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.  A RESPONSE TRANSMITTED THROUGH THE TRADEMARK ELECTRONIC APPLICATION SYSTEM (TEAS) MUST BE RECEIVED BEFORE MIDNIGHT EASTERN TIME OF THE LAST DAY OF THE RESPONSE PERIOD.

 

 

ISSUE/MAILING DATE: 2/6/2018

 

 

THIS IS A FINAL ACTION.

 

 

This Office action is in response to applicant’s communication filed on January 11, 2018.

 

The applicant has 1) argued against the Section 2(e)(1) refusal and 2) proposed an amendment to the identification of goods.  Neither is acceptable.

 

 

The refusal under Trademark Act Section 2(e)(1) is now made FINAL for the reasons set forth below.  See 15 U.S.C. §1052(e)(1); 37 C.F.R. §2.63(b).

 

In addition, the proposed amendment to the identification of goods is unacceptable and needs further amendment.

 

The following requirements are now made FINAL:  the requirement to amend the identification of goods.  See 37 C.F.R. §2.63(b).

 

 

FINAL REFUSAL - MERE DESCRIPTIVENESS

 

Registration was refused under Trademark Act Section 2(e)(1), 15 U.S.C. Section 1052(e)(1), because the subject matter for which registration is sought is merely descriptive of the identified goods.  The examining attorney has considered the applicant’s arguments carefully but has found them unpersuasive.  For the reasons below, the refusal under Section 2(e)(1) is maintained and made FINAL.

 

The applicant has applied to register the mark HEALTH MART for “Non-prescription and over the counter pharmaceutical and first aid products, namely, analgesics, nutritional supplements, smoking cessation preparations, vitamins, and advanced wound care, baby care, diabetic, diagnostic, digestive health, eye and ear care, family planning, feminine care, first aid, incontinence, oral care, skin care and upper respiratory products.”  In the initial Office action, the examining attorney determined that the mark was merely descriptive of the goods because the mark clearly identified a feature, characteristic, purpose, or provider of the goods.  To support the descriptiveness finding, the examining attorney attached dictionary evidence and registrations showing descriptive treatment of the terms “HEALTH” and “MART” in similar contexts. 

 

As noted previously, 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 its response to the descriptiveness refusal, the applicant has primarily argued that the evidence for the refusal is insufficient, asserting that:  (1) the mark does not immediately name the exact nature and purpose of the goods, 2) the mark is suggestive, and 3) the wording in the mark has more than one meaning. 

 

The examining attorney has reviewed the applicant’s position on the descriptiveness issue, but is unpersuaded.  While the examining attorney agrees with the applicant’s statement of the well-established principle that the descriptiveness determination must be made in the context of the goods or services for which registration is sought, the examining attorney finds that this principle clearly supports the descriptiveness refusal in this case.

 

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 Fat Boys Water Sports LLC, 118 USPQ2d 1511, 1516 (TTAB 2016) (citing In re Tower Tech, Inc., 64 USPQ2d 1314, 1317-18 (TTAB (2002)); TMEP §1209.03(d); see, e.g., Apollo Med. Extrusion Techs., Inc. v. Med. Extrusion Techs., Inc., 123 USPQ2d 1844, 1851 (TTAB 2017) (holding MEDICAL EXTRUSION TECHNOLOGIES merely descriptive of medical extrusion goods produced by employing medical extrusion technologies); In re Cannon Safe, Inc., 116 USPQ2d 1348, 1351 (TTAB 2015) (holding SMART SERIES merely descriptive of metal gun safes); 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). 

 

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, both the individual components and the composite result are descriptive of applicant’s goods and/or services and do not create a unique, incongruous, or nondescriptive meaning in relation to the goods and/or services.  Specifically, the applicant provides health care products including pharmaceuticals and first aid products.  The nature of the entity or provider of the goods is a mart or retail establishment.

 

The term “HEALTH” is commonly used in the pharmaceutical and health care  industries to refer to products intended to improve or assist with health care.  Please see attached excerpted articles from the examining attorney’s search in the on the Internet.       The term “MART” simply refers to the provider of the goods.  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).

 

In addition, in this case, there is no incongruity, and no imagination is needed to figure out exactly what the goods are.  The determination of whether a mark is merely descriptive is made in relation to an applicant’s goods and/or 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 [or service] is from consideration of the mark alone is not the test.”  In re Am. Greetings Corp., 226 USPQ 365, 366 (TTAB 1985).

 

Descriptiveness is considered in relation to the relevant goods and/or services.  DuoProSS Meditech Corp. v. Inviro Med. Devices, Ltd., 695 F.3d 1247, 1254, 103 USPQ2d 1753, 1757 (Fed. Cir. 2012).  “That a term may have other meanings in different contexts is not controlling.”  In re Franklin Cnty. Historical Soc’y, 104 USPQ2d 1085, 1087 (TTAB 2012) (citing In re Bright-Crest, Ltd., 204 USPQ 591, 593 (TTAB 1979)); TMEP §1209.03(e).

 

In light of the evidence of record in this case (including the third-party registration evidence attached to the initial Office action), the examining attorney finds that consumers who encounter the applicant’s mark in commerce in the context of the identified goods would immediately perceive the wording HEALTH MART as identifying the fact that the applicant’s goods pertain to health care products including pharmaceuticals and first aid products provided and offered at a mart or retail establishment.  And while the applicant correctly stated the general principle that all doubts as to descriptiveness must be resolved in favor of the applicant, in this case the examining attorney simply has no doubts with respect to the descriptiveness of the mark at issue.  Here, there is no question that the goods are health products and the nature of the applicant’s entity type is a mart or retail establishment.

 

Accordingly, for the above reasons, the examining attorney again concludes that the applied-for mark is merely descriptive of the identified services, and is unpersuaded by the applicant’s arguments to the contrary.  Accordingly, the refusal to register under Section 2(e)(1) is hereby maintained and made FINAL.

 

FINAL - IDENTIFICATION OF GOODS

 

The identification of goods is indefinite and must be clarified because of the use of the term “products.”  See 37 C.F.R. §2.32(a)(6); TMEP §1402.01.  Applicant must amend the identification to specify the common commercial or generic name of the goods.  See TMEP §1402.01.  If the goods have no common commercial or generic name, applicant must describe the product, its main purpose, and its intended uses.  See id.

 

The applicant has amended the identification to delete the designation of a “full line” however, the applicant failed to specify the actual products for the following goods:  “advanced wound care, baby care, diabetic, diagnostic, digestive health, eye and ear care, family planning, feminine care, first aid, incontinence, oral care, skin care and upper respiratory products.”  Applicant must specify the type of products using common commercial terms because this wording is overly broad and indefinite.

 

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); see 37 C.F.R. §2.32(a)(6).  If applicant uses indefinite words such as “apparatus,” “components,” “devices,” “materials,” or “parts,” such wording must be followed by “namely,” and a list of each specific product identified by its common commercial or generic name.  See TMEP §§1401.05(d), 1402.03(a).  Similarly, the term “products” is indefinite and must be further specified.

 

Applicant may adopt the following wording, if accurate: 

 

            Class 5

Non-prescription and over the counter pharmaceutical and first aid products, namely, analgesics, nutritional supplements, smoking cessation preparations, vitamins, and _____________ [applicant must specify the goods intended by the wording “advanced wound care, baby care, diabetic, diagnostic, digestive health, eye and ear care, family planning, feminine care, first aid, incontinence, oral care, skin care and upper respiratory products” using common commercial terms], in International Class 5.

 

TMEP §1402.01.

 

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.  See TMEP §1402.04.

 

Applicant’s goods and/or services may be clarified or limited, but may not be expanded beyond those originally itemized in the application or as acceptably amended.  See 37 C.F.R. §2.71(a); TMEP §1402.06.  Applicant may clarify or limit the identification by inserting qualifying language or deleting items to result in a more specific identification; however, applicant may not substitute different goods and/or services or add goods and/or services not found or encompassed by those in the original application or as acceptably amended.  See TMEP §1402.06(a)-(b).  The scope of the goods and/or services sets the outer limit for any changes to the identification and is generally determined by the ordinary meaning of the wording in the identification.  TMEP §§1402.06(b), 1402.07(a)-(b).  Any acceptable changes to the goods and/or services will further limit scope, and once goods and/or services are deleted, they are not permitted to be reinserted.  TMEP §1402.07(e).

 

Accordingly, the requirement to amend the identification of goods is maintained and made FINAL.

 

 

PROPER RESPONSE TO FINAL REFUSAL

 

Applicant must respond within six months of the date of issuance of this final Office action or the application will be abandoned.  15 U.S.C. §1062(b); 37 C.F.R. §2.65(a).  Applicant may respond by providing one or both of the following:

 

(1)       a response filed using the Trademark Electronic Application System (TEAS) that fully satisfies all outstanding requirements and/or resolves all outstanding refusals; and/or

 

(2)       an appeal to the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board filed using the Electronic System for Trademark Trials and Appeals (ESTTA) with the required filing fee of $200 per class.

 

37 C.F.R. §2.63(b)(1)-(2); TMEP §714.04; see 37 C.F.R. §2.6(a)(18); TBMP ch. 1200.

 

In certain rare circumstances, an applicant may respond by filing a petition to the Director pursuant to 37 C.F.R. §2.63(b)(2) to review procedural issues.  TMEP §714.04; see 37 C.F.R. §2.146(b); TBMP §1201.05; TMEP §1704 (explaining petitionable matters).  There is a fee required for filing a petition.  37 C.F.R. §2.6(a)(15).

 

 

 

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.

 

 

 

 

 

Meier, Sharon

/Sharon A. Meier/

Trademark Attorney, LO 112

571-272-9195 - phone

571-273-9112 - fax

sharon.meier1@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 2/6/2018 FOR U.S. APPLICATION SERIAL NO. 87124853

 

Your trademark application has been reviewed.  The trademark examining attorney assigned by the USPTO to your application has written an official letter to which you must respond.  Please follow these steps:

 

(1)  Read the LETTER by clicking on this link or going to http://tsdr.gov.uspto.report/, entering your U.S. application serial number, and clicking 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)  Respond within 6 months (or sooner if specified in the Office action), calculated from 2/6/2018, using the Trademark Electronic Application System (TEAS) response form located at http://www.gov.uspto.report/trademarks/teas/response_forms.jsp.  A response transmitted through TEAS must be received before midnight Eastern Time of the last day of the response period.

 

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. 

 

(3)  Questions about the contents of the Office action itself should be directed to the trademark examining attorney who reviewed your application, identified below. 

 

Meier, Sharon

/Sharon A. Meier/

Trademark Attorney, LO 112

571-272-9195 - phone

571-273-9112 - fax

sharon.meier1@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.