademark Manual of Examining Procedure outlines three ways for an applicant to show that the same mark has acquired distinctiveness for goods and/or services related to the applied-for goods and/or services: (1) Registration of the mark on the Principal Register, (2) Five years use of the mark, which provides prima facie evidence of distinctiveness, or (3) Actual evidence of acquired distinctiveness for the mark. T.M.E.P. § 1212.09(a). Applicant can establish that DYSON has acquired distinctiveness through all three means, but in this response, Applicant will focus on the first two methods of proof. A. Applicant Has Registrations on the Principal Register for the DYSON Marks DYSON has become distinctive for sufficiently related goods and services as evidenced by the ownership of U.S. Registration Nos. 3,495,149 and 3,495,150 on the Principal Register. See T.M.E.P. § 1212.04 (quoting Trademark Rule 2.41(a)(1), 37 C.F.R. §2.41(a)(1) (“Provid[ing] that the examining attorney may accept, as prima facie evidence of acquired distinctiveness, ownership by the applicant of one or more active prior registrations of the same mark on the Principal Register.”)). Applicant owns U.S. Registration No. 3,495,149 for the DYSON (stylized) mark for “cleaning preparations for carpets, preparations for removing dirt from carpets; stain removal preparations for carpets” in International Class 3, “apparatus for cleaning floors and carpets, namely, vacuum cleaners; floor tools for vacuum cleaners, namely, floor tool cleaner heads and brushes; separation apparatus, namely, separators for removing dust and debris from the airflow in vacuum cleaners; hoses and filters for vacuum cleaners and parts and fittings for all the aforesaid goods” in International Class 7, and “repair, servicing and maintenance of vacuum cleaners, and floor tools for all of the aforesaid goods” in International Class 37. Applicant owns U.S. Registration No. 3,495,150 for the DYSON word mark for “cleaning preparations for carpets, preparations for removing dirt from carpets; stain removal preparations for carpets” in International Class 3, “apparatus for cleaning floors and carpets, namely, vacuum cleaners; floor tools for vacuum cleaners, namely, floor tool cleaner heads and brushes; separation apparatus, namely, separators for removing dust and debris from the airflow in vacuum cleaners; hoses and filters for vacuum cleaners and parts and fittings for all the aforesaid goods” in International Class 7, and “repair, servicing, and maintenance of vacuum cleaners, and floor tools for all of the aforesaid goods” in International Class 37. These registrations are prima facie evidence that the DYSON marks have acquired distinctiveness. See T.M.E.P. § 1212.04. B. Applicant Has Used the DYSON Marks in Commerce for Five Years Applicant first used the DYSON marks in October 2002 in connection with vacuum cleaners, vacuum cleaner parts and fittings, floor and carpet cleaning preparations, and cleaning preparations for removing dirt and odors from floors and carpets. (Declaration of Gillian Ruth Smith dated February 5, 2016 (“Smith Decl.”), ¶ 5, attached herewith as Exhibit A.) Since then, Applicant has expanded the DYSON product line to include hand dryers, fans, heaters, humidifiers, and lamps and lighting fixtures (2015). (Id. ¶ 4, 5.) Applicant has widely promoted its products throughout the U.S. and worldwide through television commercials, magazine and newspaper advertisements, billboards, and a variety of street level signs. (Id. ¶ 6.) Applicant is not aware of anyone else using DYSON as a trademark for any of the applied for goods or services. (Id. ¶ 7.) As a result, the DYSON marks have become distinctive for Applicant’s goods and services through Applicant’s substantially exclusive and continuous use of the DYSON marks in commerce that the U.S. Congress may lawfully regulate for at least the five years immediately prior to the filing of this response. (Id. ¶ 8.) See T.M.E.P. § 1212.05 (quoting 15 U.S.C. § 1052(f) (“providing that ‘proof of substantially exclusive and continuous use’ of a designation ‘as a mark by the applicant in commerce for the five years before the date on which the claim of distinctiveness is made’ may be accepted as prima facie evidence that the mark as acquired distinctiveness as used in commerce with the applicant’s goods or services”)). C. The DYSON Marks Are Legally Equivalent To The Applied-For Mark A mark in a previous registration constitutes the same mark as an applied-for mark for the purposes of a claim of acquired distinctiveness when it is the “legal equivalent” of that mark. T.M.E.P. § 1212.04(b). Two marks are deemed legally equivalent when they “create[ ] the same, continuing commercial impression such that the consumer would consider them both the same mark.” In re Dial-A-Mattress Operating Corp., 240 F.3d at 1347. Applicant owns two DYSON marks for which it has shown acquired distinctiveness: (1) the DYSON word mark, which is identical to the applied-for mark, and (2) the DYSON (stylized) mark, which utilizes a stylized lower-case font to display the DYSON word mark. The DYSON word mark registration encompasses all uses of the DYSON mark, regardless of the stylization. Thus, the marks are legally equivalent for purposes of assessing acquired distinctiveness. In fact, they are far more similar than cases where the Board has found that two different stylized marks, or marks with additional words, are legally equivalent for purposes of a claim of acquired distinctiveness. See e.g., Kellogg Co. v. Gen. Mills, Inc., 82 U.S.P.Q.2d 1766, 1770 (T.T.A.B. 2007) (finding two stylized marks that differ with a “slight degree of stylization of the letters” to be “essentially the same [ ] mark”); In re Best Products Co., Inc. 231 U.S.P.Q. 988, 989 n.6 (T.T.A.B. 1986) (finding the difference between the BEST Design Mark and the BEST JEWELRY Design Mark “immaterial” for the purpose of a Section 2(f) claim). Here, there is a single DYSON mark, which Applicant has protected and used in a specific stylized format for nearly 15 years. Consumers recognize the DYSON mark, regardless of the stylization in which it appears, as a single DYSON mark indicating a single source for Applicant’s goods and services. (Smith Decl.¶ 9.) Accordingly, the DYSON word mark and the DYSON (stylized) mark are legal equivalents. II. A Strong Relationship Exists Between the DYSON Goods and Services and the Services Recited in Serial Application No. 86/653,964
Applicant must demonstrate that the goods and services for which acquired distinctiveness has attached are related to the services in the application, in order to show that acquired distinctiveness will transfer to the applied-for services when use in commerce begins. Kellogg Co. v. General Mills, Inc., 82 U.S.P.Q. 2d at 1770 (quoting In re Dial-A-Mattress Operating Corp., 240 F.3d at 1347 (citing T.M.E.P. § 1219.09(a)). If the relatedness of the respective goods and/or services is self-evident, the examining attorney may reach such a conclusion without additional evidence. T.M.E.P. § 1212.04(c) (providing a prior registration for hair shampoo and a new application for hair conditioner as an example of a self-evident relationship between goods); see also In re Owens-Illinois Glass Co., 143 U.S.P.Q. 431, 432 (T.T.A.B. 1964) (finding cut-glass tableware and plastic tableware sufficiently similar because “purchasers of one kind of tableware might well be prospective purchasers of the other” and “purchasers would be likely to ascribe a common origin were they to be sold under the same mark”). As an initial matter, the services recited in the instant application are highly related to existing DYSON services. Namely, the application lists various maintenance, repair, and leasing services for its products, and Applicant has already acquired distinctiveness for maintenance, repair, and servicing of its vacuum cleaners. Since Applicant already offers services to facilitate use and maintenance of its vacuum cleaners, consumers will encounter the Class 37 services in the Application and recognize them as an expansion to the range of products covered by Applicant’s services. Finally, consumers will understand Applicant’s rental and leasing services of hand dryers as a natural and obvious extension of its role as a manufacturer and retailer of the same. See, e.g. In re Lytle Eng’g & Mfg. Co., 125 U.S.P.Q. 308, 309 (T.T.A.B. 1960) (finding the relationship between the planning, preparation and production of technical publications on one hand, and brochures, catalogues and bulletins on the other to be “obvious”). Since hand dryers can be considered a major purchase, services that provide use of such products at a lower capital cost via a leasing model are an obvious variation on Applicant’s position as a manufacturer of such products. In conclusion, Applicant’s DYSON mark has clearly acquired distinctiveness for goods and services sufficiently related to the applied-for services. This will result in the acquired distinctiveness transferring to the applied-for services upon use in commerce. Accordingly, Applicant respectfully requests that the Examining Attorney find that the mark is sufficiently distinctive and may proceed to publication. |
|
EVIDENCE SECTION | |
EVIDENCE FILE NAME(S) | |
ORIGINAL PDF FILE | evi_20413058-20160302140154588049_._Exhibit_A_for_86635964.pdf |
CONVERTED PDF FILE(S) (4 pages) |
\\TICRS\EXPORT17\IMAGEOUT17\869\809\86980981\LM2Copy\86635964\1\ROA5\ROA2.JPG |
\\TICRS\EXPORT17\IMAGEOUT17\869\809\86980981\LM2Copy\86635964\1\ROA5\ROA3.JPG | |
\\TICRS\EXPORT17\IMAGEOUT17\869\809\86980981\LM2Copy\86635964\1\ROA5\ROA4.JPG | |
\\TICRS\EXPORT17\IMAGEOUT17\869\809\86980981\LM2Copy\86635964\1\ROA5\ROA5.JPG | |
DESCRIPTION OF EVIDENCE FILE | Declaration of Gillian Ruth Smith. |
GOODS AND/OR SERVICES SECTION (current) | |
INTERNATIONAL CLASS | 037 |
DESCRIPTION | |
Installation, maintenance, servicing and repair of household appliances; installation, maintenance, servicing and repair of vacuum cleaners and other cleaning apparatus; installation, maintenance, servicing and repair of hand drying apparatus; installation, maintenance, servicing and repair of air conditioning apparatus, fans, fan heaters, purifiers, humidifiers, ceiling fans and hair dryers; installation, maintenance, servicing and repair of lighting apparatus and installations; rental and leasing of household appliances and hand dryers; rental and leasing of air conditioning apparatus, fans, fan heaters, purifiers, humidifiers and ceiling fans; rental and leasing of lighting apparatus and installations | |
FILING BASIS | Section 1(b) |
FILING BASIS | Section 44(d) |
FOREIGN APPLICATION NUMBER | 014000426 |
FOREIGN APPLICATION COUNTRY | European Community |
FOREIGN FILING DATE | 04/27/2015 |
GOODS AND/OR SERVICES SECTION (proposed) | |
INTERNATIONAL CLASS | 037 |
TRACKED TEXT DESCRIPTION | |
Installation, maintenance, servicing and repair of household appliances; installation,
maintenance, servicing and repair of vacuum cleaners and other cleaning apparatus; installation, maintenance, servicing and repair of hand drying apparatus;
installation, maintenance, servicing and repair of air conditioning apparatus, fans, fan heaters, purifiers, humidifiers, ceiling fans and hair dryers; installation, maintenance, servicing and repair of lighting apparatus and installations; |
|
FINAL DESCRIPTION | |
Installation, maintenance, servicing and repair of household appliances; installation, maintenance, servicing and repair of vacuum cleaners and other cleaning apparatus; installation, maintenance, servicing and repair of hand drying apparatus; installation, maintenance, servicing and repair of air conditioning apparatus, fans, fan heaters, purifiers, humidifiers, ceiling fans and hair dryers; installation, maintenance, servicing and repair of lighting apparatus and installations; rental and leasing of hand dryers. | |
DELETED FILING BASIS | 1(b); 44(d). |
FILING BASIS | Section 44(e) |
FOREIGN REGISTRATION NUMBER | 014000426 |
FOREIGN REGISTRATION COUNTRY |
European Community |
FOREIGN REGISTRATION DATE |
10/22/2015 |
FOREIGN EXPIRATION DATE | 04/27/2025 |
FOREIGN REGISTRATION FILE NAME(S) | |
ORIGINAL PDF FILE | FRU0-20413058-140154588_._UST1478I_-_CTM014000426.pdf |
CONVERTED PDF FILE(S) (5 pages) |
\\TICRS\EXPORT17\IMAGEOUT17\869\809\86980981\LM2Copy\86635964\1\ROA5\ROA6.JPG |
\\TICRS\EXPORT17\IMAGEOUT17\869\809\86980981\LM2Copy\86635964\1\ROA5\ROA7.JPG | |
\\TICRS\EXPORT17\IMAGEOUT17\869\809\86980981\LM2Copy\86635964\1\ROA5\ROA8.JPG | |
\\TICRS\EXPORT17\IMAGEOUT17\869\809\86980981\LM2Copy\86635964\1\ROA5\ROA9.JPG | |
\\TICRS\EXPORT17\IMAGEOUT17\869\809\86980981\LM2Copy\86635964\1\ROA5\ROA10.JPG | |
STANDARD CHARACTERS OR EQUIVALENT |
YES |
SIGNATURE SECTION | |
DECLARATION SIGNATURE | The filing Attorney has elected not to submit the signed declaration, believing no supporting declaration is required under the Trademark Rules of Practice. |
RESPONSE SIGNATURE | /JLT/ |
SIGNATORY'S NAME | Jennifer Lee Taylor |
SIGNATORY'S POSITION | California Bar Member, Attorney of Record |
SIGNATORY'S PHONE NUMBER | 415-268-6538 |
DATE SIGNED | 03/02/2016 |
AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY | YES |
FILING INFORMATION SECTION | |
SUBMIT DATE | Wed Mar 02 14:19:40 EST 2016 |
TEAS STAMP | USPTO/ROA-XXX.XXX.X.X-201 60302141940985604-8663596 4-550ae86d19929d21f8916c8 1f5865d12dbcc4d6818ba344f 5252e2d658ef972a7f5-N/A-N /A-20160302140154588049 |
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 no persons are required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a valid OMB control number. PTO Form 1957 (Rev 10/2011) |
OMB No. 0651-0050 (Exp 07/31/2017) |
Dear Commissioner:
This communication is being filed in response to the office action dated September 3, 2015.Acquired Distinctiveness
The Examining Attorney has refused registration on the basis that the DYSON mark is primarily merely a surname. 15 U.S.C. § 1052(e)(4). Applicant respectfully submits that the DYSON mark has become distinctive for DYSON goods and services, and that this distinctiveness will transfer to the applied-for services upon use in commerce. A claim of distinctiveness under 2(f) may be filed in an intent-to-use application if the mark has been used on related goods or services, the mark has become distinctive for those goods or services, and that distinctiveness will transfer to the goods and/or services in the intent-to-use application when use in commerce begins. T.M.E.P. § 1212.09(a) (citing In re Dial-A-Mattress Operating Corp., 240 F.3d 1341, 1347, 57 U.S.P.Q. 2d 1807, 1812 (Fed. Cir. 2001)).
The Trademark Trial and Appeal Board has set forth a two-part requirement for showing that a mark in an intent-to-use application has acquired distinctiveness: The applicant must show (1) the same mark has acquired distinctiveness in connection with other goods and/or services with which the mark has been used in commerce, and (2) a sufficient relationship exists between those goods and/or services and the goods and/or services in the intent-to-use application, such that upon use, the acquired distinctiveness will transfer to the goods and/or services in the application. T.M.E.P. § 1212.09(a) (quoting In re Rogers, 53 U.S.P.Q. 2d 1741, 1744 (T.T.A.B. 1999)).
I. The DYSON Marks Have Acquired Distinctiveness
The Trademark Manual of Examining Procedure outlines three ways for an applicant to show that the same mark has acquired distinctiveness for goods and/or services related to the applied-for goods and/or services: (1) Registration of the mark on the Principal Register, (2) Five years use of the mark, which provides prima facie evidence of distinctiveness, or (3) Actual evidence of acquired distinctiveness for the mark. T.M.E.P. § 1212.09(a). Applicant can establish that DYSON has acquired distinctiveness through all three means, but in this response, Applicant will focus on the first two methods of proof.
A. Applicant Has Registrations on the Principal Register for the DYSON Marks
DYSON has become distinctive for sufficiently related goods and services as evidenced by the ownership of U.S. Registration Nos. 3,495,149 and 3,495,150 on the Principal Register. See T.M.E.P. § 1212.04 (quoting Trademark Rule 2.41(a)(1), 37 C.F.R. §2.41(a)(1) (“Provid[ing] that the examining attorney may accept, as prima facie evidence of acquired distinctiveness, ownership by the applicant of one or more active prior registrations of the same mark on the Principal Register.”)).
Applicant owns U.S. Registration No. 3,495,149 for the DYSON (stylized) mark for “cleaning preparations for carpets, preparations for removing dirt from carpets; stain removal preparations for carpets” in International Class 3, “apparatus for cleaning floors and carpets, namely, vacuum cleaners; floor tools for vacuum cleaners, namely, floor tool cleaner heads and brushes; separation apparatus, namely, separators for removing dust and debris from the airflow in vacuum cleaners; hoses and filters for vacuum cleaners and parts and fittings for all the aforesaid goods” in International Class 7, and “repair, servicing and maintenance of vacuum cleaners, and floor tools for all of the aforesaid goods” in International Class 37.
Applicant owns U.S. Registration No. 3,495,150 for the DYSON word mark for “cleaning preparations for carpets, preparations for removing dirt from carpets; stain removal preparations for carpets” in International Class 3, “apparatus for cleaning floors and carpets, namely, vacuum cleaners; floor tools for vacuum cleaners, namely, floor tool cleaner heads and brushes; separation apparatus, namely, separators for removing dust and debris from the airflow in vacuum cleaners; hoses and filters for vacuum cleaners and parts and fittings for all the aforesaid goods” in International Class 7, and “repair, servicing, and maintenance of vacuum cleaners, and floor tools for all of the aforesaid goods” in International Class 37.
These registrations are prima facie evidence that the DYSON marks have acquired distinctiveness. See T.M.E.P. § 1212.04.
B. Applicant Has Used the DYSON Marks in Commerce for Five Years
Applicant first used the DYSON marks in October 2002 in connection with vacuum cleaners, vacuum cleaner parts and fittings, floor and carpet cleaning preparations, and cleaning preparations for removing dirt and odors from floors and carpets. (Declaration of Gillian Ruth Smith dated February 5, 2016 (“Smith Decl.”), ¶ 5, attached herewith as Exhibit A.) Since then, Applicant has expanded the DYSON product line to include hand dryers, fans, heaters, humidifiers, and lamps and lighting fixtures (2015). (Id. ¶ 4, 5.) Applicant has widely promoted its products throughout the U.S. and worldwide through television commercials, magazine and newspaper advertisements, billboards, and a variety of street level signs. (Id. ¶ 6.) Applicant is not aware of anyone else using DYSON as a trademark for any of the applied for goods or services. (Id. ¶ 7.)
As a result, the DYSON marks have become distinctive for Applicant’s goods and services through Applicant’s substantially exclusive and continuous use of the DYSON marks in commerce that the U.S. Congress may lawfully regulate for at least the five years immediately prior to the filing of this response. (Id. ¶ 8.) See T.M.E.P. § 1212.05 (quoting 15 U.S.C. § 1052(f) (“providing that ‘proof of substantially exclusive and continuous use’ of a designation ‘as a mark by the applicant in commerce for the five years before the date on which the claim of distinctiveness is made’ may be accepted as prima facie evidence that the mark as acquired distinctiveness as used in commerce with the applicant’s goods or services”)).
C. The DYSON Marks Are Legally Equivalent To The Applied-For Mark
A mark in a previous registration constitutes the same mark as an applied-for mark for the purposes of a claim of acquired distinctiveness when it is the “legal equivalent” of that mark. T.M.E.P. § 1212.04(b). Two marks are deemed legally equivalent when they “create[ ] the same, continuing commercial impression such that the consumer would consider them both the same mark.” In re Dial-A-Mattress Operating Corp., 240 F.3d at 1347.
Applicant owns two DYSON marks for which it has shown acquired distinctiveness: (1) the DYSON word mark, which is identical to the applied-for mark, and (2) the DYSON (stylized) mark, which utilizes a stylized lower-case font to display the DYSON word mark. The DYSON word mark registration encompasses all uses of the DYSON mark, regardless of the stylization. Thus, the marks are legally equivalent for purposes of assessing acquired distinctiveness. In fact, they are far more similar than cases where the Board has found that two different stylized marks, or marks with additional words, are legally equivalent for purposes of a claim of acquired distinctiveness. See e.g., Kellogg Co. v. Gen. Mills, Inc., 82 U.S.P.Q.2d 1766, 1770 (T.T.A.B. 2007) (finding two stylized marks that differ with a “slight degree of stylization of the letters” to be “essentially the same [ ] mark”); In re Best Products Co., Inc. 231 U.S.P.Q. 988, 989 n.6 (T.T.A.B. 1986) (finding the difference between the BEST Design Mark and the BEST JEWELRY Design Mark “immaterial” for the purpose of a Section 2(f) claim). Here, there is a single DYSON mark, which Applicant has protected and used in a specific stylized format for nearly 15 years. Consumers recognize the DYSON mark, regardless of the stylization in which it appears, as a single DYSON mark indicating a single source for Applicant’s goods and services. (Smith Decl.¶ 9.) Accordingly, the DYSON word mark and the DYSON (stylized) mark are legal equivalents.
II. A Strong Relationship Exists Between the DYSON Goods and Services and the Services Recited in Serial Application No. 86/653,964
Applicant must demonstrate that the goods and services for which acquired distinctiveness has attached are related to the services in the application, in order to show that acquired distinctiveness will transfer to the applied-for services when use in commerce begins. Kellogg Co. v. General Mills, Inc., 82 U.S.P.Q. 2d at 1770 (quoting In re Dial-A-Mattress Operating Corp., 240 F.3d at 1347 (citing T.M.E.P. § 1219.09(a)).
If the relatedness of the respective goods and/or services is self-evident, the examining attorney may reach such a conclusion without additional evidence. T.M.E.P. § 1212.04(c) (providing a prior registration for hair shampoo and a new application for hair conditioner as an example of a self-evident relationship between goods); see also In re Owens-Illinois Glass Co., 143 U.S.P.Q. 431, 432 (T.T.A.B. 1964) (finding cut-glass tableware and plastic tableware sufficiently similar because “purchasers of one kind of tableware might well be prospective purchasers of the other” and “purchasers would be likely to ascribe a common origin were they to be sold under the same mark”).
As an initial matter, the services recited in the instant application are highly related to existing DYSON services. Namely, the application lists various maintenance, repair, and leasing services for its products, and Applicant has already acquired distinctiveness for maintenance, repair, and servicing of its vacuum cleaners. Since Applicant already offers services to facilitate use and maintenance of its vacuum cleaners, consumers will encounter the Class 37 services in the Application and recognize them as an expansion to the range of products covered by Applicant’s services.
Finally, consumers will understand Applicant’s rental and leasing services of hand dryers as a natural and obvious extension of its role as a manufacturer and retailer of the same. See, e.g. In re Lytle Eng’g & Mfg. Co., 125 U.S.P.Q. 308, 309 (T.T.A.B. 1960) (finding the relationship between the planning, preparation and production of technical publications on one hand, and brochures, catalogues and bulletins on the other to be “obvious”). Since hand dryers can be considered a major purchase, services that provide use of such products at a lower capital cost via a leasing model are an obvious variation on Applicant’s position as a manufacturer of such products.
In conclusion, Applicant’s DYSON mark has clearly acquired distinctiveness for goods and services sufficiently related to the applied-for services. This will result in the acquired distinctiveness transferring to the applied-for services upon use in commerce. Accordingly, Applicant respectfully requests that the Examining Attorney find that the mark is sufficiently distinctive and may proceed to publication.