UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE (USPTO)

OFFICE ACTION (OFFICIAL LETTER) ABOUT APPLICANT’S TRADEMARK APPLICATION

 

 

 

PRIORITY 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: 11/11/2016

 

 

 

DATABASE SEARCH:  The trademark examining attorney has searched the USPTO’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).

 

ISSUES APPLICANT MUST ADDRESS:  On November 11, 2016, the trademark examining attorney and Laura Brock discussed the issues below.  Applicant must timely respond to these issues.  See 15 U.S.C. §1062(b); 37 C.F.R. §2.62(a); TMEP §§708, 711.

 

Auto Maintenance and Car Wash Svcs:  The applicant has made a claim of Acquired Distinctiveness based on a prior registration for the application.  The claim is acceptable as to “Automobile cleaning and car washing; Automobile lubrication; Automobile repair and maintenance; Automobile service station services;” however, the applicant must restate the claim as to these services.

 

Dry Cleaning and Laundry Svcs:  The claim does not pertain to “Dry cleaning; Laundry services for clothing, fabric, linen and textiles,” because the referenced registration was not for these services or related services.  It is noted that the applicant has a prior registration for these services; however the registration is on the Supplemental Register and so cannot be the basis for a 2(f) claim.  The applicant may, however, assert a claim of acquired distinctiveness based on years of use coupled with evidence. 

 

If applicant believes applicant’s mark has acquired distinctiveness, that is, it has become a distinctive source indicator for the applied-for these services, applicant may amend the application to assert a claim of acquired distinctiveness under Trademark Act Section 2(f).  See 15 U.S.C. §1052(f).  The USPTO decides each case on its own merits.  See TMEP §1212.06.

 

Conversation with the applicant’s attorney indicates that applicant has used its mark for a long time; therefore, applicant has the option to amend the application to assert a claim of acquired distinctiveness under Trademark Act Section 2(f).  See 15 U.S.C. §1052(f); TMEP §1212.05.  To amend the application to Section 2(f) based on five years’ use, applicant should request that the application be amended to assert a claim of acquired distinctiveness under Section 2(f) and submit the following written statement claiming acquired distinctiveness, if accurate:

 

The mark has become distinctive of the goods and/or services through the applicant’s substantially exclusive and continuous use of the mark in commerce that the U.S. Congress may lawfully regulate for at least the five years immediately before the date of this statement.

 

TMEP §1212.05(d); see 15 U.S.C. §1052(f); 37 C.F.R. §2.41(a)(2); TMEP §1212.08.  Applicant must verify this statement with an affidavit or signed declaration under 37 C.F.R. §2.20.  37 C.F.R. §2.41(a)(2); TMEP §1212.05(d); see 37 C.F.R. §2.193(e)(1).

 

 

Evidence of acquired distinctiveness may include affidavits or declarations of long-term use in commerce; specific dollar sales under the mark; advertising expenditures; samples of typical advertising; and letters, affidavits, or declarations in which consumers and/or dealers assert recognition of the mark as an indicator of source.  See 37 C.F.R. §2.41(a)(3); In re Ideal Indus., Inc., 508 F.2d 1336, 1339-40, 184 USPQ 487, 489-90 (C.C.P.A. 1975); In re Capital Formation Counselors, Inc., 219 USPQ 916, 919 (TTAB 1983); TMEP §§1212.06 et seq.

 

The following factors are generally considered when determining whether a proposed mark has acquired distinctiveness:  length and exclusivity of use of the mark in the United States by applicant; the type, expense, and amount of advertising of the mark in the United States; applicant’s sales success; unsolicited media coverage; and consumer studies (linking the name to the source).  See In re Koninklijke Philips Elecs. N.V., 112 USPQ2d 1177, 1180 (TTAB 2014) (citing In re Steelbuilding.com, 415 F.3d 1293, 1300, 75 USPQ2d 1420, 1424 (Fed. Cir. 2005)).  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.

 

Note:  These services may remain in the original application with acceptable and supported claims of acquired distinctiveness. 

 

International Class 035:  The examiner does not find the mark descriptive for the services in International Class 035.  For that reason, the mark is registrable on the Principal Register for the International Class 035 services. 

A mark that is eligible for registration on the Principal Register may not be registered on the Supplemental Register or based on the Principal Register based on Acquired Distinctiveness.  Nazon v. Ghiorse, 119 USPQ2d 1178, 1182 (TTAB 2016); TMEP §815.01; see In re Johanna Farms, Inc., 222 USPQ 607, 609 (TTAB 1984) (citing In re Hunt, 132 USPQ 564, 565 (TTAB 1962)).  Accordingly, applicant must amend the application to seek registration on the Principal Register by dividing the class into a separate application.

 

Division Instructions:  Applicant has the option to divide its application into two or more separate applications in response to a refusal or requirement that pertains only to certain classes, goods, and/or services.  See 37 C.F.R. §2.87; TMEP §§1110 et seq. (regarding requests to divide).  This would allow the remaining classes or goods and/or services to proceed toward registration.  Any outstanding deadline in effect at the time the application is divided will generally apply to each new divided out application.  See 37 C.F.R. §2.87(e); TMEP §1110.05 (see list of exceptions).

 

Applicant may file a request to divide online via the Trademark Electronic Application System (TEAS) or on paper via regular mail.  TMEP §1110.04.  The request must specify the classes or goods and/or services that are to be divided out of the application and include the required fee of $100.00 for each new application created.  See 37 C.F.R. §§2.6(a)(19), 2.87(b).  If dividing out some, but not all, of the goods or services within a class, applicant must additionally submit the application filing fee for each new separate application created by the division.  37 C.F.R. §§2.6(a)(1)(i)-(iii), 2.87(b); TMEP §1110.02. 

 

 

MERELY DESCRIPTIVE as to Laundry and Dry Cleaning Services

 

Registration is refused because the applied-for mark merely describes a featured characteristic of the applicant’s laundry and dry cleaning 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)). 

 

In the instant case, the applicant seeks registration of the wording “KWIK”, the phonetic equivalent of the word “quick” meaning that the services are rendered in a fast or speedy manner. 

 

Amendment to the Supplemental Register or Amendment to Make a 2(f) Claim

 

The applied-for mark has been refused registration on the Principal Register.  Applicant may respond to the refusal by submitting evidence and arguments in support of registration and/or by amending the application to seek registration on the Supplemental Register.  See 15 U.S.C. §1091; 37 C.F.R. §§2.47, 2.75(a); TMEP §§801.02(b), 816.  Amending to the Supplemental Register does not preclude applicant from submitting evidence and arguments against the refusal(s).  TMEP §816.04.

 

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.

 

Although registration on the Supplemental Register does not afford all the benefits of registration on the Principal Register, it does provide the following advantages:

                               

• The registrant may use the registration symbol ®;
• The registration is protected against registration of a confusingly similar mark under Trademark Act Section 2(d);
• The registrant may bring suit for infringement in federal court; and
• The registration may serve as the basis for a filing in a foreign country under the Paris Convention and other international agreements.

 

See 15 U.S.C. §§1052(d), 1091, 1094; TMEP §815.

 

As noted above, the application and discussion with the applicant’s attorney suggests that the applicant may qualify for registration on the Principal Register based on a claim of Acquired Distinctiveness based on years of use and evidence.  Trademark Act §2(f).   See guidance above. 

 

Note:  The acronym “TMEP” used in official USPTO letters and notices refers to the USPTO’s Trademark Manual of Examining Procedure, a manual written by USPTO staff attorneys that explains the laws and procedures governing the trademark application, registration, and post-registration processes.  The USPTO updates the TMEP periodically to reflect changes in law, policy, and procedure and notes each new version by the month and year it issues.  The current version of the TMEP is available online at http://www.gov.uspto.report/trademarks/resources/index.jsp. 

 

RESPONSE

 

There is no required format or form for responding to an Office action.  The Office recommends applicants use the Trademark Electronic Application System (TEAS) to respond to Office actions online at http://www.gov.uspto.report/teas/index.html.  If applicant responds on paper via regular mail, the response should include the title “Response to Office Action” and the following information:  (1) the name and law office number of the examining attorney, (2) the serial number and filing date of the application, (3) the date of issuance of this Office action, (4) applicant’s name, address, telephone number and e-mail address (if applicable), and (5) the mark.  37 C.F.R. §2.194(b)(1); TMEP §302.03(a).

 

In the response, applicant should explicitly address each refusal and/or requirement raised in the Office action.  If a refusal has issued, applicant may wish to argue against the refusal, i.e., submit arguments and/or evidence as to why the refusal should be withdrawn and why the mark should register.  To respond to requirements, applicant should set forth in writing the required changes or statements. 

 

Instructions for signing responses are provided below.

 

The Examining Attorney appreciates the benefit of having discussed the complexities of this application with the applicant’s attorney prior to the issuance of this Office Action.  If the applicant has any questions or needs assistance in responding to this Office action, please telephone the assigned examining attorney.

 

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 or e-mail without incurring this additional fee.   

 

 

 

/Linda A. Powell/

Linda A. Powell

Examining Attorney, L.O. 106

United States Patent and Trademark Office

571-272-9327

linda.powelll@uspto.go

 

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 11/11/2016 FOR U.S. APPLICATION SERIAL NO. 87116559

 

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 11/11/2016 (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.